Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Update of an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vickers AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5927830 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Update of an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.
Vickers Andrew J AJ Vertosick Emily A EA Lewith George G MacPherson Hugh H Foster Nadine E NE Sherman Karen J KJ Irnich Dominik D Witt Claudia M CM Linde Klaus K
The journal of pain 20171202 5
Despite wide use in clinical practice, acupuncture remains a controversial treatment for chronic pain. Our objective was to update an individual patient data meta-analysis to determine the effect size of acupuncture for 4 chronic pain conditions. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials randomized trials published up until December 31, 2015. We included randomized trials of acupuncture needling versus either sham acupuncture or no acupuncture control for nonspec ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Although acupuncture is widely used for chronic pain, there remains considerable controversy as to its value. We aimed to determine the effect size of acupuncture for 4 chronic pain conditions: back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, and shoulder pain.We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic pain in which allocation concealment was determined unambiguously to be adequate. Individual patient data meta-analyses were conducted using data from 29 of 31 eligible RCTs, with a total of 17 922 patients analyzed.In the primary analysis, including all eligible RCTs, acupuncture was superior to both sham and no-acupuncture control for each pain condition (P < .001 for all comparisons). After exclusion of an outlying set of RCTs that strongly favored acupuncture, the effect sizes were similar across pain conditions. Patients receiving acupuncture had less pain, with scores that were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.24) SDs lower than sham controls for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache, respectively; the effect sizes in comparison to no-acupuncture controls were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.58), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.64), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.46) SDs. These results were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses, including those related to publication bias.Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture.
| S-EPMC3658605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of clinical trials of acupuncture is to help clinicians and patients make decisions about treatment. Yet this is not straightforward: some trials report acupuncture to be superior to sham (placebo) acupuncture while others show evidence that acupuncture is superior to usual care but not sham, and still others conclude that acupuncture is no better than usual care. Meta-analyses of these trials tend to come to somewhat indeterminate conclusions. This appears to be because, until recently, acupuncture research was dominated by small trials of questionable quality. The Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration, a group of trialists, statisticians and other researchers, was established to synthesize patient-level data from several recently published large, high-quality trials.MethodsThere are three distinct phases to the Acupuncture Trialists Collaboration: a systematic review to identify eligible studies; collation and harmonization of raw data; statistical analysis. To be eligible, trials must have unambiguous allocation concealment. Eligible pain conditions are osteoarthritis; chronic headache (tension or migraine headache); shoulder pain; and non-specific back or neck pain. Once received, patient-level data will undergo quality checks and the results of prior publications will be replicated. The primary analysis will be to determine the effect size of acupuncture. Each trial will be evaluated by analysis of covariance with the principal endpoint as the dependent variable and, as covariates, the baseline score for the principal endpoint and the variables used to stratify randomization. The effect size for acupuncture from each trial--that is, the coefficient and standard error from the analysis of covariance--will then be entered into a meta-analysis. We will compute effect sizes separately for comparisons of acupuncture with sham acupuncture, and acupuncture with no acupuncture control for each pain condition. Other analyses will investigate the impact of different sham techniques, styles of acupuncture or frequency and duration of treatment sessions.DiscussionIndividual patient data meta-analysis of high-quality trials will provide the most reliable basis for treatment decisions about acupuncture. Above all, however, we hope that our approach can serve as a model for future studies in acupuncture and other complementary therapies.
| S-EPMC2955653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn a recent individual patient data meta-analysis, acupuncture was found to be superior to both sham and non-sham controls in patients with chronic pain. In this paper we identify variations in types of sham and non-sham controls used and analyze their impact on the effect size of acupuncture.MethodsBased on literature searches of acupuncture trials involving patients with headache and migraine, osteoarthritis, and back, neck and shoulder pain, 29 trials met inclusion criteria, 20 involving sham controls (n = 5,230) and 18 non-sham controls (n = 14,597). For sham controls, we analysed non-needle sham, penetrating sham needles and non-penetrating sham needles. For non-sham controls, we analysed non-specified routine care and protocol-guided care. Using meta-regression we explored impact of choice of control on effect of acupuncture.FindingsAcupuncture was significantly superior to all categories of control group. For trials that used penetrating needles for sham control, acupuncture had smaller effect sizes than for trials with non-penetrating sham or sham control without needles. The difference in effect size was -0.45 (95% C.I. -0.78, -0.12; p = 0.007), or -0.19 (95% C.I. -0.39, 0.01; p = 0.058) after exclusion of outlying studies showing very large effects of acupuncture. In trials with non-sham controls, larger effect sizes associated with acupuncture vs. non-specified routine care than vs. protocol-guided care. Although the difference in effect size was large (0.26), it was not significant with a wide confidence interval (95% C.I. -0.05, 0.57, p = 0.1).ConclusionAcupuncture is significantly superior to control irrespective of the subtype of control. While the choice of control should be driven by the study question, our findings can help inform study design in acupuncture, particularly with respect to sample size. Penetrating needles appear to have important physiologic activity. We recommend that this type of sham be avoided.
