4.3 Review

Comparison of electroacupuncture and medical treatment for functional constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ACUPUNCTURE IN MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 324-331

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1136/acupmed-2016-011127

关键词

constipation; acupuncture; acupuncture therapy; complementary treatments; laxatives; defecation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of electroacupuncture (EA) relative to conventional medication in functional constipation (FC). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting To be included, studies needed to: (1) have been randomised controlled trials; (2) have recruited adult patients diagnosed with FC according to the Rome II/III criteria or the American Gastroenterological Association guideline for chronic FC; and (3) have randomised patients to be treated with EA or anti-constipation medication. We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library and Embase databases for articles published up to 30 June 2016. Intervention EA or anti-constipation medication. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was the change in the number of weekly spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes were total response rate (or total effective rate), symptom reduction and Cleveland Clinic constipation scores. Results The pooled results showed significantly more improvement in the frequency of spontaneous bowel movements in the EA treatment group compared with the medicine-treated group (pooled SMD 0.244, 95% CI 0.065 to 0.424, P=0.008). Deep-needling EA was significantly more effective than treatment with medication at increasing the frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (p=0.019). Significantly greater improvement was also seen for total response rates (p=0.018) and reductions in symptom score (p<0.001) in EA-treated patients. Conclusions EA was more effective than medication at improving spontaneous bowel movements and total response rate, and reducing the symptoms of FC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据