背景:对于寻找有效的瘢痕治疗方法一直存在兴趣。干针在物理治疗中越来越受欢迎,被西医定义为一种针灸。术语针灸和干针刺可互换使用,因此我们专注于干针刺或针刺在疤痕治疗中的功效。
目的:本系统评价的目的是确定干刺或局部针刺治疗瘢痕的有效性。在我们的搜索过程中,我们用了“针灸”这个词,\'\'针刺,\'或\'干针刺\'以识别所有相关的科学论文。我们专注于通过干针或针灸对不同类型的疤痕进行局部管理的实践方面。
方法:搜索策略包括以下关键字的不同组合:\'疤痕\',\'瘢痕疙瘩\',\'干针刺\',\'针刺\',\'针灸\',\'治疗\',\'物理治疗\'。本系统审查是根据PRISMA指南进行的。MEDLINE(PubMed,EBSCOHost和Ovid),EMBASE(Elsevier),从成立到2023年10月,搜索了WebofScience数据库的相关出版物。
方法:研究干刺或针刺治疗瘢痕的有效性。
方法:主要的提取数据项是:针刺技术;针:直径,长度;针刺位置;手动针刺操作;会话次数;设置;结果和结果。
结果:经过全面搜索,系统审查包括11份手稿,其中八个是病例报告,两项是随机试验,一项研究涉及病例系列.两个病例报告在JBI检查表上8分中得2-4分,5项研究得5-7分,1项研究得8分.两项临床试验的方法学质量在PEDro量表上被评为良好或一般。案例系列研究在JBI检查表上获得了10分中的7分。荟萃分析是不可能的,因为只有两个随机试验,8例病例报告,一个案例系列有资格审查;此外,瘢痕评估量表和疼痛严重程度量表高度异质性.
结论:关于干针刺或局部针刺治疗瘢痕的研究有所不同。差异包括治疗频率,持续时间,治疗次数,针插入位置的选择,使用的针头数量,针的放置角度,并使用手动针刺操作。
背景:插入号202310058。
BACKGROUND: There is a continuing interest in finding effective methods for scar treatment. Dry needling is gaining popularity in physiotherapy and is defined by Western medicine as a type of acupuncture. The terms acupuncture and dry needling have been used interchangeably so we have focused on the efficacy of dry needling or acupuncture in scar treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the usefulness of dry needling or local acupuncture for scar treatment. In our search process, we used the terms \'acupuncture,\' \'needling,\' or \'dry needling\' to identify all relevant scientific papers. We have focused on the practical aspects of local management of different scar types with dry needling or acupuncture.
METHODS: The search strategy included different combinations of the following keywords: \'scar\', \'keloid\', \'dry needling\', \'needling\', \'acupuncture\', \'treatment\', \'physical therapy\'. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed, EBSCOHost and Ovid), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant publications from inception through October 2023.
METHODS: The studies that investigated the effectiveness of dry needling or acupuncture for scar treatment were included.
METHODS: The main extraction data items were: the needling technique; needle: diameter, length; needling locations; manual needling manipulation; number of sessions; settings; outcomes and results.
RESULTS: As a result of a comprehensive search, 11 manuscripts were included in the systematic review, of which eight were case reports, two were randomized trials and one study concerned case series. Two case reports scored 2-4 out of 8 points on the JBI checklist, five studies scored 5-7, and one study scored 8 points. The methodological quality of the two clinical trials was rated as good or fair on the PEDro scale. The case series study scored 7 of 10 points on the JBI checklist. A meta-analysis was not possible as only two randomized trials, eight case reports, and one case series were eligible for review; also, scar assessment scales and pain severity scales were highly heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS: The studies differed regarding the delivery of dry needling or local acupuncture for scar treatment. Differences included treatment frequency, duration, number of treatments, selection of needle insertion sites, number of needles used, angle of needle placement, and use of manual needling manipulation.
BACKGROUND: INPLASY no. 202310058.