Acupuncture and moxibustion for chronic fatigue syndrome in traditional Chinese medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
As the etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is unclear and the treatment is still a big issue. There exists a wide range of literature about acupuncture and moxibustion (AM) for CFS in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). But there are certain doubts as well in the effectiveness of its treatment due to the lack of a comprehensive and evidence-based medical proof to dispel the misgivings. Current study evaluated systematically the effectiveness of acupuncture and moxibustion treatments on CFS, and clarified the difference among them and Chinese herbal medicine, western medicine and sham-acupuncture.


METHODS
We comprehensively reviewed literature including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CBM (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) up to May 2016, for RCT clinical research on CFS treated by acupuncture and moxibustion. Traditional direct meta-analysis was adopted to analyze the difference between AM and other treatments. Analysis was performed based on the treatment in experiment and control groups. Network meta-analysis was adopted to make comprehensive comparisons between any two kinds of treatments. The primary outcome was total effective rate, while relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as the final pooled statistics.


RESULTS
A total of 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were enrolled in analyses. In traditional direct meta-analysis, we found that in comparison to Chinese herbal medicine, CbAM (combined acupuncture and moxibustion, which meant two or more types of acupuncture and moxibustion were adopted) had a higher total effective rate (RR (95% CI), 1.17 (1.09 ~ 1.25)). Compared with Chinese herbal medicine, western medicine and sham-acupuncture, SAM (single acupuncture or single moxibustion) had a higher total effective rate, with RR (95% CI) of 1.22 (1.14 ~ 1.30), 1.51 (1.31-1.74), 5.90 (3.64-9.56). In addition, compared with SAM, CbAM had a higher total effective rate (RR (95% CI), 1.23 (1.12 ~ 1.36)). In network meta-analyses, similar results were recorded. Subsequently, we ranked all treatments from high to low effective rate and the order was CbAM, SAM, Chinese herbal medicine, western medicine and sham-acupuncture.


CONCLUSIONS
In the treatment of CFS, CbAM and SAM may have better effect than other treatments. However, the included trials have relatively poor quality, hence high quality studies are needed to confirm our finding.
Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military Medical University, Gaotanyan Road 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Taiwu
T
Wang
Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military Medical University, Gaotanyan Road 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Cong
C
Xu
Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military Medical University, Gaotanyan Road 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Keli
K
Pan
Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military Medical University, Gaotanyan Road 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China. hongyanxiong@126.com.
Hongyan
H
Xiong
D015670:Acupuncture Therapy; D004365:Drugs, Chinese Herbal / Q000627:therapeutic use; D015673:Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008516:Medicine, Chinese Traditional; D009071:Moxibustion; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D004365:Drugs, Chinese Herbal
Acupoint; Acupuncture and moxibustion; Chronic fatigue syndrome; Network meta-analysis; Traditional meta-analysis