| Literature DB >> 31565065 |
Huachong Xu1, Yucong Shi1, Yike Xiao1, Pei Liu1, Sizhi Wu1, Peng Pang1, Li Deng1, Xiaoyin Chen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture treatments are used frequently in the treatment of primary insomnia considering its less side effect. However, most treatment choices are made just based on personal experience among different forms of acupuncture. This study compared the effectiveness of different forms of acupuncture for primary insomnia by using network meta-analysis.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31565065 PMCID: PMC6745175 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8961748
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The search strategy for Embase.
Figure 2Study selection process.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Studies (year) | Diagnostic criteria | Mean age (years) (T/C) | Course of disease (T/C) (y, years; m, months; d, days) | Cases (T/C) | Intervention | Treatment time | Efficacy criteria | Follow-up and AEs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Control | |||||||||
| Bo et al. (2016) [ | ICSD-2 | (43.25 ± 9.56)/(47.21 ± 8.31) | (3.15 ± 1.24)/(4.10 ± 1.06) y | 40/40 | W-ACU | Estazolam | 8 weeks | V5 | — | |
| Chen et al. (2013) [ | CCMD-3 | (33 ± 12)/(35 ± 12) | (25.4 ± 26.6)/(33.4 ± 52.3) m | 107/104 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 2 weeks | V4 | 2 weeks, AEs | |
| Cheng et al. (2015) [ | V1 | 52.9/54.1 | (2.7 ± 1.6)/(2.9 ± 1.9) y | 63/61 | S-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Dong et al. (2008) [ | CCMD-2R | (57.4 ± 9.1)/(58.4 ± 8.6) | (2.7 ± 2.1)/(2.8 ± 2.65) y | 36/35 | S-ACU | C-ACU | 30 days | V1 | — | |
| Guan et al. (2013) [ | ICD-10 | (14 ∼ 65)/(15 ∼ 66) | (1 ∼ 10)/(1 ∼ 10) y | 40/40 | C-ACU | Diazepam + oryzanol + VB1 | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Huang et al. (2011) [ | CCMD-3 | 40/38 | (17/19) m | 30/30 | S-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Kan et al. (2018) [ | CCMD-3 | (49.74 ± 8.64)/(48.63 ± 8.44) | (166.42 ± 27.48)/(171.38 ± 36.42) d | 35/35 | W-ACU | Estazolam | 6 weeks | V1 | AEs | |
| Kong et al. (2011) [ | V1 | (30 ∼ 62)/(28 ∼ 64) | (2m ∼ 6 y)/(2m ∼ 7 y) | 54/52 | C-ACU | Diazepam | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Li et al. (2014) [ | CCMD-3 | 53.5/54.5 | (4.8/6.2) y | 30/30 | E-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Li et al. (2018) [ | CCMD-3 | (43.07 ± 7.51)/(43.33 ± 7.08) | (5.64 ± 2.24)/(5.96 ± 1.86) m | 30/30 | S-ACU | C-ACU | 4 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Liang et al. (2009) [ | V2 | 42.3/40.8 | (5.6/5.1) y | 40/30 | E + S-ACU | C-ACU | 10 days | V1 | — | |
| Liao et al. (2013) [ | CCMD-2-R | (45.23 ± 14.10)/(43.10 ± 12.16) | (14.27 ± 7.78)/(16.47 ± 7.49) d | 30/30 | E-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V4 | — | |
