| Literature DB >> 30713567 |
Fang-Yuan Zhi1, Jie Liu2, Xiao-Peng Ma1,2, Jue Hong2, Ji Zhang1, Dan Zhang2, Yue Zhao2, Li-Jie Wu1, Yan-Ting Yang2, Dan-Yan Wu1, Chen Xie2, Ling-Xiang Wu2, Cui-Hong Zhang2.
Abstract
Objectives. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the efficacy of manual acupuncture for optic atrophy. Eight English and Chinese databases, including Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), as well as ongoing trials registered with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying manual acupuncture for optic atrophy compared to medication alone. The quality of evidence was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Nine studies were identified and included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed significant differences in favor of manual acupuncture or manual acupuncture plus medication compared with medication alone in the following outcome measures: visual acuity (MD = 0.18, 95% CI [0.17, 0.20], P < 0.00001), mean sensitivity of visual field (MD = 2.11, 95% CI [1.90, 2.32], P < 0.00001), the latent period of P-VEP100 (MD = -6.80, 95% CI [-8.94, -4.66], P < 0.00001), the total effectiveness (264 eyes) (OR = 3.22, 95% CI [1.88, 5.51], P<0.0001), and the total effectiveness (344 participants) (OR = 4.29, 95% CI [2.56, 7.19], P < 0.00001). Despite statistical advantages of manual acupuncture in the literature, due to serious methodological flaws in study design, it cannot be concluded that manual acupuncture is more effective than medicine alone. It is essential that a properly controlled clinical trial is designed and controls are established to exclude placebo effects.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30713567 PMCID: PMC6332962 DOI: 10.1155/2019/1735967
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow chart of the study screening and selection process.
Characteristics of the included studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Liu, 2016[ | 20(29) | 20(27) | 13/7 | 12/8 | 52±16 | 50±16 | MA+M | M | VA, VF, P-VEP, TE | RCT |
| Zhao, 2016 [ | 31(NM) | 31(NM) | 20/11 | 16/15 | 50.22±12.30 | 19.59±11.08 | MA+M | M | VA, TE | RCT |
| Sun, 2015 [ | 40(NM) | 40(NM) | 21/19 | 22/18 | 46.1±2.3 | 46.1±3.0 | MA+M | M | P-VEP, TE | RCT |
| Wu, 2010 [ | 30(52) | 30(53) | 21/9 | 20/10 | 46.4±14.14 | 48.83±13.52 | MA+M | M | VA, VF, P-VEP, TE | RCT |
| Xia, 2010 [ | 29(29) | 24(24) | 15/14 | 16/8 | 53.8±12.3 | 52.5±11.9 | MA+M | M | TE | RCT |
| Dai, 2009 [ | 21(25) | 21(25) | 11/10 | 11/10 | 40.5 | 40.5 | MA+M | M | TE | RCT |
| Tian, 2018 [ | 30(52) | 30(57) | 18/12 | 15/15 | 49.11±2.41 | 49.11±2.41 | MA | M | VA, VF, P-VEP, TE | RCT |
| Yin, 2012 [ | 25(50) | 25(50) | 10/15 | 11/14 | 57.6 | 55.9 | MA | M | TE | RCT |
| Huang, 2005 [ | 36(68) | 30(56) | 15/21 | 12/18 | 45.2 | 45.2 | MA | M | VF, P-VEP, TE | RCT |
Notes: E: experiment group; C: control group; MA: manual acupuncture; M: medication; VA: visual acuity; VF: visual field; P-VEP: pattern visual evoked potential; TE: total effectiveness; NM: not mentioned.
