| Literature DB >> 26843886 |
Hongzhi Tang1, Huaying Fan2, Jiao Chen2, Mingxiao Yang2, Xuebing Yi1, Guogang Dai1, Junrong Chen1, Liugang Tang1, Haibo Rong1, Junhua Wu1, Fanrong Liang2.
Abstract
Objective. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Methods. Seven databases and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal were searched to identify relevant studies. The data were extracted and assessed by two independent authors, and Review Manager Software (V.5.3) was used for data synthesis with effect estimate presented as standard mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the level of evidence. Results. Four RCTs with 309 participants were included with poor methodological quality. Participants who received acupuncture and acupuncture plus moxibustion with material insulation were likely to have an improvement in elbow functional status and/or myodynamia. The overall quality rated by GRADE was from very low to low. Two studies reported that the needle pain would be the main reason for the dropout. Conclusion. For the small number of included studies with poor methodological quality, no firm conclusion can be drawn regarding the effect of acupuncture of elbow functional status and myodynamia for LE. This trial is registered with CRD42015016199.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26843886 PMCID: PMC4710923 DOI: 10.1155/2015/861849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram for search and selection of the included studies.
The characteristics of included studies in this systematic review.
| Author, year | Method |
Participants total ( | Mean (SD)/range age | Intervention | Acupuncture points | Frequency and duration of acupuncture intervention | Outcomes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Control | Treatment | Control | ||||||
|
Fink et al., 2002 [ | RCT | 45 (23/22) | 52.5 ± 8.7 | 51.6 ± 10.0 | Real acupuncture | Sham acupuncture | Ashi, LI10, LI11, LU5, LI4, and SJ5 | 25 min/treatment; 10 treatments, with 2 treatments per week | (1) Maximal muscle strength |
|
| |||||||||
|
Irnich et al., 2003 [ | RCT | 50 (25/25) | 31–70 | 38–65 | Real acupuncture | Sham acupuncture | LI4, LI10, SI3, SJ5, and GB34 | 25 min/treatment; 3 treatments within 10 days | (1) PPT |
|
| |||||||||
|
Jiang et al., 2005 [ | RCT | 128 (64/64) | 42.14 ± 5.62 | 41.68 ± 5.76 | Electroacupuncture plus moxibustion with material insulation | Blockage therapy | LI4, LR3 | 20 min/treatment; 10 treatments within 5 treatments per week | Elbow function status |
|
| |||||||||
|
Li et al., 2014 [ | RCT | 86 (43/43) | 18–22 | 18–22 | Electroacupuncture plus massage and blockage therapy | Blockage therapy | Ashi, LI11, LI12, LI10, SJ5, and LI4 | 30 min/treatment; once per day for 10 days | (1) VAS |
VAS: Visual Analog Scale; DASH: disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand; PPT: pressure pain threshold; GS: grip strength; IP: impairment caused by pain; GSI: grip strength index; MEPS: Mayo Elbow Performance Score.
The characteristics of ongoing studies in this systematic review.
| Title | Country | Trial registration | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Method | Participants total | Intervention | Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Control | Primary | Second outcome | ||||||||
| Acupuncture for Lateral Epicondylitis (Tennis Elbow): Study Protocol for a Randomized Practitioner-Assessor Blinded, Controlled Pilot Clinical Trial | Korea | Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea: | (1) Individuals between the ages of 19 and 65 years with lateral epicondylitis on one arm and pain persisting for at least 4 weeks; (2) individuals with tenderness limited to the elbow joint and surrounding area; (3) individuals reporting pain under resisted extension of the middle finger and wrist; (4) individuals with an average pain of 40 or more (0–100) on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in the week prior to the screening visit; (5) individuals who volunteered to participate in the study and who signed a consent form | (1) Individuals whose radiological examinations show abnormalities such as calcification, arthritis, and inflammatory arthropathy of the elbow joint; (2) individuals with a history of trauma, ligament damage, fracture, tumor, or surgery of the elbow joint; (3) individuals who have been diagnosed with or treated for cervical radiculopathy or herniation of intervertebral disc; (4) individuals who have received injections for lateral epicondylitis during the last 6 months; (5) individuals who have received treatments such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acupuncture, and physiotherapy for lateral epicondylitis during the last 2 weeks; (6) individuals judged by the person in charge of the clinical trial as unsuitable for participation, such as those with mental disorders, those who are pregnant, or those that have other acute or chronic disorders | RCT | 45 | Ipsilateral acupuncture group | Contralateral acupuncture group | Control group | The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 4 weeks | (1) The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 8 and 12 weeks; (2) the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE); (3) pain-free/maximum grip strength; (4) pressure pain threshold; (5) clinically relevant improvement, patient global assessment, and EuroQol at 4, 8, and 12 weeks |