| Liu et al. (2010) [ | V2 | 42.2/40.5 | (4.5/4.7) y | 30/30 | E + S-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Liu et al. (2013) [ | CCMD-3 | (36.74 ± 9.31)/(35.66 ± 8.99) | (25.3 ± 7.6)/(25.9 ± 10.3) m | 45/45 | E-ACU | Diazepam | 10 days | V2 | — | |
| Liu et al. (2015) [ | CCMD-3 + ICD-10 | (21 ∼ 70)/(23 ∼ 68) | (3 ∼ 32)/(4 ∼ 34) m | 98/98 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V4 | AEs | |
| Luo et al. (2006) [ | CCMD-3 | (39.53 ± 13.62)/(40.00 ± 13.02) | (34.78 ± 13.25)/(36.23 ± 10.54)m | 32/32 | C-ACU | Clonazepam | 4 weeks | V2, V3 | — | |
| Luo et al. (2008) [ | CCMD-3 | (45.3 ± 4.4)/(46.2 ± 5.1) | (3.1 ± 0.1)/(3.2 ± 0.2) m | 30/30 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Pi et al. (2018) [ | ICD-10 | (43.34 ± 12.28)/(43.45 ± 13.28) | (45.15 ± 14.72)/(48.67 ± 15.94) m | 60/30 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V5 | — | |
| Qi et al. (2008) [ | CCMD-3 | (53.73 ± 15.97)/(58.22 ± 13.82) | (14.63 ± 15.97)/(18.22 ± 13.82) m | 38/38 | C-ACU | Alprazolam | 5 weeks | V4 | AEs | |
| Ren et al. (2017) [ | CCMD-3 | (56.8 ± 9.14)/(56.2 ± 8.69) | (52.1 ± 11.2)/(54.5 ± 12.1) m | 32/32 | C-ACU | Zopiclone | 4 weeks | V5 | AEs | |
| Shi et al. (2016) [ | V1 | (42.51 ± 9.44)/(41.85 ± 9.97) | (19.33 ± 4.71)/(18.51 ± 5.36) m | 39/36 | E + S-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Song et al. (2017) [ | V2 | (46.1 ± 13.7)/(46.5 ± 13.2) | (4.3 ± 1.2)/(4.5 ± 1.1) y | 39/39 | W-ACU | Nitrazepam | 30 days | V1 | — | |
| Wang et al. (2006) [ | CCMD-3 | 16 ∼ 75 | (59.16 ± 73.97)/(65.33 ± 101.33) m | 90/90 | C-ACU | Clonazepam | 4 weeks | V2, V3 | 3 months | |
| Wang et al. (2013) [ | CCMD-3 | (34 ± 5.2)/(36 ± 8.5) | 4 w ∼ 10 y | 25/25 | E + S-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V3 | — | |
| Wang et al. (2015) [ | CCMD-3 + ICD-10 | 38.83 ± 7.04 | 45 d∼2 y | 30/30 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Wang et al. (2016a) [ | CCMD-3 | (53 ± 13.43)/(53 ± 11.37) | (2.35 ± 2.02)/(2.07 ± 1.10) y | 34/34 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V2 | — | |
| Wang et al. (2016b) [ | CCMD-3 | (46.72 ± 9.16)/(47.6 ± 9.09) | (28.50 ± 10.89)/(30.13 ± 9.06) m | 32/30 | W-ACU | Zopiclone | 2 weeks | V5 | 1 month | |
| Wang et al. (2016c) [ | CCMD-3 | 16 ∼ 68 | 3 m ∼ 10 m | 44/44 | E-ACU | C-ACU | 30 days | V1 | 3 months | |
| Wang et al. (2016d) [ | CCMD-3 | 45.3 ± 2.4 | Not mention | 35/35 | W-ACU | C-ACU | 36 days | V1 | — | |
| Wang et al. (2018) [ | CCMD-3 | (46.78 ± 3.96)/(45.99 ± 4.47) | (6.03 ± 1.98)/(6.29 ± 2.14) m | 39/39 | C-ACU | Zolpidem | 4 weeks | V1 | AEs | |
| Wu et al. (2014) [ | ICD-10 | (50.0 ± 14.3)/(50.6 ± 15.4) | (14.9 ± 8.5)/(16.9 ± 9.8) m | 20/20 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V2 | AEs | |
| Xu et al. (2014) [ | CCMD-3 | (38.6 ± 11.5)/(39.5 ± 11.6) | (5.7 ± 3.3)/(5.6 ± 3.2) m | 45/30 | E-ACU | Estazolam | 21 days | V1 | — | |
