文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：针灸治疗干眼症随机对照临床研究文献的Meta分析

英文题名：Meta-analysis on acupuncture for dry eyes based on the clinical literatures:a randomized controlled trial

作者：盛雪燕[1];严兴科[1];邢家铭[1];韩雅迪[1]

第一作者：盛雪燕

机构：[1]甘肃中医学院针灸推拿学院,甘肃兰州730000

第一机构：甘肃中医药大学针灸推拿学院

年份：2015

卷号：32

期号：1

起止页码：56

中文期刊名：甘肃中医学院学报

外文期刊名：Journal of Gansu College of Traditional Chinese Medicine

基金：国家中医药管理局甘肃郑氏针法学术流派传承工作室建设项目(2305135901)

语种：中文

中文关键词：针灸;干眼症;随机对照;Meta分析

外文关键词：acupuncture ; dry eyes ; randomized controlled ; meta-analysis

摘要：目的评价针灸治疗干眼症的有效性和安全性,分析临床研究的现状。方法检索万方全文数据库、维普数据库、中国期刊网全文数据库(CNKI)、美国医学文摘数据库(Pub Med)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)中关于针刺治疗干眼症的临床文献,纳入针灸治疗干眼症与药物治疗比较的随机对照试验(RCT)和临床对照试验(CCT),按照循证医学系统评价的方法,逐一评价纳入研究的质量,并根据改良后牛津评分系统(Jadad评分)量表对纳入文献进行评分,提取有效数据,采用Rev Man 5.2统计软件进行Meta分析。结果8篇文献符合纳入标准,共计553例患者。Meta分析显示针灸治疗干眼症与临床药物治疗总有效率比较,差异有统计意义(P<0.05)。结论针灸治疗干眼症的总有效率优于药物疗法,且无明显不良反应。但鉴于缺乏高质量的随机对照研究支持,且有文献发表偏倚的存在,尚需要更多设计良好的临床随机对照试验来进一步证实其效果。
Objective To assess the evidence of efficacy and safety of acupuncture for dry eyes and analyze the current situation of its clinical setting. Methods The clinical literatures about acupuncture treatment for dry eyes in Wanfang, Chongqing Weipu Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals （VIP）, China National Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI）, Pubmed and CBM clinical literature were searched systemically. Randomized controlled trials （RCT） and controlled clinical trials （CCT） that compared the effect of acupuncture for dry eyes with drug treatment were enrolled into the study. The methodological quality of included trials were assessed based on the modified Jadad scale. Valid data were facilitated by using RevMan 5.2. Results 8 trials involving 553 partici- pants satisfied the minimum criteria for meta-analysis. The evidence showed that the overall effective rate of treat- ment within the group receiving acupuncture was higher than that in drug group, there were statistically significant differences （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The overall effective rate of acupuncture for dry eyes is significantly superior to drug treatment, and has no obvious adverse reactions. But given the lack of high quality randomized controlled re- search, and the existence of literature publication bias, it needs more well-designed, randomized controlled clinical trials to confirm the effect.