| S-EPMC3976298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent evidence shows that acupuncture is effective for chronic pain. However we do not know whether there are characteristics of acupuncture or acupuncturists that are associated with better or worse outcomes.MethodsAn existing dataset, developed by the Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration, included 29 trials of acupuncture for chronic pain with individual data involving 17,922 patients. The available data on characteristics of acupuncture included style of acupuncture, point prescription, location of needles, use of electrical stimulation and moxibustion, number, frequency and duration of sessions, number of needles used and acupuncturist experience. We used random-effects meta-regression to test the effect of each characteristic on the main effect estimate of pain. Where sufficient patient-level data were available, we conducted patient-level analyses.ResultsWhen comparing acupuncture to sham controls, there was little evidence that the effects of acupuncture on pain were modified by any of the acupuncture characteristics evaluated, including style of acupuncture, the number or placement of needles, the number, frequency or duration of sessions, patient-practitioner interactions and the experience of the acupuncturist. When comparing acupuncture to non-acupuncture controls, there was little evidence that these characteristics modified the effect of acupuncture, except better pain outcomes were observed when more needles were used (p=0.010) and, from patient level analysis involving a sub-set of five trials, when a higher number of acupuncture treatment sessions were provided (p<0.001).ConclusionThere was little evidence that different characteristics of acupuncture or acupuncturists modified the effect of treatment on pain outcomes. Increased number of needles and more sessions appear to be associated with better outcomes when comparing acupuncture to non-acupuncture controls, suggesting that dose is important. Potential confounders include differences in control group and sample size between trials. Trials to evaluate potentially small differences in outcome associated with different acupuncture characteristics are likely to require large sample sizes.
| S-EPMC3795671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in acute postoperative pain. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from 14 trials; 13 in dental and one in postsurgical pain. For each patient the percentage of maximum possible pain relief (%maxTOTPAR) was determined at different time points. The proportion of patients with at least 50% maxTOTPAR, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% maxTOTPAR, were then calculated, with time when 50% of patients had remedicated (TTR50) and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) for adverse effects. RESULTS: In dental pain, for rofecoxib 50 mg (1330 patients) compared with placebo (570 patients) the NNT was 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.1) for six hours, 2.0 (1.8 to 2.1) at eight, 2.4 (2.2 to 2.6) at 12, and 2.8 (2.5 to 3.1) at 24 hours. The TTR50 was 15.5 hours. Adverse effects were uncommon, though post-extraction alveolitis (dry socket) occurred more often with rofecoxib 50 mg than with placebo, NNH 24 (14 to 80). For postsurgical pain in one trial (163 patients), the NNT for rofecoxib 50 mg for six hours was 3.9 (2.6 to 7.8), the TTR50 was 5.8 hours, and multiple-dose adverse effects over five days occurred at similar rates with rofecoxib 50 mg and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg is an effective treatment with long-lasting analgesia and few adverse effects in dental pain. More information is required to confirm efficacy in postsurgical pain.
| S-EPMC362874 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate the existing evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in relieving chronic pain-related depression (CPRD).MethodsWe searched seven online databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for CPRD published before September 2020. We included studies that used acupuncture as the intervention group, with or without a control group, and the control group was treated with conventional drugs. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. For outcomes, assessments were performed using the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and adverse events.ResultsEight studies involving 636 participants were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that single acupuncture treatment and drug treatment have the same effect in improving the HAMD score (MD = -0.14, 95% CI = [-0.88, 0.59], P = 0.71) and alleviating the VAS score (MD = -0.42, 95% CI = [-1.10, -0.27], P = 0.23), but acupuncture treatment is safer (OR = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.21], P = 0.0003). In addition, acupuncture combined with drugs (control group) is more beneficial than single-drug treatment in improving the HAMD score (MD = -2.95, 95% CI = [-3.55, -2.36], P < 0.00001) and alleviating the VAS score (MD = -1.06, 95% CI = [-1.65, -0.47], P = 0.0004).ConclusionAcupuncture is an effective and safe treatment for CPRD, and acupuncture combined with drug therapy is more effective than single-drug therapy. Nevertheless, the conclusions were limited due to the low quality and a small number of included studies.
