| Literature DB >> 27547224 |
Sook-Hyun Lee1, Sung Min Lim1.
Abstract
Objective. To summarize and evaluate evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in relieving poststroke shoulder pain. Methods. Seven databases were searched without language restrictions. All randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of acupuncture for poststroke shoulder pain compared with controls were included. Assessments were performed primarily with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), and effective rates. Results. In all, 188 potentially relevant articles were identified; 12 were randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that acupuncture combined with rehabilitation treatment appeared to be more effective than rehabilitation treatment alone for poststroke shoulder pain, as assessed by VAS (weighted mean difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-2.54; <0.001); FMA (weighted mean difference, 8.70; 95% CI, 6.58-10.82; P < 0.001); and effective rate (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.18-1.47; P < 0.001). Conclusions. Although there is some evidence for an effect of acupuncture on poststroke shoulder pain, the results are inconclusive. Further studies with more subjects and a rigorous study design are needed to confirm the role of acupuncture in the treatment of poststroke shoulder pain.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27547224 PMCID: PMC4983325 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3549878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow chart of the trial selection process.
Summary of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for poststroke shoulder pain.
| Author | Condition | Intervention group | Control group | Main outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gao et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) AT | (1) VAS |
|
| ||||
| Liu and Shi [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) Effective rate |
|
| ||||
| Wan et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder-hand | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) FMA |
|
| ||||
| Ni et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) VAS |
|
| ||||
| Zhang et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) VAS |
|
| ||||
| Bao et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) EA + rehabilitation treatment | (B) EA | (1) FMA |
|
| ||||
| Chen et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) VAS |
|
| ||||
| Liu [ | Poststroke shoulder-hand | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) VAS |
|
| ||||
| Shang et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder-hand | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) AT | (1) Effective rate |
|
| ||||
| Zhu et al. [ | Poststroke shoulder | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) VAS |
|
| ||||
| Zhao and Song [ | Poststroke shoulder-hand | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) FMA |
|
| ||||
| Zhou [ | Poststroke shoulder pain | (A) AT + rehabilitation treatment | (B) Rehabilitation treatment | (1) VAS |
AT: acupuncture treatment, EA: electroacupuncture, VAS: the Visual Analogue Scale, and FMA: the Fugl-Meyer Assessment; adverse effects were not reported for any study.
Figure 2Meta-analysis of acupuncture for poststroke shoulder pain according to the different assessment tools.
Quality assessment of included studies.
| Gao et al. (2014) | Liu and Shi | Wan et al. (2013) | Ni et al. (2013) | Zhang et al. (2012) [ | Bao et al. | Chen et al. (2011) [ | Liu (2009) [ | Shang et al. (2008) [ | Zhu et al. (2007) | Zhao and Song | Zhou (2002) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Was the method of randomization adequate? | L | L | L | L | L | U | L | L | U | U | U | U |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (2) Was the treatment allocation concealed? | L | L | L | L | L | U | L | L | U | U | U | U |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (3) Was the patient blinded to the intervention? | U | L | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U | U |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (4) Were the personnel blinded to the intervention? | 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 | U | U | U | U | U |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (6) Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? | 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 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (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 |
Based on the risk of bias assessment tool from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, low risk of bias: L, high risk of bias: H, and unclear risk of bias: U.