Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for angina pectoris: An overview of systematic reviews.
Acupuncture
Angina pectoris
Overview
Systematic reviews
Journal
Integrative medicine research
ISSN: 2213-4220
Titre abrégé: Integr Med Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101612707
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
08
07
2021
revised:
21
03
2022
accepted:
31
03
2022
entrez:
10
5
2022
pubmed:
11
5
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The number of systematic reviews meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the effectiveness of acupuncture for angina pectoris (AP) is increasing. Due to the inconsistent conclusions and unknown quality of these SRs/MAs, this overview aimed to systematically evaluate and synthesize the existing SRs/MAs, attempting to provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of AP. SRs/MAs were searched via eight databases from inception to March 14, 2022. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The quality of the methodology, reporting, and evidence were assessed by the Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Acupuncture (PRISMA-A), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively. Sixteen SRs/MAs were included and fifteen SRs/MAs were considered being of critically low quality according to AMSTAR-2. Only three SRs/MAs were rated at low risk of bias. No study reported all the items listed in the PRISMA-A checklist. No high-quality evidence with GRADE assessment was found. With the low-quality evidence, acupuncture combined with other interventions was superior to monotherapy (medications or Chinese medicine) in the angina symptom and electrocardiogram recovery. No adverse effects owing to acupuncture were reported. Owing to the lack of high-quality evidence provided by the current SRs/MAs, the effectiveness of acupuncture for AP still warrants further proof. Further researches with more critical design and methodology are needed for providing more convincing evidence. This review was registered at PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/): CRD42021219367.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The number of systematic reviews meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the effectiveness of acupuncture for angina pectoris (AP) is increasing. Due to the inconsistent conclusions and unknown quality of these SRs/MAs, this overview aimed to systematically evaluate and synthesize the existing SRs/MAs, attempting to provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of AP.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
SRs/MAs were searched via eight databases from inception to March 14, 2022. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The quality of the methodology, reporting, and evidence were assessed by the Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Acupuncture (PRISMA-A), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Sixteen SRs/MAs were included and fifteen SRs/MAs were considered being of critically low quality according to AMSTAR-2. Only three SRs/MAs were rated at low risk of bias. No study reported all the items listed in the PRISMA-A checklist. No high-quality evidence with GRADE assessment was found. With the low-quality evidence, acupuncture combined with other interventions was superior to monotherapy (medications or Chinese medicine) in the angina symptom and electrocardiogram recovery. No adverse effects owing to acupuncture were reported.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Owing to the lack of high-quality evidence provided by the current SRs/MAs, the effectiveness of acupuncture for AP still warrants further proof. Further researches with more critical design and methodology are needed for providing more convincing evidence.
Registration
UNASSIGNED
This review was registered at PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/): CRD42021219367.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35535308
doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2022.100864
pii: S2213-4220(22)00032-4
pmc: PMC9077518
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
100864Informations de copyright
© 2022 Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Références
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 01;179(10):1388-1397
pubmed: 31355870
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Apr 15;8(4):5112-20
pubmed: 26131084
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Aug 12;19(1):208
pubmed: 31405367
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 24;374(12):1167-76
pubmed: 27007960
Lancet. 2005 Oct 29-Nov 4;366(9496):1578-82
pubmed: 16257345
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Sep 1;194:28-35
pubmed: 26011261
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021 Oct 25;28(13):1415-1425
pubmed: 31529993
Heart. 2012 Mar;98(6):500-7
pubmed: 22275526
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490
pubmed: 15205295
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2015 Mar 28;15:90
pubmed: 25888363
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2015 Apr;35(4):407-11
pubmed: 26054160
Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2021 Nov;45:101484
pubmed: 34517216
Med Sci Monit. 2019 Feb 16;25:1263-1274
pubmed: 30770700
J Tradit Chin Med. 2012 Dec;32(4):494-501
pubmed: 23427379
Int J Cardiol. 2014 Sep 20;176(2):367-74
pubmed: 25103909
Circulation. 2017 Mar 7;135(10):e146-e603
pubmed: 28122885
BMC Public Health. 2014 Feb 19;14:179
pubmed: 24548585