72
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Effectiveness of Moxibustion: An Overview During 10 Years

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Moxibustion has been used to treat various types of disease. However, there is still insufficient evidence regarding its effectiveness. This study was performed to summarize and evaluate the effectiveness of moxibustion. A search was performed for all randomized controlled trials in PubMed between January 1998 and July 2008 with no language restriction. The results yielded 47 trials in which six moxibustion types were applied to 36 diseases ranging from breech presentation to digestive disorders. Moxibustion was compared to three types of control group: general care, Oriental medical therapies or waiting list. Moxibustion was superior to the control in 14 out of 54 control groups in 46 studies. There were no significant differences among groups in 7 studies, and the outcome direction was not determined in 33 studies. Seven studies were included in a meta-analysis. Moxibustion was more effective than medication in two ulcerative colitis studies (relative risk (95% CI), 2.20 (1.37, 3.52), P = .001, I 2 = 0%). Overall, our results did not support the effectiveness of moxibustion in specific diseases due to the limited number and low quality of the studies and inadequate use of controls. In order to provide appropriate evidence regarding the effectiveness of moxibustion, more rigorous clinical trials using appropriate controls are warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Minimal acupuncture is not a valid placebo control in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture: a physiologist's perspective

          Placebo-control of acupuncture is used to evaluate and distinguish between the specific effects and the non-specific ones. During 'true' acupuncture treatment in general, the needles are inserted into acupoints and stimulated until deqi is evoked. In contrast, during placebo acupuncture, the needles are inserted into non-acupoints and/or superficially (so-called minimal acupuncture). A sham acupuncture needle with a blunt tip may be used in placebo acupuncture. Both minimal acupuncture and the placebo acupuncture with the sham acupuncture needle touching the skin would evoke activity in cutaneous afferent nerves. This afferent nerve activity has pronounced effects on the functional connectivity in the brain resulting in a 'limbic touch response'. Clinical studies showed that both acupuncture and minimal acupuncture procedures induced significant alleviation of migraine and that both procedures were equally effective. In other conditions such as low back pain and knee osteoarthritis, acupuncture was found to be more potent than minimal acupuncture and conventional non-acupuncture treatment. It is probable that the responses to 'true' acupuncture and minimal acupuncture are dependent on the aetiology of the pain. Furthermore, patients and healthy individuals may have different responses. In this paper, we argue that minimal acupuncture is not valid as an inert placebo-control despite its conceptual brilliance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Standards for reporting interventions in controlled trials of acupuncture: the STRICTA recommendations.

            Acupuncture treatment and control group interventions in parallel-group randomised trials of acupuncture are not always precisely reported. In an attempt to improve standards, an international group of experienced acupuncturists and researchers devised a set of recommendations, designating them STRICTA: STandards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture. In a further consensus-building round, the editors of several journals helped redraft the recommendations. These follow the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) format, acting as an extension of the CONSORT guidelines for the specific requirements of acupuncture studies. Participating journals are publishing the STRICTA recommendations and requesting prospective authors to adhere to them when preparing reports for publication. Other journals are invited to adopt these recommendations. The intended outcome is that interventions in controlled trials of acupuncture will be more adequately reported, thereby facilitating an improvement in critical appraisal, analysis and replication of trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?

              It is widely accepted that meta-analysts should search multiple databases. The selection of databases is ideally based on the potential contribution of each database to the project or on the potential for bias if a database is excluded, as supported by research evidence. We explore whether searching Embase yields additional trials that influence a meta-analysis. We identified meta-analyses that searched Medline and Embase. A random-effects weighted mean method was used to estimate the intervention effect in articles indexed only in Embase compared with those indexed elsewhere. On average, Embase-unique trials yielded significantly smaller estimates by 29% (ratio of odds ratio [ROR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.90) but influenced the pooled estimate by an average of only 6% (ROR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Searching Medline but not Embase risks biasing a meta-analysis by finding studies that show larger estimates, but their prevalence seems low enough that the risk may be slight, provided the rest of the search is comprehensive.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                ECAM
                Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1741-427X
                1741-4288
                2011
                23 June 2011
                23 June 2011
                : 2011
                : 306515
                Affiliations
                1Department of Meridian and Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegidong, Dongdaemungu, Seoul, 130-701, Republic of Korea
                2Acupuncture and Meridian Science Research Center (AMSRC), Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegidong, Dongdaemungu, Seoul, 130-701, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Article
                nep163
                10.1093/ecam/nep163
                3136359
                19825873
                fb36ec4e-cc72-4101-ac7a-8dca7ffe6d04
                Copyright © 2011 Song-Yi Kim et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 May 2009
                : 30 August 2009
                Categories
                Review Article

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Complementary & Alternative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article