Acupuncture details of the included studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu, 2016 [ | Xin-ming I, Xing-ming II | 1~1.5 | 3 | once a day | 30 | 0.30 mm × 40 mm | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Zhao, 2016 [ | Cheng-qi (ST1), Cuan-zhu (BL2), Yang-bai (GB14), Feng-chi (GB20) | 0.5 | 20 | once a day | 30 | NM | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Sun, 2015 [ | Qiu-hou (EX-HN7), Jing-ming (BL1), Feng-chi (GB20) | 1~1.5 | 20 | once a day | 28 | NM | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Wu, 2010 [ | Qiu-hou (EX-HN7), Jing-ming (BL1), Feng-chi (GB20) | 1~1.5 | 20 | once a day | 28 | NM | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Xia, 2010 [ | Cheng-qi (ST1), Tai-yang (EX-HN5), Cuan-zhu (BL2), Feng-chi (GB20) | 0.5~1 | 30~45 | once a day | 42 | NM | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Dai, 2009 [ | Jing-ming (BL1), Qiu-hou (EX-HN7), Cuan-zhu (BL2), Yang-bai (GB14), Cheng-qi (ST1), He-gu (LI4) | 1~1.5 | 30 | NM | 60 | NM | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Tian, 2018[ | Feng-chi (GB20), Tai-yang (EX-HN5), Tong-zi-liao(GB1), Si-zhu-kong(SJ23) | NM | 3 | NM | 28 | 0.25 mm × 40 mm | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Yin, 2012 [ | Cheng-qi (ST1), Jing-ming (BL1) | 1.2 ~ 1.3 | 30 | NM | NM | 0.30 mm × 40 mm | TCM |
|
| |||||||
| Hang, 2005 [ | Bai-hui (DU20), Feng-chi (GB20), Qiu-hou (EX-HN7),Tai-yang (EX-HN5), Jing-ming (BL1), Cheng-qi(ST1) | NM | 30 | once a day | 28d | 0.35 mm × 40 mm | TCM |
Figure 2Risk of bias in the included studies: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. Note: “+”: low risk; “?”: unclear risk; “-”: high risk.
Figure 3Comparison of VA between manual acupuncture and medication alone for optic atrophy.
Figure 4Comparison of mean sensitivity of VF between manual acupuncture and medication alone for optic atrophy.
Figure 5(a) Comparison of latency of wave P100 in P-VEP between manual acupuncture and medication alone for optic atrophy. (b) Comparison of amplitude of wave P100 in P-VEP between manual acupuncture and medication alone for optic atrophy.
Figure 6(a) Comparison of the total effectiveness between manual acupuncture and medication alone for optic atrophy (264 eyes). (b) Comparison of the total effectiveness between manual acupuncture and medication alone for optic atrophy (344 participants).
Sensitivity analysis.
| Outcomes | Effect Model | Effect Size (95% CI) | Z | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual acuity | Fixed | 0.18 (0.17, 0.20) | 26.73 | <0.00001 |
| Random | 0.18 (0.17, 0.20) | 22.86 | <0.00001 | |
|
| ||||
| Visual field mean sensitivity | Fixed | 2.11 (1.90, 2.32) | 19.85 | <0.00001 |
| Random | 2.46 (1.17, 3.75) | 3.74 | 0.0002 | |
|
| ||||
| Latency of wave P100 in P-VEP | Fixed | -6.80 (-8.94, -4.66) | 6.24 | <0.00001 |
| Random | -6.62 (-9.38, -3.86) | 4.70 | <0.00001 | |
|
| ||||
| Amplitude of wave P100 in P-VEP | Fixed | 0.15 (-0.58, 0.87) | 0. 39 | 0.69 |
| Random | 0.18 (-0.71, 1.08) | 0.40 | 0.69 | |
|
| ||||
| Total effectiveness (264 eyes) | Fixed | 3.22 (1.88, 5.51) | 4.26 | <0.0001 |
| Random | 3.26 (1.80, 5.89) | 3.91 | <0.0001 | |
|
| ||||
| Total effectiveness (344 participants) | Fixed | 4.29 (2.56, 7.19) | 5.53 | <0.00001 |
| Random | 4.28 (2.55, 7.18) | 5.52 | <0.00001 | |