Acupuncture-moxibustion for essential hypertension: an overview of systematic reviews
- VernacularTitle:针灸治疗原发性高血压的系统评价再评价
- Author:
Wanyan CHEN
;
Kelin DENG
;
Junxuan LEI
;
Lin DAI
;
Kejian LI
;
Yina LUO
;
Jingxian XIA
;
Rong LIN
;
Xiaowen QIANG
;
Lianyang XU
;
Min LI
- Keywords:
Acupuncture Therapy;
Moxibustion Therapy;
Acupuncture-moxibustion Therapy;
Essential Hypertension;
Meta Analysis;
Systematic Review;
GRADE Approach
- From:
Journal of Acupuncture and Tuina Science
2023;21(2):162-172
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To propose reasonable suggestions to promote the standardization of clinical studies by reviewing the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture-moxibustion treatment of essential hypertension (EH). Methods: Computer retrieval was conducted through Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP Database (CQVIP), China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), and Wanfang Academic Journal Full-text Database (Wanfang) to collect systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to treating EH with acupuncture-moxibustion therapy. The time range was from the database's inception till July, 2020. The studies were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then data-extracted. The study's quality and evidence ratings were performed by referring to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA), a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). Results: A total of 14 studies, 10 in Chinese and 4 in English, published between 2012 and 2019, were included, involving 70 outcome measures. The methodological quality was rated as critically low, the reporting was relatively complete or had certain flaws, and the evidence strength was rated as low or very low. Conclusion: Regarding the acupuncture-moxibustion treatment of EH, the methodological quality and outcome measure evidence of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses are relatively low, and the reporting quality also expects further improvements.
