| Literature DB >> 27430619 |
Sook-Hyun Lee1, Sung Min Lim2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insomnia is the common complaint among patients with stroke. Acupuncture has increasingly been used for insomnia relief after stroke. The aim of the present study was to summarize and evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture in relieving insomnia after stroke.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Insomnia; Intradermal acupuncture; Review; Stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27430619 PMCID: PMC4950252 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1220-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 3Meta-analysis of acupuncture for insomnia after stroke according to different assessment tools
Fig. 1Flow chart of the trial selection process
Summary of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for insomnia after stroke
| Author (year) Country | Sample Size | Participants | Intervention Group Regimen | Control group regimen | Main outcomes | Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average age (years) | Sex (male/female) | Severity of insomnia | Time since stroke | ||||||
| Ye 2013 [ | 85 | (a) 62.8 ± 7.2 | (a) 23/20 | (a) n.r. | (a) 15.9 ± 3.5 days | (a) AT (n = 43) | (b) Drugs (n = 42) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores |
| Li 2012 [ | 300 | (a) 49.2 | (a) 79/71 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) AT + Drugs (n = 150) | (b) Drugs (n = 150) | (1) Efficacy standards of Chinese medicine | (1) Significant differences in Effective rates |
| Huang 2012 [ | 84 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) AT (n = 42) | (b) Drugs (n = 42) | (1) Efficacy standards of Chinese medicine | (1) Significant differences in Effective rates |
| Wu 2012 [ | 80 | (a) 67.6 ± 10.4 | (a) 20/20 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) AA (n = 40) | (b) Drugs (n = 40) | (1) Efficacy standards of Chinese medicine | (1) Significant differences in Effective rates |
| Huang 2011 [ | 60 | (a) 66 | (a) 11/19 | (a) AIS > 6 | (a) n.r. | (a) AT + Drugs (n = 30) | (b) Drugs (n = 30) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores |
| Sun 2011 [ | 60 | (a) 40 ± 15 | (a) 14/16 | (a) PSQI 13.31 ± 2.4 | (a) 4.0 ± 2.6 years | (a) AT + AA (n = 30) ( | (b) Drugs (n = 30) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores ( |
| Ye 2010 [ | 60 | (a) 61.5 ± 3.7 | (a) 16/14 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) AT (n = 30) | (b) Drugs (n = 30) | (1) Efficacy standards of Chinese medicine | (1) Significant differences in Effective rates |
| Lee 2009 [ | 52 | (a) 66.7 ± 11.0 | (a) 12/15 | (a) ISI 18.4 ± 2.7, | (a) n.r. | (a) IA (n = 27) | (b) Sham AT | (1) ISI | (1)Significant differences in ISI scores |
| Lu 2008 [ | 50 | (a) 61.48 ± 3.72 (b) 62.40 ± 4.88 | (a) 14/11 | (a) PSQI 16.64 ± 2.3 | (a) 0.3 ~ 1 years | (a) AT (n = 25) (GV-24, GV-20, GV-16, GV-11, BL-23, KI-3, HT-7, PC-6/ 6 days a week for 4 weeks, 30 min) | (b) Drugs (n = 25) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores |
| Li 2007 [ | 64 | (a) 69.8 ± 7.1 | (a) 18/14 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) AT + AA (n = 32) ( | (b) Drugs (n = 32) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores |
| Liu 2006 [ | 62 | (a) 69.9 ± 6.9 | (a) 15/17 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) AT (n = 32) | (b) Drugs (n = 30) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores |
| Kim 2004 [ | 30 | (a) 65.1 ± 9.0 | (a) 8/7 | (a) ISI 21.9 ± 2.0, | (a) n.r. | (a) IA (n = 15) | (b) Sham AT | (1) ISI | (1) Significant differences in ISI scores |
| Wang 2004 [ | 64 | (a) 42.5 ~ 70.5 | (a) 22/12 | (a) n.r. | (a) n.r. | (a) EA + AA (n = 34) | (b) Drugs (n = 30) | (1) PSQI | (1) Significant differences in PSQI scores ( |
Notes. AA auricular acupuncture, AIS Athens insomnia sale, AT acupuncture therapy, EA electro-acupuncture, IA intradermal acupuncture, ISI insomnia severity index, n.r not reported, PSQI Pittsburgh sleep quality index. Adverse effects were not reported for any study
Risk of bias of the studies included in the present review
| Ye 2013 [ | Li 2012 [ | Huang 2012 [ | Wu 2012 [ | Huang 2011 [ | Sun 2011 [ | Ye 2010 [ | Lee 2009 [ | Lu 2008 [ | Li 2007 [ | Liu 2006 [ | Kim 2004 [ | Wang 2004 [ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the method of randomization adequate? | U | U | U | U | U | L | L | U | L | U | L | U | L |
| 2. Was the treatment allocation concealed? | U | U | U | U | U | L | L | U | L | U | L | U | L |
| 3. Was the patient blinded to the intervention? | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | L | U | U | U | L | U |
| 4. Were the personnel blinded to the intervention? | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |
| 5. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | L | U | U | U | L | U |
| 6. Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| 7. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| 8. Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias? | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |
Notes. Based on the risk of bias assessment tool from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, high risk of bias: H, low risk of bias: L, uncertain risk of bias: U
Fig. 2Location of Shenmen (HT-7) and Sishenchong (EX-HN1) acupoints. HT-7 is located in the depression radial to the proximal border of the pisiform bone on the palmar wrist crease. EX-HN1 is a group of four acupoints on the vertex of the head located 1 cun posterior, anterior and lateral to GV 20