| Literature DB >> 35692506 |
Jihang Du1,2, Yinhao Feng1,2, Qiang Yuan1, Haiping Gong3, Jie An1, Liu Wu1,2, Qian Dai1,2, Bojun Xu1, Haozhong Wang4, Jian Luo1.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of acupuncture treatment for postprandial distress syndrome (PDS).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35692506 PMCID: PMC9184157 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6969960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunol Res ISSN: 2314-7156 Impact factor: 4.493
Figure 1Flow chart.
Basic characteristics of included trials.
| Authors | Published years | Study design | Number of patients | Age (year) | Disease duration | Interventions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | Control group | Observation group | Control group | Observation group | Control group | Observation group (acupuncture) | Control group (sham acupuncture) | |||
| Tu et al. [ | 2019 | RCT | 26 | 25 | 43 ± 17 | 41 ± 16 | 42.7 ± 54.1 | 59.9 ± 65.9 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection GV20 (Baihui), CV12 (Zhongwan), CV6 (Qihai), CV17 (Danzhong), ST25 (Tianshu), PC6 (Neiguan), ST36 (Zusanli), and SP4 (Gongsun). | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Stanghellini et al. [ | 2021 | RCT | 138 | 140 | 41.6 ± 13.1 | 41.2 ± 13.1 | 57.3 ± 63.7 | 61.6 ± 64.4 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection GV20 (Baihui), CV12 (Zhongwan), CV6 (Qihai), CV17 (Danzhong), ST25 (Tianshu), PC6 (Neiguan), ST36 (Zusanli), and SP4 (Gongsun). | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Kim et al. [ | 2015 | RCT | 79 | 71 | 38.8 ± 13.8 | 36.0 ± 13.0 | 75.7 ± 74.5 | 67.3 ± 80.3 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection ST42 (Chongyang), ST40 (Fonglong), ST36 (Zusanli), and ST34 (Liangqiu) | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Kim et al. [ | 2015 | RCT | 82 | 71 | 34.9 ± 13.9 | 36.0 ± 13.0 | 59.3 ± 52.2 | 67.3 ± 80.3 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection ST38 (Tiaokou), ST35 (Dubi), ST33 (Yinshi), and ST32 (Futu) | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Kim et al. [ | 2015 | RCT | 74 | 71 | 35.5 ± 11.6 | 36.0 ± 13.0 | 63.6 ± 60.1 | 67.3 ± 80.3 | Acupuncture, acupoint selectionBL21 (Weishu) and CV12 (Zhongwan) | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Kim et al. [ | 2015 | RCT | 85 | 71 | 38.5 ± 13.5 | 36.0 ± 13.0 | 70.4 ± 60.7 | 67.3 ± 80.3 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection GB40 (Qiuxu), GB37 (Guangming), GB36 (Waiqiu), and GB34 (Yanglingquan) | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Yang et al. [ | 2020 | RCT | 21 | 21 | 44.8 ± 13.3 | 46.0 ± 13.2 | 36 ± 26.67 | 54 ± 71.11 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection GV20 (Baihui), CV12 (Zhongwan), CV6 (Qihai), CV17 (Danzhong), ST25 (Tianshu), PC6 (Neiguan), ST36 (Zusanli), and SP4 (Gongsun). | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
| Wang et al. [ | 2020 | RCT | 138 | 140 | 41.6 ± 13.1 | 41.2 ± 13.1 | 57.3 ± 63.7 | 61.6 ± 64.4 | Acupuncture, acupoint selection GV20 (Baihui), CV12 (Zhongwan), CV6 (Qihai), CV17 (Danzhong), ST25 (Tianshu), PC6 (Neiguan), ST36 (Zusanli), and SP4 (Gongsun). | Sham acupuncture, nonacupoints |
RCT: randomized controlled trial; NDI: Nepean dyspepsia index; SID: symptom index of dyspepsia.
Figure 2Risk of bias.
Figure 3Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: change of NDI from baseline to week 4.
Figure 4Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: change in NDI from baseline to week 16.
Figure 5Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: change in SID from baseline to week 4.
Figure 6Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: change in SID from baseline to week 16.
Figure 7Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: OTE at week 4.
Figure 8Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: change in postprandial fullness score from baseline to week 4.
Figure 9Forest plot of comparison. Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture. Outcome: change in early satiety from baseline score to week 4.
Figure 10Sensitivity analysis of postprandial fullness.