| Literature DB >> 34956431 |
Jinke Huang1, Mengxiong Lu2, Yijun Zheng1, Jinxin Ma2, Xiangxue Ma1, Yitian Wang1, Kunli Zhang1, Fengyun Wang1,2, Xudong Tang1,2,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically collate, appraise, and synthesize the current evidence on acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34956431 PMCID: PMC8694972 DOI: 10.1155/2021/2752246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pain Res Manag ISSN: 1203-6765 Impact factor: 3.037
Search strategy for the PubMed database.
| Query | Search term |
|---|---|
| #1 | Irritable bowel syndrome [Mesh] |
| #2 | Irritable bowel syndrome [Title/abstract] OR irritable colon syndrome [Title/abstract] OR irritable colon [Title/abstract] OR gastrointestinal syndrome [Title/abstract] OR colon spasm [Title/abstract] OR allergic colitis [Title/abstract] OR colon allergy [Title/abstract] OR IBS [Title/abstract] |
| #3 | #1 OR #2 |
| #4 | Acupuncture [Mesh] |
| #5 | Acupuncture [title/abstract] OR pharmacoacupuncture [title/abstract] OR acupotomy [title/abstract] OR acupotomies [title/abstract] OR pharmacopuncture [title/abstract] OR needle [title/abstract] OR needling [title/abstract] OR dry-needling [title/abstract] OR body-acupuncture [title/abstract] OR electroacupuncture [title/abstract] OR electro-acupuncture [title/abstract] OR auricular acupuncture [title/abstract] OR warm needle [title/abstract] |
| #6 | #4 OR #5 |
| #7 | Meta-analysis as topic [mesh] |
| #8 | Systematic review [title/abstract] OR meta-analysis [title/abstract] OR meta-analyses [title/abstract] |
| #9 | #7 OR #8 |
| #10 | #3 AND #6 AND #9 |
Figure 1Literature screening flow chart.
Baseline characteristics of included reviews.
| Studies | Country | Trials (subjects) | Experimental Intervention | Control Intervention | Quality assessment | Meta-analyses | Results summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guo et al. [ | China | 31 (3234) | AT | CM | Cochrane criteria | Yes | Acupuncture was an effective and safe therapy for IBS. |
| Zheng et al. [ | China | 41 (3440) | AT, AT + CM | Sham AT, CM | Cochrane criteria | Yes | The effect of acupuncture on IBS was better than that of CM, which could be used as an adjuvant therapy in clinical practice. |
| Yan et al. [ | China | 21 (1834) | AT + CHM | CM; CHM | Cochrane criteria | Yes | The combination of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine was effective and safe in the treatment of IBS. |
| Chao and Zhang [ | China | 6 (664) | AT | Sham AT, CM | Jadad | Yes | Acupuncture was significant in relieving the symptoms of IBS. |
| Manheimer et al. [ | United States | 17 (1806) | AT | Sham AT, CM | Cochrane criteria | Yes | The effect of acupuncture on IBS was better than that of CM, which could be used as an adjuvant therapy in clinical practice. |
| Fu and Jiang [ | China | 23 (1685) | AT | CM; AT + CM | Jadad | Yes | Acupuncture therapy was superior to conventional CM in the treatment of IBS. |
| Deng et al. [ | China | 17 (1333) | AT; AT + CM | CM; Sham AT + CM | Jadad | Yes | Acupuncture for IBS was superior to conventional treatment, which could improve the clinical symptoms and reduce the recurrence rate of patients. |
| Li et al. [ | China | 12 (715) | AT | CM | Cochrane criteria | Yes | The evidence of this study was not sufficient to prove that the efficacy of acupuncture was better than CM. |
| Pei et al. [ | China | 11 (969) | AT; AT + CM | CM; Sham AT + CM | Cochrane criteria | Yes | Acupuncture for IBS was better than the CM treatment. |
| Zhao et al. [ | China | 10 (810) | AT | CM | Jadad | Yes | The effect of acupuncture on IBS was superior to that of western medicine. |
AT: acupuncture therapy; CHM: Chinese herbal medicine.
Figure 2Summary of the AMSTAR-2 assessments.
Figure 3Graphical representation of the AMSTAR-2 assessments.
Results of the PRISMA checklists.
| Section/topic | Items | Guo, 2020 | Zheng, 2019 | Yan, 2019 | Chao, 2014 | Manheimer, 2012 | Fu, 2018 | Deng, 2017 | Li, 2016 | Pei, 2012 | Zhao, 2010 | Compliance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Q1. Title | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 |
| Abstract | Q2. Structured summary | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 |
| Introduction | Q3. Rationale | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 |
| Q4. Objectives | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Methods | Q5. Protocol and registration | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 20 |
| Q6. Eligibility criteria | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q7. Information sources | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q8. Search | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | PY | PY | PY | PY | PY | 40 | |
| Q9. Study selection | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q10. Data collection process | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q11. Data items | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q12. Risk of bias in individual studies | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q13. Summary measures | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q14. Synthesis of results | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q15. Risk of bias across studies | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q16. Additional analyses | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Results | Q17. Study selection | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 |
| Q18. Study characteristics | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q19. Risk of bias within studies | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q20. Results of individual studies | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q21. Synthesis of results | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q22 Risk of bias across studies | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q23. Additional analysis | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Discussion | Q24. Summary of evidence | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 |
| Q25. Limitations | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Q26. Conclusions | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | |
| Funding | Q27. Funding | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 90 |
Certainty of evidence quality.
| Studies | Treatments | Outcomes | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Relative effect (95% CI) | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guo et al. [ | AT versus CM | Weekly defecation | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD, −0.29 (−0.49, −0.08) | M |
| IBS symptom scores | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD, −1.17 (−1.42, −0.93) | M | ||
| IBS-QOL | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | SMD 2.37 (1.94, 2.80) | L | ||
| IBS-SSS | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD −0.75 (−1.04, −0.47) | M | ||
| Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.25 (1.18, 1.32) | M | ||
| Recurrence rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | RR 0.43 (0.28, 0.66) | L | ||
| Adverse effects | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | RR 0.59 (0.12, 2.90) | L | ||
| Zheng et al. [ | AT versus Sham AT | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.22 (1.01, 1.47) | M |
| IBS-QOL | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD −0.10 (−0.31, 0.11) | M | ||
| AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.17 (1.12, 1.23) | M | |
| IBS symptom scores | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD −1.16 (−1.61, −0.71) | L | ||
| IBS-QOL | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | SMD 0.75 (0.34, 1.16) | L | ||
| Yan et al. [ | AT + CHM versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.29 (1.24, 1.35) | M |
| Abdominal pain | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD −0.45 (−0.72, −0.17) | L | ||
| Chao and Zhang [ | AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.75 (1.24, 2.46) | M |
| Manheimer et al. [ | AT versus Sham AT | IBS-SSS | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | SMD −0.11 (−0.35, 0.13) | L |
| IBS-QOL | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | SMD −0.03 (−0.27, 0.22) | L | ||
| AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.28 (1.12, 1.45) | M | |
| Fu and Jiang [ | AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.20 (1.15, 1.25) | M |
| Deng et al. [ | AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | OR 3.92 (2.83, 5.43) | M |
| Recurrence rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | OR 0.22 (0.12, 0.41) | L | ||
| Li et al. [ | AT versus CM | Recurrence rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | RR 0.49 (0.35, 0.68) | CL |
| Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | RR 1.17 (1.08, 1.26) | L | ||
| Pei et al. [ | AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.27 (1.09, 1.49) | L |
| Zhao [ | AT versus CM | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | RR 1.28 (1.20, 1.38) | L |