| Xu et al. (2016) [ | CCMD-3 | 20 ∼ 65 | 1 m ∼ 2 y | 35/35 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 6 weeks | V3 | 1 months | |
| Xuan et al. (2007) [ | ICD-10 | (47.05 ± 10.54)/(51.05 ± 13.27) | (69.75 ± 82.10)/(57.38 ± 48.29) m | 24/22 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 30 days | V5 | — | |
| Zhang et al. (2010) [ | CCMD-3 | (37.2 ± 14.4)/(39.4 ± 13.7) | (13.1 ± 6.9)/(10.5 ± 5.1) m | 28/28 | S-ACU | C-ACU | 30 days | V1 | — | |
| Zhang et al. (2015) [ | V1 | (42 ± 12)/(41 ± 11) | (3.50 ± 2.53)/(3.14 ± 2.55) y | 38/37 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V1, V3 | — | |
| Zhao et al. (2018) [ | CCMD-3 | Not mention | Not mention | 30/30 | E + S-ACU | C-ACU | 8 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Zheng et al. (2009) [ | CCMD-3 | (59 ± 15)/(58 ± 15) | (473.76 ± 1315.12)/(333.67 ± 524.32) d | 46/46 | E-ACU | Estazolam | 20 days | V3 | — | |
| Zhou et al. (2010) [ | CCMD-3 | (35.1 ± 12.9)/(37.4 ± 14.5) | (13.3 ± 6.7)/(10.5 ± 5.1) m | 35/35 | S-ACU | C-ACU | 20 days | V1 | — | |
| Zhou et al. (2016) [ | CCMD-3 | (45.5 ± 12.5)/(44.7 ± 11.8) | Not mention | 33/32 | S-ACU | Estazolam | 2 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Zhou et al. (2018) [ | CCMD-3 + ICD-10 | (49.1 ± 16.7)/(48.7 ± 15.4) | (14.0 ± 10.5)/(14.1 ± 10.4) m | 30/30 | C-ACU | Estazolam | 4 weeks | V1 | — | |
| Zhu et al. (2015) [ | CCMD-3 | (37 ± 4.5)/(35 ± 6.7) | (22.7 ± 23.8)/(30.2 ± 24.4) m | 30/30 | E + S-ACU | Estazolam | 21 days | V1 | — | |
T, treatment group; C, control group; CCMD-3, Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders Third Revision; ICSD-2, International Classification of Sleep Disorders; ICD-10, International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision; CCMD-2-R, Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders Second Edition-Revision; V1, Guiding Principles for Clinical Study of New Chinese Medicines; V2, Standards for Diagnosis and Curative Effect of Chinese Medical Symptom; V3, Sleep Efficiency Calculation published by WHO; V4, Guiding Principles for Clinical Study of New Chinese Medicines combined with PSQI reducing rate; V5, PSQI reducing rate; AEs, adverse events; C-ACU, conventional acupuncture; E-ACU, electroacupuncture; S-ACU, scalp acupuncture; W-ACU, warm acupuncture; E + S-ACU, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture.
Figure 3Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 4Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study (reproduced from Peng Pang et al. [66] (under the Creative Commons Attribution License/Public Domain)).
Figure 5Network meta-analysis of eligible comparisons for efficacy. Note: 1, western medicine; 2, conventional acupuncture; 3, electroacupuncture; 4, scalp acupuncture; 5, warm acupuncture; 6, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture.
