Acupuncture for acute hordeolum

Effectiveness of acupuncture combined with artificial tears in managing dry eye syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dry eye syndrome is an ocular surface disease with high incidence. Acupuncture combined with artificial tears is effective for treating dry eye syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture combined with artificial tears in dry eye syndrome by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic online search was performed from the date of database establishment to July 1, 2023. The study groups that addressed acupuncture combined with artificial tears for patients with dry eye syndrome (DES) and the control groups that addressed artificial tears were analyzed. The main outcomes were tear breakup time (BUT) and Schirmer I test (SIT), assessed as previously described.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized or controlled trials met the selection criteria, and 1383 patients with DES were included in this study. The analysis results showed that BUT [Standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.14, 1.37), P < .0001], SIT [SMD = 1.55, 95% CI (1.08, 2.02), P < .0001], and corneal fluorescein staining [SMD = -2.08, 95% CI (-2.96, -1.20), P < .00001] significantly improved in the trial groups compared with the control groups. The acupuncture treatment was more effective in reducing the levels of IL-6 (P < .0001) and TNF-α (P < .00001). The overall efficacy rate was better in the trial group than in the control group [odds ratio = 4.09, 95% CI (3.04, 5.51), P < .00001]. However, no significant difference was observed in the ocular surface disease index (P = .15) between the trial and control groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicated that acupuncture combined with artificial tears could be considered safe, effective to patients with DES.

The relationship of publication language, study population, risk of bias, and treatment effects in acupuncture related systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiologic study

BACKGROUND

There are debates in acupuncture related systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whether searching Chinese databases to get more Chinese-language studies may increase the risk of bias and overestimate the effect size, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differ between Chinese and non-Chinese populations.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Cochrane library from its inception until December 2021, and identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses with acupuncture as one of the interventions. Paired reviewers independently screened the reviews and extracted the information. We repeated the meta-analysis of the selected outcomes to separately pool the results of Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture studies and presented the pooled estimates as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the Ratio of ORs (ROR) by dividing the OR of the Chinese-language trials by the OR of the non-Chinese-language trials, and the ROR by dividing the OR of trials addressing Chinese population by the OR of trials addressing non-Chinese population. We explored whether the impact of a high risk of bias on the effect size differed between studies published in Chinese- and in non-Chinese-language, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differed between Chinese and non-Chinese population.

RESULTS

We identified 84 Cochrane acupuncture reviews involving 33 Cochrane groups, of which 31 reviews (37%) searched Chinese databases. Searching versus not searching Chinese databases significantly increased the contribution of Chinese-language literature both to the total number of included trials (54% vs. 15%) and the sample size (40% vs. 15%). When compared with non-Chinese-language trials, Chinese-language trials were associated with a larger effect size (pooled ROR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91). We also observed a higher risk of bias in Chinese-language trials in blinding of participants and personnel (97% vs. 51%) and blinding of outcome assessment (93% vs. 47%). The higher risk of bias was associated with a larger effect estimate in both Chinese-language (allocation concealment: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87) and non-Chinese-language studies (blinding of participants and personnel: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). However, we found no evidence that the higher risk of bias would increase the effect size of acupuncture in Chinese-language studies more often than in non-Chinese-language studies (the confidence intervals of all ROR in the high-risk group included 1, Table 3). We further found acupuncture appeared to be more effective in Chinese than in non-Chinese population (Table 4).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest the higher risk of bias may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effects of acupuncture but would not increase the treatment effects in Chinese-language studies more often than in other language studies. The difference in treatment effects of acupuncture was probably associated with differences in population characteristics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We registered our protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF) ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZ6XR ).

The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overview

Background

Many systematic reviews of clinical trials on acupuncture were performed within the Cochrane Collaboration, the evidence-based medicine (EBM) most recognized organization. Objective of the article was to systematically collect and identify systematic reviews of acupuncture published in the Cochrane Library and assess their quality from a methodological perspective.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify the reviews of acupuncture conducted until June 2019. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, an evaluation tool for systematic reviews.

Results

Out of a total of 126 eligible reviews, 50 systematic reviews were included. According to the AMSTAR 2, 52% of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were of low quality, due to the presence of one or more weaknesses in at least one of the domains defined as critical for the methodological quality assessment. The less satisfied critical domain was inadequate investigation and discussion of publication bias. Declaration of potential sources of conflict of interest, and funding of the authors of the review and of the included studies were other important weaknesses.

