Différences
Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.
| Les deux révisions précédentes Révision précédente Prochaine révision | Révision précédente | ||
|
acupuncture:evaluation:oncologie:03. douleur en oncologie [28 May 2024 05:52] Nguyen Johan [1. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis] |
acupuncture:evaluation:oncologie:03. douleur en oncologie [28 Aug 2025 18:57] (Version actuelle) Nguyen Johan [1.1.1. Li 2025] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ligne 12: | Ligne 12: | ||
| ==== Generic Acupuncture ==== | ==== Generic Acupuncture ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Li 2025 === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Li Y, Li B, Cui Y, Yang X, Wang S, Wang X, Li M, Tu Y, Jing A, Zhou Y, Luo M. Acupuncture for chronic cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Integr Med. 2025;77:102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2025.102493 | ||
| + | ^Introduction|Pain is highly prevalent among cancer patients. Cancer pain is classified as chronic cancer pain (MG30.10) and chronic post-cancer treatment pain (MG30.11) in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). This research aims to ascertain the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in treating chronic cancer pain (MG30.10). | | ||
| + | ^Methods|Eight Chinese and English databases were systematically searched from their inception to December 31, 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy of acupuncture in combination with active treatments versus active treatment alone (identical to the treatment group), no treatment, or sham acupuncture for cancer pain management. The risk of bias was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2.0), and data analysis was conducted utilizing RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17.0. Additionally, the quality of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. | | ||
| + | ^Results|A total of** 21 RCTs** were included in the meta-analysis, involving **1432 patients**. The meta-analysis revealed that compared to the control group, the treatment group exhibited significantly reduced Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) scores (mean difference (MD) = -0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) [-1.21, -0.64], P<0.00001, low certainty), fewer burst pain events (MD = -2.13, 95 % CI [-2.86, -1.39], P < 0.00001, low certainty), reduced analgesic consumption (standard mean difference (SMD) =-0.60, 95 % CI [-0.84, -0.37], P<0.00001, moderate certainty), improved quality of life (MD =6.37, 95 % CI [3.21, 9.54], P<0.0001, low certainty), and diminished side effects of taking analgesics, with no serious adverse effects of acupuncture treatment. | | ||
| + | ^Conclusion|The integration of acupuncture with analgesic drugs has demonstrated considerable potential to significantly mitigate pain and ameliorate adverse effects of analgesics in patients with chronic cancer pain (MG30.11). However, further high-quality RCTs are required to elucidate the efficacy of acupuncture in cancer pain management and optimize treatment protocols. | | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Yan 2025 === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yan S, Yan F, Liangyu P, Fei X. Assessment of non-pharmacological nursing strategies for pain management in tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2025 Apr 15;6:1447075. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpain.2025.1447075 | ||
| + | ^Summary background|Cancer is a multifactorial disease associated with intense pain and fatigue. Pain is the main discomfort experienced during cancer treatment, particularly as a major side effect of chemotherapy.| | ||
| + | ^Objective| This study has aimed to investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological nursing strategies, including reflexology, aromatherapy, acupressure, massage therapy and acupuncture, in the management of cancer-associated pain. Moreover, it provides evidence-based recommendations for integrating these interventions into standard pain management protocols.| | ||
| + | ^Search methodology| We gathered data from three major online databases; PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase. For the analysis, we exclusively targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in managing cancer-related pain. No language restrictions were applied, and pain was considered the primary outcome measure.| | ||
| + | ^Results| Seventeen RCTs (n = 1,070) were included in this meta-analysis from 166 eligible studies. The pooled effect size demonstrated that all evaluated non-pharmacological nursing strategies, including aromatherapy, massage, reflexology, **acupressure and acupuncture** significantly reduced cancer-related pain compared to usual care (p < 0.001). Moreover, the reflexology and massage showed negligible heterogeneity among other interventions.| | ||