|
| |||||||||||
| Clinical Comparative Effect of Physiotherapy or Acupuncture Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial | Norway |
| (1) Lateral epicondylitis (LE) (duration: >2 weeks); (2) unilateral localization; (3) individuals with average pain of NRS 4 or higher during the last week prior to screening; (4) age between 18 and 67 years; (5) written informed consent | (1) Corticosteroid injections during the last 4 weeks; (2) diseases of the central or peripheral nervous system; (3) inflammatory rheumatic diseases; (4) radioulnar or radiohumeral osteoarthritis; (5) unwillingness to participate | RCT | 36 | Acupuncture and eccentric exercise | Physiotherapy and eccentric exercise | Watchful waiting and eccentric exercise | Elbow pain on Numeric Rating Scale (0–10) | (1) The disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (quick-DASH); (2) quality of life by EQ-5D; (3) sick listing; (4) patients satisfaction; global perceived effect and satisfaction with treatment; (5) use of analgesics; (6) number of treatment sessions |
Figure 2Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 4The effect of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture on elbow functional status.
Figure 5The effect of acupuncture plus moxibustion with material insulation versus blockage therapy on elbow functional status.
Figure 6The effect of acupuncture plus blockage therapy versus blockage therapy on elbow functional status.
Figure 7The effect of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture on elbow myodynamia.
Figure 8The effect of acupuncture plus blockage therapy versus blockage therapy on elbow myodynamia.
(a) Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture
| Quality assessment | Number of patients | Effect | Quality | Importance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other | Acupuncture | Sham | Relative | Absolute | ||
| Function (follow-up: 14–60 days, measured with scale, range of scores: 10–20, better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
| 2 | Randomized trials | Serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious2 | None | 48 | 45 | — | SMD 0.56 lower (0.98 to 0.15 lower) | Low | Critical |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Myodynamia (follow-up: 4 to 60 days, measured with scale, range of scores: 10–20, better indicated by higher values) | ||||||||||||
| 2 | Randomized trials | Serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious2 | None | 48 | 45 | — | SMD 0.44 higher (0.53 to 0.85 higher) | Low | Critical |
1The trial used the wrong random method, which according to sequence of attendance and the method of allocation concealment is not described.
2Total population size is less than 400, and effect size is considered a small effect; the upper or lower confidence limit crosses an effect size of 0.5 in either direction.
(b) Acupuncture plus moxibustion with material insulation versus blockage therapy
| Quality assessment | Number of patients | Effect | Quality | Importance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other | Acupuncture plus | Blockage therapy | Relative | Absolute | ||
| Function (measured with scales, range of scores: 10–20, better indicated by higher values) | ||||||||||||
| 1 | Randomized trials | Very serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious2 | None | 64 | 64 | — | MD 12.10 higher (10.65 to 13.55 higher) | Very low | Critical |
1The method of allocation concealment is not described.
2Total population size is less than 400, and effect size is considered a small effect; the upper or lower confidence limit crosses an effect size of 0.5 in either direction.
(c) Acupuncture plus blockage therapy versus blockage therapy
| Quality assessment | Number of patients | Effect | Quality | Importance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Acupuncture | Blockage | Relative | Absolute | ||
| Function (follow-up mean: 12 months, measured with scales, range of scores: 10–20, better indicated by higher values) | ||||||||||||
| 1 | Randomized trials | Serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious2 | None | 40 | 40 | — | MD 2 higher (0.96 lower to 4.98 higher) | Low | Critical |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Myodynamia (follow-up mean: 12 months, measured with scales, range of scores: 10–20, better indicated by higher values) | ||||||||||||
| 1 | Randomized trials | Serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious2 | None | 40 | 40 | — | MD 2 higher (1.11 lower to 5.11 higher) | Low | Critical |
1The method of allocation concealment is not described.
2Total population size is less than 400, and effect size is considered a small effect; the upper or lower confidence limit crosses an effect size of 0.5 in either direction.