scholarly journals The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Yunfeng Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease caused by allergic individuals exposed to allergens. Western medicine therapy for treating AR causes obvious adverse events, while thunder fire moxibustion (TFM) is known as a safe and effective treatment for AR. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFM for treating AR. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM from inception to April 5, 2020, were searched without any language restriction. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality, independently. The primary outcomes were the total effective rate and the TNSS. The secondary outcomes included TNNSS, RQLQ, VAS, serum IgE, IgA, or IgG level, and adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected; methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB), and the level of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3.0 software. Results. A total of 18 RCTs were included, including 1600 patients. The results of this meta-analysis showed a statistically significant effect in a total effective rate of T = TFM (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [1.03, 1.12]; P=0.45; I2 = 0%) and T = TFM + other treatments (RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.11, 1.25]; P=0.03; I2 = 53%). In addition, TFM intervention also showed significant difference in total symptom score (T = TFM + other treatments) (MD = −1.42; 95% CI [−1.55, −1.29]; P=0.03; I2 = 60%) in patients with AR. Conclusion. Existing evidence shows that TFM is safe and effective for AR. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, we should draw our conclusions with caution. Therefore, clinical researchers should carry out more large-sample, multicentre, high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials in the future to verify the clinical efficacy of TFM in treating AR.

scholarly journals Clinical Effect of Intravenous Vitamin C on Viral Myocarditis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Shuangdi Chen ◽  
Wenli Zhao ◽  
Binjie Zhang ◽  
Yijun Jia ◽  
Shihua Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin C ◽  
Conventional Therapy ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Viral Myocarditis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Intravenous Vitamin

Objective. To comprehensively compare the effects of conventional therapy combined with intravenous vitamin C and conventional therapy on viral myocarditis in children through a meta-analysis. Methods. Relevant articles including clinical trials of normal treatment combined with intravenous vitamin C and conventional therapy for viral myocarditis in children that were published between January 2000 and February 2018 were selected from PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and WANFANG database. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane systematic review method (version 5.1.0); data quality was evaluated by two independent researchers. The total effective rate; LDH, CK, and CK-MB levels; and other indicators were analyzed using Rev Man 5.3 software. Results. Eight studies were eligible for this meta-analysis, which included a total of 426 patients in the treatment group and 363 patients in the control group. The meta-analysis results of six studies showed that the total effective rate of intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy was higher than that of conventional therapy alone [Z = 5.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21 (1.13 to 1.30), P < 0.00001]; that of five studies showed that LDH levels were lower in children receiving intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy than in those receiving conventional therapy alone [Z = 3.70, 95% CI: −1.88 (−2.88 to −0.88), P = 0.0002]; that of three studies showed that CK levels were lower in children receiving intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy than in those receiving conventional therapy alone [Z = 4.21, 95% CI: −0.55 (−0.81 to −0.30), P < 0.0001]; that of four studies showed that CK-MB levels were lower in children receiving intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy than in those receiving conventional therapy alone [Z = 13.64, 95% CI: −1.44 (−1.65 to −1.24), P < 0.00001]; that of two studies showed that CD3 levels were higher in children receiving intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy than in those receiving conventional therapy alone [Z = 2.45, 95% CI: 0.41 (0.08–0.73), P = 0.01]; that of two studies showed no significant difference in changes in CD4 levels between children receiving intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy and those receiving conventional therapy alone [Z = 0.28, 95% CI: −0.21 (−1.69 to 1.28), P = 0.78]; and that of two studies showed no significant difference in changes in CD4/CD8 between children receiving intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy and those receiving conventional therapy alone [Z = 0.07, 95% CI: −0.03 (−0.73 to 0.67), P = 0.94]. Conclusion. The meta-analysis results showed that intravenous vitamin C combined with conventional therapy is better than the simple, conventional therapy for the treatment of viral myocarditis in children in terms of the total effective rate and LDH, CK, and CK-MB levels.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Brucea javanica Oil Emulsion Injection Combined with the Chemotherapy for Treating Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia-Rui Wu ◽  
Shu-Yu Liu ◽  
Jia-Lian Zhu ◽  
Dan Zhang ◽  
Kai-Huan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Oil Emulsion ◽  
Brucea Javanica ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective. This meta-analysis sought to assess the efficacy and safety of Brucea javanica oil emulsion injection (BJOEI) combined with chemotherapy for treating gastric cancer (GC). Method. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding BJOEI to treat GC were searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), the Wan-Fang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed) up to January 9, 2017. The clinical total effective rate, performance status, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and other outcomes were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 and Stata12.0 software. Results. 13 RCTs involving 912 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that, compared with receiving chemotherapy alone, BJOEI combined with chemotherapy was more effective in improving clinical total effective rate (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.22~1.56, P<0.00001), performance status (RR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.30~2.04, P<0.00001), and relieving ADRs such as myelosuppression, neutropenia, thrombopenia, and liver damage. Statistically significant difference was observed between the experimental group and control group. Conclusion. The pooled analysis showed that using BJOEI on the basis of the chemotherapy had a remarkable therapeutic effect for patients with GC, whereas more evidence-based medical researches were required to further support our study.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Banxia Formulae for Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Yan-Hua Lin ◽  
Cong Chen ◽  
Xiu Zhao ◽  
Yi-Fei Mao ◽  
Guang-Xin Xiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Bias Risk

