Dataset Information

Moxibustion in the management of irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. Many patients suffer from IBS that can be difficult to treat, thus complementary therapies which may be effective and have a lower likelihood of adverse effects are being sought.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at critically evaluating the current evidence on moxibustion for improving global symptoms of IBS.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, and CNKI databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of moxibustion comparing with sham moxibustion, pharmacological medications, and other active treatments in patients with IBS. Trials should report global symptom improvement as an outcome measure. Risk of bias for each RCT was assessed according to criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration, and the dichotomous data were pooled according to the control intervention to obtain a risk ratio (RR) of global symptom improvement after moxibustion, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

A total of 20 RCTs were eligible for inclusion (n = 1625). The risk of bias was generally high. Compared with pharmacological medications, moxibustion significantly alleviated overall IBS symptoms but there was a moderate inconsistency among studies (7 RCTs, RR 1.33, 95% CI [1.15, 1.55], I² = 46%). Moxibustion combined with acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy but a moderate inconsistency among studies was found (4 RCTs, RR 1.24, 95% CI [1.09, 1.41], I² = 36%). When moxibustion was added to pharmacological medications or herbal medicine, no additive benefit of moxibustion was shown compared with pharmacological medications or herbal medicine alone. One small sham-controlled trial found no difference between moxibustion and sham control in symptom severity (mean difference 0.35, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.47]). Moxibustion appears to be associated with few adverse events but the evidence is limited due to poor reporting.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that moxibustion may provide benefit to IBS patients although the risk of bias in the included studies is relatively high. Future studies are necessary to confirm whether this finding is reproducible in carefully-designed and conducted trials and to firmly establish the place of moxibustion in current practice.

SUBMITTER: Park JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3851749 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Moxibustion in the management of irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Park Jae-Woo JW Lee Byung-Hee BH Lee Hyangsook H

BMC complementary and alternative medicine 20131002

<h4>Background</h4>Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. Many patients suffer from IBS that can be difficult to treat, thus complementary therapies which may be effective and have a lower likelihood of adverse effects are being sought.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at critically evaluating the current evidence on moxibustion for improving global symptoms of IBS.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of ...[more]

PMID: 24088418

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide evidence-based guidance on the effects of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous, and methodologically unsound trials. We conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effects of acupuncture for treating IBS.MethodsMEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011. Eligible RCTs compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment. Our outcomes were overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. Dichotomous data were pooled to provide a relative risk (RR) of substantial improvement after treatment, and continuous data were pooled to provide a standardized mean difference (SMD) in post-treatment scores between groups.ResultsA total of 17 RCTs (N=1,806) were included. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham acupuncture on symptom severity (SMD=-0.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs) or quality of life (SMD=-0.03, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs). Because of the homogeneity of the results of the sham-controlled trials, results were unaffected by restriction to the four sham-controlled RCTs that used adequate randomization, blinding, and had few withdrawals/dropouts. Among RCTs that did not use a placebo control, acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy (RR of symptom improvement=1.28, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.45; 5 RCTs) and no (specific) treatment (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.79; 2 RCTs). There was no difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.27; 2 RCTs) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.26; 1 RCT). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was statistically significantly better than the other treatment alone, in trials with a high risk of bias (RR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.33; 4 RCTs).ConclusionsSham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control on IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from pharmacological therapies. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or patients' greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drugs.

Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture and moxibustion have been widely used in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). But the evidence that acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS reduction of symptom severity and abdominal pain, and improvement of quality of life is scarce.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, China Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), and unpublished sources were searched from inception until June 30, 2022. The quality of RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The strength of the evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to determine whether the participants in the included trials had reached optimal information size and whether the cumulative data was adequately powered to evaluate outcomes.ResultsA total of 31 RCTs were included. Acupuncture helped reduce the severity of symptoms more than pharmaceutical drugs (MD, -35.45; 95% CI, -48.21 to -22.68; I 2 = 71%). TSA showed the cumulative Z score crossed O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending significance boundaries. Acupuncture wasn't associated with symptom severity reduction (SMD, 0.03, 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.31, I 2 = 46%), but exhibited therapeutic benefits on abdominal pain (SMD, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.01; I 2 = 8%) compared to sham acupuncture. Moxibustion show therapeutic benefits compared to sham moxibustion on symptom severity (SMD, -3.46, 95% CI, -5.66 to -1.27, I 2 = 95%) and abdominal pain (SMD, -2.74, 95% CI, -4.81 to -0.67, I 2 = 96%). Acupuncture (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.24; I 2 = 47%) and the combination of acupuncture and moxibustion (SMD, -2.00; 95% CI, -3.04 to -0.96; I 2 = 90%) showed more benefit for abdominal pain compared to pharmacological medications as well as shams. Acupuncture (MD, 4.56; 95% CI, 1.46-7.67; I 2 = 79%) and moxibustion (MD, 6.97; 95% CI, 5.78-8.16; I 2 = 21%) were more likely to improve quality of life than pharmaceutical drugs.ConclusionAcupuncture and/or moxibustion are beneficial for symptom severity, abdominal pain and quality of life in IBS. However, in sham control trials, acupuncture hasn't exhibited robust and stable evidence, and moxibustion's results show great heterogeneity. Hence, more rigorous sham control trials of acupuncture or moxibustion are necessary.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=262118, identifier CRD42021262118.

Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and the best probiotics has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative rank order of different probiotics for IBS.MethodWe searched for RCTs on the efficacy of probiotics for IBS until August 25, 2021. The primary outcome was the symptom relief rate, as well as global symptoms, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. The NMA was conducted using Stata 15.0. We also used meta-regression to explore whether the treatment length and dose influenced the efficacy.ResultsForty-three RCTs, with 5,531 IBS patients, were included in this analysis. Firstly, we compared the efficacy of different probiotic species. B.coagulans exhibited the highest probability to be the optimal probiotic specie in improving IBS symptom relief rate, as well as global symptom, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. In regard to the secondary outcomes, L.plantarum ranked first in ameliorating the QOL of IBS patients, but without any significant differences compared with other probiotic species in standardized mean differences (SMD) estimates. Moreover, patients received L.acidophilus had lowest incidence of adverse events. The meta-regression revealed that no significant differences were found between participants using different doses of probiotics in all outcomes, while the treatment length, as a confounder, can significantly influence the efficacy of probiotics in ameliorating abdominal pain (Coef = -2.30; p = 0.035) and straining (Coef = -3.15; p = 0.020) in IBS patients. Thus, we performed the subgroup analysis on treatment length subsequently in these two outcomes, which showed that efficacy of B.coagulans using 8 weeks ranked first both in improving the abdominal pain and straining scores. Additionally, B. coagulans still had significant efficacy compared to different types of probiotic combinations in present study.ConclusionsThe findings of this NMA suggested that B.coagulans had prominent efficacy in treating IBS patients, and incorporating B.coagulans into a probiotic combination, or genetically engineering it to amplify its biological function may be a future research target to treat IBS patients. With few direct comparisons available between individual therapies today, this NMA may have utility in forming treatment guideline for IBS with probiotics.

Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder associated with a wide range of clinical symptoms. Some researchers have used cluster analysis (CA), a group of non-supervised learning methods that identifies homogenous clusters within different entities based on their similarity.Objective and methodsThis literature review aims to identify published articles that apply CA to IBS patients. We searched relevant keywords in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. We reviewed studies in terms of the selected variables, participants' characteristics, data collection, methodology, number of clusters, clusters' profiles, and results.ResultsAmong the 14 articles focused on the heterogeneity of IBS, eight of them utilized K-means Cluster Analysis (K-means CA), four employed Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, and only two studies utilized Latent Class Analysis. Seven studies focused on clinical symptoms, while four articles examined anocolorectal functions. Two studies were centered around immunological findings, and only one study explored microbial composition. The number of clusters obtained ranged from two to seven, showing variation across the studies. Males exhibited lower symptom severity and fewer psychological findings. The association between symptom severity and rectal perception suggests that altered rectal perception serves as a biological indicator of IBS. Ultra-slow waves observed in IBS patients are linked to increased activity of the anal sphincter, higher anal pressure, dystonia, and dyschezia.ConclusionIBS has different subgroups based on different factors. Most IBS patients have low clinical severity, good QoL, high rectal sensitivity, delayed left colon transit time, increased systemic cytokines, and changes in microbial composition, including increased Firmicutes-associated taxa and depleted Bacteroidetes-related taxa. However, the number of clusters is inconsistent across studies due to the methodological heterogeneity. CA, a valuable non-supervised learning method, is sensitive to hyperparameters like the number of clusters and random initialization of cluster centers. The random nature of these parameters leads to diverse outcomes even with the same algorithm. This has implications for future research and practical applications, necessitating further studies to improve our understanding of IBS and develop personalized treatments.

Dataset Information

Moxibustion in the management of irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Moxibustion in the management of irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets