Shuai Dong, Yi-Ying Wang, Bo Li, Shi-Bing Liang, Hui-Juan Cao
{"title":"放血治疗原发性头痛:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Shuai Dong, Yi-Ying Wang, Bo Li, Shi-Bing Liang, Hui-Juan Cao","doi":"10.1016/j.eujim.2023.102312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Headache is one of the most common symptoms worldwide. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of bloodletting therapy (BLT) for primary headache.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Four English databases, four Chinese databases and five trials registries were searched from inception to 2<sup>nd</sup> Sep 2022. Randomized controlled trials which compared BLT to no treatment or drugs for primary headache were included. BLT as adjunctive treatment of drugs or acupuncture was also included. Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of trials through the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 independently. Pain intensity was the primary outcome (e.g. Visual analogue scale, VAS). Meta-analysis (using RevMan 5.4.1) with random effect model was conducted when there was no serious statistical heterogeneity among trials (<em>I</em>²≤75 %). GRADE was used to assess the certainty of evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventeen trials involving 1123 participants were included. Types of BLT included pricking BLT, wet cupping and bloodletting puncture with plum-blossom needle. The most frequently used BLT acupoint was <em>Tai Yang</em>. Type of comparisons included BLT vs. drugs (<em>n</em> = 3), BLT plus drugs vs. drugs (<em>n</em> = 4) and BLT plus acupuncture vs. acupuncture (<em>n</em> = 10). All included trials were assessed as \"high risk of bias\". Results showed that BLT plus rizatriptan benzoate tablets was superior to drug alone in reducing VAS (Mean Difference (MD)=-2.07 cm, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) -2.65 cm to -1.50 cm, <em>P</em><0.00001) and increasing the number of patients with more than half pain relief (by 39 %). BLT plus acupuncture was superior to acupuncture alone (MD=-0.80 cm, 95 % CI -1.20 cm to -0.41 cm, <em>P</em><0.00001) for pain relief. However, no difference was found between BLT and drugs on decreasing VAS. The certainty of the overall evidence is very low mainly due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity among trials.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Very low certainty evidence suggests that BLT combined with acupuncture or drugs may be more effective in relieving pain of primary headache and other concomitant symptoms. Current evidence does not support confirmatory conclusions about the safety of BLT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11932,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 102312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bloodletting therapy for primary headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Shuai Dong, Yi-Ying Wang, Bo Li, Shi-Bing Liang, Hui-Juan Cao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eujim.2023.102312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Headache is one of the most common symptoms worldwide. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of bloodletting therapy (BLT) for primary headache.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Four English databases, four Chinese databases and five trials registries were searched from inception to 2<sup>nd</sup> Sep 2022. Randomized controlled trials which compared BLT to no treatment or drugs for primary headache were included. BLT as adjunctive treatment of drugs or acupuncture was also included. Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of trials through the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 independently. Pain intensity was the primary outcome (e.g. Visual analogue scale, VAS). Meta-analysis (using RevMan 5.4.1) with random effect model was conducted when there was no serious statistical heterogeneity among trials (<em>I</em>²≤75 %). GRADE was used to assess the certainty of evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventeen trials involving 1123 participants were included. Types of BLT included pricking BLT, wet cupping and bloodletting puncture with plum-blossom needle. The most frequently used BLT acupoint was <em>Tai Yang</em>. Type of comparisons included BLT vs. drugs (<em>n</em> = 3), BLT plus drugs vs. drugs (<em>n</em> = 4) and BLT plus acupuncture vs. acupuncture (<em>n</em> = 10). All included trials were assessed as \\\"high risk of bias\\\". Results showed that BLT plus rizatriptan benzoate tablets was superior to drug alone in reducing VAS (Mean Difference (MD)=-2.07 cm, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) -2.65 cm to -1.50 cm, <em>P</em><0.00001) and increasing the number of patients with more than half pain relief (by 39 %). BLT plus acupuncture was superior to acupuncture alone (MD=-0.80 cm, 95 % CI -1.20 cm to -0.41 cm, <em>P</em><0.00001) for pain relief. However, no difference was found between BLT and drugs on decreasing VAS. The certainty of the overall evidence is very low mainly due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity among trials.