Network meta-analysis comparisons.
| W-M |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.35 (0.25, 0.49) | C-ACU |
|
| 1.32 (0.62, 2.95) | 1.81 (0.87, 4.01) |
| 0.16 (0.08, 0.30) | 0.46 (0.21, 0.91) | E-ACU | 1.28 (0.51, 3.36) | 0.61 (0.22, 1.59) | 0.83 (0.30, 2.21) |
| 0.12 (0.06, 0.25) | 0.35 (0.17, 0.67) | 0.78 (0.30, 1.97) | S-ACU | 0.46 (0.17, 1.33) | 0.64 (0.24, 1.67) |
| 0.26 (0.12, 0.54) | 0.76 (0.34, 1.61) | 1.65 (0.63, 4.51) | 2.19 (0.75, 5.94) | W-ACU | 1.37 (0.47, 3.82) |
| 0.19 (0.09, 0.41) | 0.55 (0.25, 1.15) | 1.20 (0.45, 3.31) | 1.56 (0.60, 4.24) | 0.73 (0.26, 2.12) | E + S-ACU |
W-M, western medicine; C-ACU, conventional acupuncture; E-ACU, electroacupuncture; S-ACU, scalp acupuncture; W-ACU, warm acupuncture; E + S-ACU, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture; ∗significant difference. Note. The values in the lower-left part of the table suggest the OR of the column index compared with that of the row index, and the values in the upper-right part of the table suggest the OR of the row index compared with that of the column index. OR > 1.00 of the lower-left and upper-right parts of the table indicates the high effectiveness of the intervention measures listed. Significant results are in bold.
Figure 6The rank probability of efficacy for included interventions. Note. 1, western medicine; 2, conventional acupuncture; 3, electroacupuncture; 4, scalp acupuncture; 5, warm acupuncture; 6, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture.
The PSRF value.
| Parameter | PSRF |
|---|---|
| d.1.2 | 1.00 |
| d.1.3 | 1.00 |
| d.1.4 | 1.00 |
| d.1.5 | 1.01 |
| d.1.6 | 1.01 |
| sd.d | 1.02 |
Note. The parameter PSRF moves close to 1, indicating satisfactory convergence. 1, western medicine; 2, conventional acupuncture; 3, electroacupuncture; 4, scalp acupuncture; 5, warm acupuncture; 6, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture (reproduced from Peng Pang et al. [66] (under the Creative Commons Attribution License/Public Domain)).
Node-splitting test result.
| Name | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Overall |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1, 2 | 1.17 (0.81, 1.52) | 0.53 (−0.25, 1.29) | 1.05 (0.72, 1.37) | 0.13 |
| 1, 3 | 1.85 (1.09, 2.72) | 2.05 (0.57, 3.36) | 1.84 (1.21, 2.54) | 0.78 |
| 1, 4 | 1.77 (0.69, 3.17) | 2.36 (1.45, 3.31) | 2.09 (1.40, 2.82) | 0.48 |
| 1, 5 | 1.06 (0.29, 1.85) | 2.83 (1.01, 5.04) | 1.33 (0.61, 2.10) | 0.08 |
| 1, 6 | 1.60 (0.68, 2.65) | 1.70 (0.41, 3.03) | 1.65 (0.89, 2.42) | 0.92 |
| 2, 3 | 0.91 (−0.41, 2.33) | 0.81 (−0.07, 1.68) | 0.78 (0.10, 1.54) | 0.88 |
| 2, 4 | 1.25 (0.43, 2.15) | 0.69 (−0.41, 2.04) | 1.05 (0.39, 1.74) | 0.46 |
| 2, 5 | 1.75 (0.02, 4.00) | −0.03(−0.87, 0.84) | 0.28 (−0.48, 1.08) | 0.08 |
| 2, 6 | 0.71 (−0.55, 1.89) | 0.51 (−0.74, 1.67) | 0.60 (−0.14, 1.39) | 0.82 |
Note. P > 0.05 means that the direct comparisons were consistent with the indirect comparisons. 1, western medicine; 2, conventional acupuncture; 3, electroacupuncture; 4, scalp acupuncture; 5, warm acupuncture; 6, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture.
Figure 7Comparison-adjusted funnel plot for the network meta-analysis.
Figure 8Egger's publication bias plot (P=0.490 > 0.05).