Objective. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Banxia (Pinellia Tuber) formulae in the treatment of insomnia compared with those of conventional western medicines. Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Banxia formulae in the treatment of insomnia were searched from the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Wanfang database. The literature collected was from the time when the databases were established to April 2020. Quality assessment and meta-analysis were conducted by using Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and RevMan 5.2, respectively. Publication bias was assessed by Egger’s test. Results. Fourteen RCTs with 910 participants were identified. A total of 46 traditional Chinese medicines involving 2 different dosage forms were used in the included studies. Meta-analysis indicated that Banxia formulae had more significant effects on improving the total effective rate (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.31), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI, MD = −1.05, 95% CI −1.63 to −0.47), and the TCM syndrome score (SMD = −0.78, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.39). Meanwhile, on reducing adverse events, Banxia formulae also showed an advantage (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.93). Conclusion. According to the current studies, the efficacy of Banxia formulae in the treatment of insomnia is better than that of the conventional western medicines, and its safety is relatively stable. However, due to the limitations of this study, further research and evaluation are needed.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenjie Yu ◽  
Kaijian Wang ◽  
Xinyan Cui ◽  
Ling Lu ◽  
Jianfei Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Symptom Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores

Background Patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) who are treated according to the current rhinitis management guidelines may be inadequately controlled. These patients are at risk of serious comorbidities, such as asthma and chronic sinusitis. These symptoms, sneezing and an itchy, runny, stuffy nose, may have a negative impact on patients’ daily functioning. Omalizumab is being developed as a new choice for the treatment of AR. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of AR with omalizumab. Our evaluation outcomes were symptom scores, medication efficacy, combined symptom and medication scores, and adverse events. We descriptively summarized and quantitatively synthesized original data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR by using Stata12.0 software for meta-analyses. Results The results of our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the omalizumab group and the control group in the following aspects: daily nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.443, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.538 to –0.347, P < .001); daily ocular symptom score (SMD = –0.385, 95% CI: –0.5 to –0.269, P < .001); daily nasal medication symptom scores (SMD = –0.421, 95% CI: –0.591 to –0.251, P < .001); proportion of days of emergency drug use (risk ratio [RR] = 0.488, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.788, P < .005); rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life questionnaire (SMD = –0.286, 95% CI: –0.418 to –0.154, P < .001); and overall evaluation (RR = 1.435, 95% CI: 1.303–1.582, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in safety indicator: adverse events (RR = 1.026, 95% CI: 0.916–1.150, P = .655). Conclusion Omalizumab is effective and relatively safe in patients with AR; omalizumab used in conjunction with special immunotherapy has shown promising results, especially in reducing adverse events.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness and Safety of Heat Sensitive Moxibustion for Anaphylactic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliance Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Yang ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Yun Feng Yunfeng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Inflammatory Disorder ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract BackgroundAnaphylactic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE antibody-mediated, inflammatory disorder. Heat- sensitive moxibustion (HSM) has been accepted for AR in clinically. Our study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HSM for AR. MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature review of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from their inception to April 2020 for RCTs that compared HSM with other active intervention for AR. The primary outcome measure was the total nasal symptom and sign score, and secondary outcomes include total effective rate, Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) and adverse events. More than two authors independently conducted the process of data collection and analysis by Review Manager (Version 5.3). ResultsA total of 15 RCTs of 1087 participants were included in our study. The overall meta-analysis demonstrated that HSM were superior in relieving the symptoms and signs of AR in treatment (SMD = -1.46, 95%CI (-1.81, -1.10); P < 0.00001) or during the follow-up period (SMD = -2.87, 95%CI (-5.11, -0.63); P < 0.0001). The results also applied to the total effective rate (OR = 2.96, 95%CI (2.19, 4.00); P < 0.00001) and RQLQ (SMD = -7.80, 95%CI (-13.92, -1.68); P < 0.00001) in treatment. Subgroup analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between the HSM group and control group. There were two studies referred to the adverse effects. The overall level of evidence was low with low methodology quality. ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that the effectiveness of HSM on AR were statistically significant in treatment or during the follow-up period. However, the included studies have relatively poor quality; further high-quality trials should be conducted to confirm our finding.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019140723