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Very low certainty evidence suggests that BLT combined with acupuncture or drugs may be more effective in relieving pain of primary headache and other concomitant symptoms. Current evidence does not support confirmatory conclusions about the safety of BLT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Integrative Medicine\",\"volume\":\"64 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Integrative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382023000884\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382023000884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
头痛是世界上最常见的症状之一。本系统综述旨在评估放血疗法(BLT)治疗原发性头痛的有效性和安全性。方法检索4个英文数据库、4个中文数据库和5个试验注册库。将BLT与无治疗或药物治疗原发性头痛进行比较的随机对照试验也包括在内。BLT作为药物或针灸的辅助治疗也包括在内。两位作者通过Cochrane风险偏倚工具2.0独立提取数据并评估试验质量。疼痛强度是主要观察指标(如视觉模拟评分,VAS)。当试验间统计异质性不严重(I²≤75%)时,采用随机效应模型进行meta分析(RevMan 5.4.1)。GRADE用于评估证据的确定性。结果共纳入17项试验,1123名受试者。治疗方法包括刺刺、湿拔罐和梅花针放血穿刺。最常使用的穴位是太阳。比较类型包括BLT与药物(n = 3)、BLT +药物与药物(n = 4)、BLT +针灸与针灸(n = 10)。所有纳入的试验都被评估为“高风险偏倚”。结果显示,BLT联合苯甲酸利扎曲坦片在降低VAS(平均差值(MD)=-2.07 cm, 95%可信区间(CI) -2.65 cm ~ -1.50 cm, P<0.00001)和增加一半以上疼痛缓解的患者数量(39%)方面优于单用药物。在缓解疼痛方面,BLT +针灸优于单独针灸(MD=-0.80 cm, 95% CI -1.20 cm ~ -0.41 cm, P<0.00001)。然而,在降低VAS方面,BLT与药物之间没有差异。总体证据的确定性非常低,主要是由于试验的方法学质量差和异质性高。结论极低确定性证据表明,BLT联合针灸或药物治疗可更有效地缓解原发性头痛及其他伴随症状。目前的证据并不支持关于BLT安全性的确认性结论。
Bloodletting therapy for primary headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Introduction
Headache is one of the most common symptoms worldwide. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of bloodletting therapy (BLT) for primary headache.
Methods
Four English databases, four Chinese databases and five trials registries were searched from inception to 2nd Sep 2022. Randomized controlled trials which compared BLT to no treatment or drugs for primary headache were included. BLT as adjunctive treatment of drugs or acupuncture was also included. Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of trials through the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 independently. Pain intensity was the primary outcome (e.g. Visual analogue scale, VAS). Meta-analysis (using RevMan 5.4.1) with random effect model was conducted when there was no serious statistical heterogeneity among trials (I²≤75 %). GRADE was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
Results
Seventeen trials involving 1123 participants were included. Types of BLT included pricking BLT, wet cupping and bloodletting puncture with plum-blossom needle. The most frequently used BLT acupoint was Tai Yang. Type of comparisons included BLT vs. drugs (n = 3), BLT plus drugs vs. drugs (n = 4) and BLT plus acupuncture vs. acupuncture (n = 10). All included trials were assessed as "high risk of bias". Results showed that BLT plus rizatriptan benzoate tablets was superior to drug alone in reducing VAS (Mean Difference (MD)=-2.07 cm, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) -2.65 cm to -1.50 cm, P<0.00001) and increasing the number of patients with more than half pain relief (by 39 %). BLT plus acupuncture was superior to acupuncture alone (MD=-0.80 cm, 95 % CI -1.20 cm to -0.41 cm, P<0.00001) for pain relief. However, no difference was found between BLT and drugs on decreasing VAS. The certainty of the overall evidence is very low mainly due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity among trials.
Conclusion
Very low certainty evidence suggests that BLT combined with acupuncture or drugs may be more effective in relieving pain of primary headache and other concomitant symptoms. Current evidence does not support confirmatory conclusions about the safety of BLT.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Integrative Medicine (EuJIM) considers manuscripts from a wide range of complementary and integrative health care disciplines, with a particular focus on whole systems approaches, public health, self management and traditional medical systems. The journal strives to connect conventional medicine and evidence based complementary medicine. We encourage submissions reporting research with relevance for integrative clinical practice and interprofessional education.
EuJIM aims to be of interest to both conventional and integrative audiences, including healthcare practitioners, researchers, health care organisations, educationalists, and all those who seek objective and critical information on integrative medicine. To achieve this aim EuJIM provides an innovative international and interdisciplinary platform linking researchers and clinicians.
The journal focuses primarily on original research articles including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, other clinical studies, qualitative, observational and epidemiological studies. In addition we welcome short reviews, opinion articles and contributions relating to health services and policy, health economics and psychology.