Acupuncture for Relieving Abdominal Pain and Distension in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhu F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8678533 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background. Pancreatic enzyme supplementation is widely used to treat pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis, despite little evidence for efficacy. We performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to investigate its effectiveness. Methods. All randomized controlled parallel or crossover trials in patients with chronic pancreatitis comparing pancreatic enzyme supplementation to placebo were included. The main outcome was improvement in pain score or reduced analgesic consumption. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Mantel-Haenszel random effect model meta-analysis was used whenever methodologically appropriate. Results. Five out of 434 retrieved studies were included in the systematic review. All studies used relatively similar methodology. Four studies using enteric-coated pancreatic enzyme supplementation failed to show any improvement in pain as compared to placebo. The only study using non-enteric-coated enzymes did show reduction in the pain score. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in both analyses. Random model meta-analysis of three studies showed no significant difference in the mean of daily pain score (mean difference: 0.09 (1.57-1.39), p = 0.91) or average weekly analgesic consumption (mean difference: -0.30 (-2.37-1.77), p = 0.77) between the periods of administering pancreatic enzyme supplementation versus placebo. Conclusion. Pancreatic enzyme supplements do not seem to relieve abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis and should not be prescribed solely for this purpose, given their significant cost and potential side effects.
| S-EPMC4904687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Acute abdominal pain (AAP) comprises up to 10% of all emergency department (ED) visits. Current pain management practice is moving toward multi-modal analgesia regimens that decrease opioid use. Objective:This project sought to determine whether, in patients with AAP (population), does administration of butyrophenone antipsychotics (intervention) compared to placebo, usual care, or opiates alone (comparisons) improve analgesia or decrease opiate consumption (outcomes)? Methods:A structured search was performed in Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Directory of Open Access Journals, Embase, IEEE-Xplorer, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Magiran, PubMed, Scientific Information Database, Scopus, TÜB?TAK ULAKB?M, and Web of Science. Clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry), relevant bibliographies, and conference proceedings were also searched. Searches were not limited by date, language, or publication status. Studies eligible for inclusion were prospective randomized clinical trials enrolling patients (age ?18 years) with AAP treated in acute care environments (ED, intensive care unit, postoperative). The butyrophenone must have been administered either intravenously or intra-muscularly. Comparison groups included placebo, opiate only, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or acetaminophen. Results:We identified 7,217 references. Six studies met inclusion criteria. One study assessed ED patients with AAP associated with gastroparesis, whereas five studies assessed patients with postoperative AAP: abdominal hysterectomy (n=4), sleeve gastrectomy (n=1). Three of four studies found improvements in pain intensity with butyrophenone use. Three of five studies reported no change in postoperative opiate consumption, while two reported a decrease. One ED study reported no change in patient satisfaction, while one postoperative study reported improved satisfaction scores. Both extrapyramidal side effects (n=3) and sedation (n=3) were reported as unchanged. Conclusion:Based on available evidence, we cannot draw a conclusion on the efficacy or benefit of neuroleptanalgesia in the management of patients with AAP. However, preliminary data suggest that it may improve analgesia and decrease opiate consumption.
| S-EPMC6396833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The utility of acupuncture in managing osteoarthritis symptoms is uncertain. Trial results are conflicting and previous systematic reviews may have overestimated the benefits of acupuncture. METHODS: Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials (up to May 2014) from multiple electronic sources (including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) and reference lists of relevant articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool). Pooled data are expressed as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (random-effects model). RESULTS: We included 12 trials (1763 participants) comparing acupuncture to sham acupuncture, no treatment or usual care. We adjudicated most trials to be unclear (64%) or high (9%) risk of bias. Acupuncture use was associated with significant reductions in pain intensity (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.02, I2 0%, 10 trials, 1699 participants), functional mobility (standardized MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.14, I2 70%, 9 trials, 1543 participants), health-related quality of life (standardized MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.14, I2 50%, 3 trials, 958 participants). Subgroup analysis of pain intensity by intervention duration suggested greater pain intensity reduction with intervention periods greater than 4 weeks (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.06, I2 0%, 6 trials, 1239 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The use of acupuncture is associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, improvement in functional mobility and quality of life. While the differences are not as great as shown by other reviews, current evidence supports the use of acupuncture as an alternative for traditional analgesics in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42013005405.
| S-EPMC4158087 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Acupuncture may be effective for acute pancreatitis (AP). This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture as an adjuvant treatment for AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data and Chinese Science Journal Database from inception to 30 June 2019 to identify any eligible study. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. The selection of studies, data extraction and management will be completed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcomes include the overall response rate, mortality during the treatment, the proportion of patients with severe acute pancreatitis transferred to the intensive care unit or scheduled for surgery, gastrointestinal function and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II scores. The secondary outcomes include visual analogue scale, the use of analgesics, the recovery time of blood amylase becoming normal, tumour necrosis factor α counts, IL-6 counts, IL-10 counts, length of hospital stay and adverse events related to acupuncture (such as fainting, nausea, haematoma and local infection). Review Manager V.5.3 software will be used for statistical analyses. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study will not involve personal information. The ethical approval will not be required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018115099.
| S-EPMC6615812 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.
| S-EPMC8718672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
| S-EPMC9254726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Thread embedding acupuncture (TEA) is a special type of acupuncture that inserts certain medical threads (eg, catgut or polydioxanone) into subcutaneous tissue or muscles at specific points. Although TEA has been widely used for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain in Korea, China and Taiwan, evidence regarding its efficacy is lacking. The aim of this protocol is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TEA in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The following 16 databases will be searched from their inception to 14 May 2017: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, three Chinese database (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database and the Wanfang database) and eight Korean databases (Korean Medical Database, Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors, Korean Studies Information Service System, Korean National Assembly Digital Library, National Digital Science Library, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System, 'Database Periodical Information Academic and Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal'). The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will also be searched to retrieve the recently completed studies.All randomised controlled studies in which TEA was used on specific points for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain will be included and no restrictions on language will be applied. The risk of bias of each study will be evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous data and risk ratio for dichotomous data will be calculated with 95% CIs using a random effects model or a fixed effects model. Additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted according to a predefined protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical issues are predicted. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. These findings will summarise the current evidence of TEA for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain and may provide guidance for clinicians and patients to select TEA for musculoskeletal pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015019046.
| S-EPMC5829818 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to collect cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 25 July 2020. Studies related to comparing APD with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on PCD were included.OutcomesThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of organ dysfunction, infectious complications, hospitalisation expenses and length of hospital stay.ResultsFive cohort studies and three RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional 'step-up' method, pooled results suggested APD significantly decreased all-cause mortality during hospitalisation (cohort studies: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89 and p=0.02), length of hospital stay (cohort studies: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.10 and p=0.005; RCTs: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.26 and p<0.001) and hospitalisation expenses (cohort studies: SMD -2.49, 95% CI -4.46 to -0.51 and p<0.001; RCTs: SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.44 and p<0.001). There was no evidence to prove that APD was associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. However, the incidence of organ dysfunction between cohort studies and RCTs subgroup slightly differed (cohort studies: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28 and p=0.22; RCTs: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98 and p=0.04).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that early application of APD in patients with AP is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, expenses during hospitalisation and the length of stay compared with the 'step-up' strategy without significantly increasing the risk of infectious complications. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of included studies as well as a larger dependence on observational trials.Prospero registration numberCRD42020168537.
| S-EPMC8354272 | biostudies-literature
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