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Effectiveness of ketamine-propofol sedation for reducing respiratory adverse events compared to propofol sedation: A Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Wen ◽  
Shibiao Chen ◽  
Lili Zhao ◽  
Yang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Respiratory Depression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Central Apnea ◽  
Propofol Sedation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract ObjectiveThe objective of our review was to determine whether ketamine-propofol had an advantage in reducing respiratory adverse events compared to propofol for procedural sedation.MethodsElectronic databases including Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, Google Scholar were searched to identify potential studies. All randomized controlled studies from their inception to May 2020 comparing ketamine-propofol sedation with propofol sedation were identified. Pooled analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted using Stata software. The quality assessment of all included studies was completed by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.ResultsA total of 21 studies involving 3669 individuals were included. The most common respiratory adverse events (all reported per 100 sedations) were: hypoxia(KP 10.9%; P 17.0%), respiratory depression(KP 6.9%; P 14.9%), central apnea(KP 5.9%; P 8.0%). Pooling these 21 studies, subjects with ketamine-propofol had significant lower incidence of respiratory adverse events than those with propofol (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41–0.74). When stratified by study population, no significant difference was observed in reducing respiratory adverse events between ketamine-propofol sedation and propofol sedation among children (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.46–1.20). However, significant differences were discerned definitely among adults(RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.39–0.60).ConclusionIn summary, Our results suggested hypoxia, respiratory depression, central apnea were most common respiratory adverse events in propofol sedation. However, ketamine-propofol sedation had an advantage in reducing the incidence of respiratory adverse events compared with propofol sedation, especially in adults.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Yinyin Guo ◽  
Yanxin Luo ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Liangliang Bai ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stoma Closure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

scholarly journals Timing of Acupuncture Treatment in Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Zelin Yu ◽  
Mengxia Shen ◽  
Wenfang Shang ◽  
Jiangxia Wu ◽  
Lihua Xuan
Keyword(s):  
Facial Paralysis ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Acute Stage ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Peripheral Facial Paralysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective. Investigate the optimum time of acupuncture treatment in peripheral facial paralysis in order to provide evidence for clinical treatment. Methods. CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to February 20, 2020. Studies limited to participants with acute peripheral facial paralysis treated with acupuncture and patients without information of the stage were excluded. The primary outcomes were effective rate and cure rate (based on facial nerve function scores). This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020169870. Results. 15 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 2847 participants met the selection criteria. There was no significant differences in the effective rate (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.70-2.11) when comparing acupuncture to prednisone therapy in acute facial paralysis. Acupuncture treatment in the acute stage increased both the effective rate (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and the cure rate (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.58) compared to that in the nonacute stage. Conclusions. In this meta-analysis, acupuncture showed a better effect in the acute stage than the nonacute stage for participants with peripheral facial paralysis. There was no statistical difference in the effective rate no matter the choice of acupuncture or prednisone therapies in the acute stage. These findings encourage early acupuncture treatment in peripheral facial paralysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document