背景:复发性口疮性口炎(RAS)在临床实践中很常见,会给患者带来生理和心理上的困扰。
目的:本研究旨在评估火针疗法治疗RAS的临床疗效,为临床决策提供依据。
方法:八个数据库,中文和英文,从成立之初到2022年12月都进行了搜索。所有使用火针疗法的随机对照试验(RCT),单独或与其他RAS治疗相结合,被考虑。由2名作者独立进行数据评估和提取。
结果:采用修订的Cochrane偏差风险第2版工具评估纳入随机对照试验的偏差风险。使用ReviewManager5.4和Stata15.0进行荟萃分析。选择了9个RCTs,包括1469名患者。荟萃分析显示,与非火针对照组(主要利用维生素和转移因子治疗)相比,火针治疗RAS显著提高了总有效率(相对风险=1.25,95%置信区间[CI][1.14,1.36],P<.00001),视觉模拟评分降低(平均差=-1.68,95%CI[-1.82,-1.53],P<.0001),中医症状评分降低(标准化平均差=-1.20,95%CI[-1.76,-0.65],P<.0001),并缩短愈合时间(平均差=-1.66,95%CI[-2.73,-0.59],P=.002)。值得注意的是,两组之间的复发率没有显着差异(相对风险=-0.18,95%CI[-0.36,0.01],P=.06)。根据实验组干预等变量对总有效率进行进一步的亚组分析,对照组干预,和治疗持续时间,以探索异质性的潜在来源。
结论:火针疗法似乎是RAS的临床有效治疗方法,提供缓解疼痛等好处,基于中医参数的症状改善,更快的恢复。尽管如此,现有RCT的整体质量令人担忧。未来的研究,涉及高质量的RCT,对于证实这种治疗的临床疗效和安全性至关重要。注册号:PROSPERO(CRD42023387973)。
BACKGROUND: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is common in clinical practice and imposes both physical and psychological distress on patients.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of fire needle therapy for the treatment of RAS, providing a basis for clinical decision-making.
METHODS: Eight databases, in both Chinese and English, were searched from their inception until December 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that utilized fire needle therapy, either alone or combined with other treatments for RAS, were considered. Data evaluation and extraction were conducted independently by 2 authors.
RESULTS: The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Version 2 tool was employed to assess the risk of bias in the included RCTs. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.0. Nine RCTs involving 1469 patients were selected for inclusion. The meta-analysis revealed that, compared to a non-fire-needle control group (primarily utilizing vitamin and transfer factor treatments), fire needle therapy for RAS significantly improved the total effective rate (relative risk = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.14, 1.36], P < .00001), reduced the visual analogue scale score (mean difference = -1.68, 95% CI [-1.82, -1.53], P < .0001), diminished the Traditional Chinese Medicine symptom score (standardized mean difference = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.76, -0.65], P < .0001), and shortened the healing time (mean difference = -1.66, 95% CI [-2.73, -0.59], P = .002). Notably, there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the groups (relative risk = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.01], P = .06). Further subgroup analysis on total efficacy rate was performed based on variables such as experimental group intervention, control group intervention, and duration of therapy to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Fire needle therapy appears to be a clinically effective treatment for RAS, offering benefits such as pain alleviation, symptom improvement based on the Traditional Chinese Medicine parameters, and faster recovery. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the RCTs available raises concerns. Future research, involving high-quality RCTs, is essential to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of this treatment. Registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42023387973).