| Literature DB >> 31534469 |
Jiwon Kim1, Su-Ryun Kim1, Hyangsook Lee2, Dong-Hyun Nam1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acupuncture is often used for relieving symptoms of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Our aim is to ascertain whether verum acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture in FMS.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31534469 PMCID: PMC6732586 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8757685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of the selection process.
Summary of the included studies.
| Study ID | Sample size | Intervention | Outcome | Participant's blinding assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture group (M : F) | Control group (M : F) | Duration | Acupuncture group | Control group | |||
|
| |||||||
| Deluze [ | 36 (3 : 33) | 34 (13 : 21) | 6 sessions over 3 weeks |
|
|
| Not reported |
| Harris et al. [ | 29 (0 : 29) | (1) 30 (3 : 27) | 18 sessions over 9 weeks |
| (1) |
| The participants remained blinded at week 4 (Fisher's exact |
| Martin [ | 25 (0 : 25) | 25 (1 : 24) | 6 sessions over 2-3 weeks |
|
|
| Only 7 were correct in the control group (28%) |
| Harris [ | 10 (0 : 10) | 10 (0 : 10) | 18 sessions over 9 weeks |
|
|
| Only 1 was correct in the control group |
| Stival et al. [ | 21 (4 : 17) | 15 (1 : 14) | 1 session |
|
|
| Not reported |
| Vas et al. [ | 82 (0 : 82) | 82 (0 : 82) | 9 sessions over 9 weeks |
|
|
| Over 75% of the participants in both groups were confident that the intervention was real |
| Ugurlu et al. [ | 25 (0 : 25) | 25 (0 : 25) | 12 sessions over 8 weeks |
|
|
| Not reported |
| Karatay et al. [ | 25 (0 : 25) | (1) 25 (0 : 25) | 8 sessions over 4 weeks |
| (1) |
| Not reported |
|
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Assefi et al. [ | 25 (3 : 22) | (1) 25 (1 : 24) | 24 sessions over 12 weeks |
| (1) |
| 32% of participants believed they were receiving acupuncture specifically designed for fibromyalgia |
| Sprott [ | 10 | (1) 10 | 6 sessions over 2 weeks |
| (1) |
| Not reported |
VAS, visual analog scale; NRS, numerical rating scale; MDFI, multidimensional fatigue inventory; SF-36, 36-item short-form survey 36; FIQ, fibromyalgia impact questionnaire; MPI, multidisciplinary pain inventory; SF-MPQ, short form of the McGill pain questionnaire; HAM, Hamilton test score; SF-12, 12-item short-form survey; FSS, fatigue severity scale; BDI, Beck depression scale; HNP, Nottingham health profile; CPF, composite physical function scale.
Figure 2(a) Risk of bias and (b) funnel plot of pain.
Figure 3Comparison of the verum acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups in terms of pain.
Figure 4Comparison of the verum acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups in terms of general status.
The quality of evidence.
| Outcome | Certainty assessments | Summary of finding | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Effect (95% CI) | Certainty | |
| Intensity of pain | Verum acupuncture versus sham acupuncture | |||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Seriousb | Not seriousc | Not seriousd | Nonee | SMD −0.49 (−0.79∼−0.2) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE | |
| Verum acupuncture versus simulated acupuncture on appropriate points | ||||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Very seriousf | Not seriousc | Seriousg | Nonee | SMD −0.54 (−1.19 ∼ 0.1) | ⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW | |
| Verum acupuncture versus acupuncture on inappropriate points | ||||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Seriousb | Not seriousc | Serioush | Nonee | SMD −0.63 (−1.23∼−0.04) | ⊕⊕◯◯ LOW | |
| Verum acupuncture versus simulated acupuncture on inappropriate points | ||||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Not seriousi | Not seriousc | Not seriousd | Nonee | SMD −0.37 (−0.67∼−0.08) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | |
|
| ||||||||
| Fatigue | Verum acupuncture versus sham acupuncture | |||||||
| RCT | Seriousj | Not seriousj | Not seriousc | Seriousk | Nonee | SMD −0.1 (−0.51 ∼ 0.3) | ⊕⊕◯◯ LOW | |
|
| ||||||||
| Sleep quality | Verum acupuncture versus sham acupuncture | |||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Not seriousj | Not seriousc | Not seriousd | Nonee | SMD −0.46 (−0.75∼−0.18) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | |
|
| ||||||||
| General status | Verum acupuncture versus sham acupuncture | |||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Not seriousj | Not seriousc | Not seriousd | Nonee | SMD −0.69 (−0.91∼−0.47) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | |
| Verum acupuncture versus simulated acupuncture on appropriate points | ||||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Not seriousj | Not seriousc | Not seriousd | Nonee | SMD −0.71 (−1.04∼−0.39) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | |
| Verum acupuncture versus acupuncture on inappropriate points | ||||||||
| RCT | Not seriousa | Not seriousj | Not seriousc | Seriousl | Nonee | SMD −0.79 (−1.22∼−0.35) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE | |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; CI, confidence interval; SMD, standardized mean difference. aThe proportion of studies assessed as high risk of bias was less than 25%; bI2 was 50% or more and less than 75%; cdirectness was undoubted; dtotal sample size was more than 200, and 95% CI of SMD did not cross zero; epublication bias was not identified; fI2 was 75% or more; gtotal sample size was in the range of 101 to 200, and 95% CI of SMD crossed zero; htotal sample size was in the range of 101 to 200; iI2 was less than 50%; jthe proportion of studies assessed as high risk of bias is in the range of 25% to 50%; ktotal sample size was more than 200, and 95% CI of SMD crossed zero; ltotal sample size was less than 100.