Conclusions

The main methodological flaws in the included CSRs were related to topics of relatively new concern in the conduction of systematic reviews of the literature. However, both, lack of attention about retrieval of negative studies, and statements about conflict of interests are crucial point for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions according to EBM methodology.

Wake-Promoting Effect of Bloodletting Puncture at Hand Twelve Jing-Well Points in Acute Stroke Patients: A Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect and safety of bloodletting puncture at hand twelve Jing-Well points (HTWPs) in acute stroke patients with conscious disturbance.

METHODS

In this multi-center and randomized controlled trial, 360 patients suffered from ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with conscious disturbance within 48 h from the onset of symptom were divided into bloodletting (180 cases) and control (180 cases) groups using a block randomization. Patients in both groups received routine Western medicine, and patients in the bloodletting group received additional bloodletting puncture at HTWPs on admission immediately before conventional treatment. The primary outcome measure was Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score and the secondary outcomes included blood pressure, respiratory rate and pulse rate. All variables were evaluated at baseline (before bloodletting), 0 (after bloodletting immediately), 15, 30, 50 and 80 min post bloodletting.

RESULTS

At 80 min post bloodletting, the proportion of patients with improved consciousness in the bloodletting group was greater than the control group (P<0.05). In the separate analysis of moderate consciousness disturbance subgroup, bloodletting therapy benefited ischemic patients, and improved the eye and language response of GCS score at 15, 30, 50, 80 min post bloodletting (P<0.05 or P<0.01). No significant differences were observed regarding the secondary outcomes between two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The bloodletting puncture at HTWPs was safe and could improve conscious levels of ischemic stroke patients, highlighting a first-aid intervention for acute stroke. (Registration No. ChiCTR-INR-16009530).

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews

Importance

Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.

Objective

To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.

Data Source

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.

Study Selection

In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.

Results

This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.

Conclusions and Relevance

One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Acupuncture for hiccups: A systematic review protocol of high-quality randomized trials

BACKGROUND

A Hiccup is a common disease that often occurs along with other chronic or acute conditions. At present, there is a lack of feasible therapies for hiccups, and acupuncture is a treatment method with enormous clinical practice worldwide.

METHODS

Based on a pre-defined search strategy, we searched seven databases and screened them by two independent investigators, without language and publication status restriction from inception to date. We use the pre-set form to incorporate data and utilize Revman software to synthesize data. We will evaluate the risk of bias in the inclusion of the study based on the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated according to the GRADEpro software.

RESULTS

This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment for hiccups. The entire process will be referred to the Cochrane handbook recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

CONCLUSION

This review will provide systematic evidence to summarize whether acupuncture is an effective intervention in the treatment of hiccup.

Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of randomised trials guide policy and healthcare decisions. Yet, we observed that some reviews judge randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias (ROB) for sequence generation, potentially introducing bias. However, to date, the extent of this issue has not been well examined. We evaluated the consistency in the ROB assessment for sequence generation of randomised trials in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and explored the reviewers' judgement of the quality of evidence for the related outcomes.

METHODS

Cochrane intervention reviews (01/01/2017-31/03/2017) were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched for systematic reviews in ten general medical journals with highest impact factors (01/01/2016-31/03/2017). We examined the proportion of reviews that rated the sequence generation domain as high, low or unclear risk of selection bias. For reviews that had rated any randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias, we examined the proportion that had assessed the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. We evaluated 64 Cochrane reviews which comprised of 984 randomised trials; 0.8% (n = 8) and 52.2% (n = 514) were rated as high and unclear ROB for sequence generation respectively. We further evaluated 36 non-Cochrane reviews which comprised of 1376 trials; 5.8% (n = 80) and 39.6% (n = 545) were rated as high and unclear ROB respectively. Ninety percent (n = 10) of non-Cochrane reviews which rated randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation did not report an underlying reason. All Cochrane reviews assessed the quality of evidence (GRADE). For the non-Cochrane reviews, only just over half had assessed the quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews of interventions frequently rate randomised trials as high or unclear ROB for sequence generation. In general, Cochrane reviews were more transparent than non-Cochrane reviews in ROB and quality of evidence assessment. The scientific community should more strongly promote consistent ROB assessment for sequence generation to minimise selection bias and support transparent quality of evidence assessment. Consistency ensures that appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.