| + | ^Conclusion| This meta-analysis found the significant effectiveness of non-pharmacological nursing strategies, particularly reflexology and massage in reducing cancer-related pain. The findings support their integration into clinical practice, providing evidence-based recommendations for enhancing standard pain management protocols.| | ||
| === Faria 2024 === | === Faria 2024 === | ||
| Ligne 233: | Ligne 252: | ||
| === Lung Cancer === | === Lung Cancer === | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Jia 2024 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jia L, Wang K, Chen S. Acupuncture combined with opioid for treatment of lung cancer-related pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Oct 18;103(42):e40158. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000040158. | ||
| + | ^Backgound| Many individuals diagnosed with lung cancer suffer from tremendous pain, and it is crucial to implement more effective measures to assist these patients in alleviating their pain. The present study utilizes a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of acupuncture combined with opioids for treating lung cancer-related pain in patients.| | ||
| + | ^Methods| We have searched 8 electronic databases: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database, and SinoMed. We included all randomized controlled trials of acupuncture combined with opioids for lung cancer-related pain in adults. We observed the main outcome indicators, including pain relief rates, numeric rating scale scores, and adverse events. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, literature data extraction, and assessment of bias risk in the literature quality. Any disagreements were resolved through discussions between the 2 researchers or consultations with a third researcher. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the revised risk of bias assessment tool. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.| | ||
| + | ^Results| We retrieved **812 lung cancer patients from 11 trials**. The study showed that compared to opioids alone, the combination of acupuncture and opioids significantly reduced numeric rating scale scores, increased pain relief rates, and decreased the occurrence of side effects.| | ||
| + | ^Conclusion| The current evidence indicates that combining acupuncture with opioid analgesics is superior to using opioid analgesics alone for managing lung cancer-related pain. Additionally, this combination therapy has fewer adverse reactions.| | ||
| == Bian 2020 == | == Bian 2020 == | ||
| Ligne 274: | Ligne 301: | ||
| + | == Xie 2025 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Xie T, Liu C, Wu Y, Li X, Yang Q, Tan J. Efficacy and Safety of Different Acupuncture Treatments for Cancer-Related Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Integr Cancer Ther. 2025 Jan-Dec;24:15347354251314500. https://doi.org/10.1177/15347354251314500 | ||
| + | ^Backgound| Cancer pain is a prevalent and persistent issue, and while there have been some observations of the possible benefits of acupuncture in managing cancer pain, there is still debate regarding its safety and effectiveness. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different acupuncture modalities in the treatment of cancer pain through a network meta-analysis.| | ||
| + | ^Methods| Between the time each database was created and June 3, 2024, eight databases were queried: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and China Biomedicine. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of various acupuncture and moxibustion techniques in the treatment of cancer pain were identified. Publication bias and quality of randomized controlled trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Jadad scale, and network meta-analyses were performed using Stata 15 and R 4.3.2.| | ||
| + | ^Results| We incorporated **111 studies encompassing 9549 individuals** diagnosed with cancer, examining 29 distinct therapies. Network meta-analysis showed that, compared to Usual Medicine, Acupuncture + Usual Medicine + Traditional Chinese medicine (MD = -1.83, 95% CI: -2.86 to -0.80) could reduce NRS scores, Acupuncture + Traditional Chinese medicine (OR = 30.86, 95% CI: 3.75-254.20) could improve cancer pain relief, Moxibustion + Usual Medicine (MD = 2.12, 95% CI: 0.43-3.80) could effectively improve KPS score, Acupuncture + Application of Chinese medicine (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.66) is associated with a lower incidence of constipation, Electro-Acupuncture + Usual Medicine (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03-0.45) shows a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, Acupuncture + Moxibustion + Usual Medicine (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09-0.90) is associated with a lower incidence of dizziness.| | ||
| + | ^Conclusion| Acupuncture + Traditional Chinese medicine is the best intervention for different acupuncture methods in the treatment of cancer pain, and Moxibustion + Usual Medicine is the best intervention to improve the quality of life of patients.| | ||
| == Jin 2024 == | == Jin 2024 == | ||
