Filiform needle acupuncture for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
10.1016/j.joim.2022.08.004
- Author:
Shi-Hao DU
1
;
Wei GUO
1
;
Chao YANG
1
;
Sheng CHEN
1
;
Sheng-Nan GUO
2
;
Shuo DU
1
;
Zhong-Ming DU
1
;
Yu-Tong FEI
3
;
Ji-Ping ZHAO
4
Author Information
1. Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100700, China.
2. Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China.
3. Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.
4. Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100700, China. Electronic address: zjp7883@sina.com.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Allergic rhinitis;
Filiform needle acupuncture;
Meta-analysis;
Systematic review
- MeSH:
Humans;
Acupuncture Therapy/adverse effects*;
Pain Measurement;
Quality of Life;
Rhinitis, Allergic/therapy*
- From:
Journal of Integrative Medicine
2022;20(6):497-513
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Filiform needle acupuncture (FNA), the most classical and widely applied acupuncture method based on traditional Chinese medicine theory, has shown a promising effect in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient preference of FNA in the treatment of AR by comparing FNA with sham acupuncture, no treatment, and conventional medication.
SEARCH STRATEGY:Eight electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to October 14, 2021. Additional studies were acquired from clinical trial registration platforms and reference lists.
INCLUSION CRITERIA:Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared FNA with either sham acupuncture, no treatment or conventional medication for AR.
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS:Two researchers extracted data independently of each other using a predesigned data acquisition form, and results were cross-checked after completion. The primary outcome was symptom score (Total Nasal Symptom Score or Visual Analogue Scale), and the secondary outcomes were the AR control questionnaire, quality of life (QoL) score (Different versions of Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire), medication score (use of rescue medication), mental health score, total IgE, adverse event rate, clinical economic indicators, and patient satisfaction score. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval was used to calculate the effect size for continuous data, while risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous data.
RESULTS:Thirty studies were included in this review. Compared with sham acupuncture, FNA significantly reduced the symptom score (SMD: -0.29 [-0.43, -0.15]), AR's impact on QoL (SMD: -0.23 [-0.37, -0.08]) and medication score (SMD: -0.3 [-0.49, -0.11]). Compared with no treatment, FNA dramatically reduced the symptom score (SMD: -0.8 [-1.2, -0.39]) and AR's impact on QoL (SMD: -0.82 [-1.13, -0.52]). There were no increased rates of adverse events with FNA compared to sham acupuncture and no treatment. FNA increased patient satisfaction and may be cost-effective. Most pieces of evidence from the above two comparisons were of high confidence. Moreover, FNA significantly outperformed conventional medication in reducing the symptom score (SMD: -0.48 [-0.85, -0.1]) and displayed a lower rate of adverse events, but the quality of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSION:FNA is an effective and safe intervention for AR and can help with symptom relief, QoL improvement, reducing medication usage, and increasing patient satisfaction. Further studies are needed to verify its cost-effectiveness and superiority over conventional medication and the best therapeutic strategies.