| S-EPMC7925064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives. Acupuncture has been widely used to relieve chronic pain-related insomnia (CPRI). However, the efficacy of acupuncture for CPRI is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture for CPRI. Methods. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if acupuncture was compared to sham acupuncture or conventional drug therapies for treating CPRI. Two reviewers screened each study and extracted data independently. Statistical analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results. A total of nine studies involving 944 patients were enrolled. The pooled analysis indicated that acupuncture treatment was significantly better than control group in improving effective rate (OR = 8.09, 95%CI = [4.75, 13.79], P < 0.00001) and cure rate (OR = 3.17, 95%CI = [2.35, 4.29], P < 0.00001), but subgroup analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture in improving cure rate (OR =10.36, 95% CI [0.53, 201.45], P=0.12) based on one included study. In addition, meta-analysis demonstrated that acupuncture group was superior to control group in debasing PSQI score (MD = -2.65, 95%CI = [-4.00, -1.30], P = 0.0001) and VAS score (MD = -1.44, 95%CI = [-1.58, -1.29], P < 0.00001). And there was no significant difference in adverse events (OR =1.73, 95%CI = [0.92, 3.25], P =0.09) between the two groups. Conclusions. Acupuncture therapy is an effective and safe treatment for CPRI, and this treatment can be recommended for the management of patients with CPRI. Due to the low quality and small sample size of the included studies, more rigorously designed RCTs with high quality and large sample size are recommended in future.
| S-EPMC6612974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic spinal pain.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, the WHO Clinical Trial Registry, and the US National Library of Medicine clinical trial registry were searched from January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic spinal pain treated by acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, no treatment, or another treatment were included.ResultsData was extracted from 22 RCTs including 2588 patients. Pooled analysis revealed that acupuncture can reduce chronic spinal pain compared to sham acupuncture (weighted mean difference [WMD] -12.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.86 to -8.24), mediation control (WMD -18.27, 95% CI -28.18 to -8.37), usual care control (WMD -9.57, 95% CI -13.48 to -9.44), and no treatment control (WMD -17.10, 95% CI -24.83 to -9.37). In terms of functional disability, acupuncture can improve physical function at immediate-term follow-up (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.74, 95% CI -2.04 to -1.44), short-term follow-up (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.62), and long-term follow-up (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -1.48 to -1.03).ConclusionIn summary, compared to no treatment, sham acupuncture, or conventional therapy such as medication, massage, and physical exercise, acupuncture has a significantly superior effect on the reduction in chronic spinal pain and function improvement. Acupuncture might be an effective treatment for patients with chronic spinal pain and it is a safe therapy.
| S-EPMC8453671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This meta-analysis compares change in wrist pain following ultrasound-guided (US-guided) intra-articular glucocorticoid injections with change in pain after palpation-guided injections in persons with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis.Data sources included MEDLINE, Cochrane, BIOSIS, CINAHL, ACR/AHRP abstracts, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that assessed change in wrist pain with direct comparison of US-guided and palpation-guided injections were included in the meta-analysis. Subject-level data was sought from authors of all relevant studies. Primary outcome was mean change in wrist pain from baseline to 1-6 week follow-up by visual analog scale (VAS). Mean difference in VAS was calculated for comparative studies. Secondary outcome was proportion attaining Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII), defined as VAS reduction ? 20%. Odds ratios (ORs) of MCII were calculated for comparative studies. Mean differences in VAS and ORs for MCII for comparative studies were combined using fixed and random effects meta-analysis.Ten studies were eligible, and adequate data was available from 4 studies with direct comparison of US-guided and palpation-guided treatment arms. The difference in mean VAS reduction (US-guided minus palpation-guided) ranged from-0.2 to 1.3, with a combined estimate of 1.0 (95% CI 0.3, 1.7). OR for MCII in comparative studies ranged from 1.0 to 12.4, with a combined OR of 3.2 (95% CI 1.2, 8.5) in favor of ultrasound.US-guided glucocorticoid injections to the wrist result in greater reductions in pain, and greater likelihood of attaining MCII than palpation-guided injections at 1-6 weeks follow-up.
| S-EPMC4146403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) can be effective in treating chronic pain. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of ACT, uncertainties remain regarding which subgroups in the chronic pain population are likely to benefit most and least. This protocol describes the application for two meta-analytic approaches, one at the level of individual participant data and the other at the level of aggregated data, from randomized controlled trials of ACT for chronic pain (ACT-CP-MA). METHODS:We will systematically conduct literature searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and trial registers. Two reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion and data extraction. ACT-CP-MA will include randomized controlled trials with ACT for chronic pain compared to control conditions for adults (≥ 18 years) with chronic pain (> 3 months). We will invite the authors of all eligible trials to share individual participant data. Outcomes will include standardized measures of pain interference, pain intensity, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, participants' rating of overall improvement, and ACT-related process variables. Using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and GRADE, reviewers will independently check for risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of recommendations. In the individual participant data meta-analysis, we will use a one-step approach where participants are clustered with studies and data from all studies are modeled simultaneously. For analyses, we will use mixed-effects models. Additionally, we will employ a meta-analysis with aggregate data and compare the results of both meta-analyses. DISCUSSION:This collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomized controlled trials of ACT for chronic pain versus control conditions will demonstrate how the known benefits of ACT for chronic pain vary across different subtypes of the chronic pain population. The results of the meta-analyses will be based on a comprehensive search of multiple databases and will help to inform future clinical trials and decision-making on the use of ACT in chronic pain and improve the quality, design, and reporting of future trials in this field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019120901.
| S-EPMC6570828 | biostudies-other