文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：针药结合治疗缺血性中风随机对照临床研究文献的Meta分析

英文题名：A Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture plus medicine for ischemic stroke

作者：田亮[1];王金海[2];孙润洁[1];张星华[1];袁博[1];杜小正[1]

第一作者：田亮

机构：[1]甘肃中医药大学,甘肃兰州730000;[2]兰州大学第二医院,甘肃兰州730000

第一机构：甘肃中医药大学

年份：2015

卷号：7

期号：34

起止页码：4

中文期刊名：中医临床研究

外文期刊名：Clinical Journal Of Chinese Medicine

基金：甘肃省普通中医药科研立项资助项目(GZKLP-2011-3);甘肃中医学院引进人才科研启动基金项目(2012-11)

语种：中文

中文关键词：针药结合;针灸;缺血性中风;随机对照试验;Meta分析

外文关键词：Acupuncture plus medicine; Acupuncture; Ischemic stroke; Randomized controlled trials; A Meta-analysis;

摘要：目的:评价针药结合治疗缺血性中风的有效性。方法:计算机检索2004年1月-2014年12月CNKI、VIP、Pub Med、万方数据库关于针药结合治疗缺血性中风的随机对照试验(RCT),由两名研究人员根据纳入及排除标准,独立筛选文献、提取资料、质量评价后,采用Rev Man5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果:16篇文献符合纳入标准,共1797例患者。Meta分析结果显示,针药结合组与药物对照组总有效率相比,差异有统计学意义[OR=4.29,95%CI(3.13,5.89),Z=9.01,P<0.00001]。针药结合组和药物对照组治疗缺血性中风后症状积分相比,差异有统计学意义[WMD=-3.46,95%CI(-4.11,-2.82),Z=10.49,P<0.00001]。结论:针药结合对缺血性中风疗效明显优于药物治疗,症状改善程度也明显优于药物治疗。但由于纳入的文献研究质量较低、数目较少,随机、盲法以及随访等方面存在不同程度的欠缺,且文献发表存在偏倚性,其疗效及质量评价仍需开展多中心、大样本、高质量的随机对照试验来验证。
Objective： To assess efficacy of acupuncture plus medicine on ischemic stroke. Methods： By searching CNKI, VIP, Pub Med and other databases, a randomized controlled trial on acupuncture plus medicine for ischemic stroke from January 2004 to December 2014 was operated. Based on criteria of inclusion and exclusion, two researchers screened literature, extracted data, assessed quality independently and analyzed results by Rev Man5.2 Meta-analysis software. Results： 16 documents and 1797 patients were selected in this study. The Meta-analysis showed that efficacy of the acupuncture plus medicine on ischemic stroke had a significant difference [OR=4.29, 95%CI（3.13,5.89）, Z=9.01, P〈0.00001]; The difference of symptom scores between the acupuncture plus medicine group and the control group was statistically significant [WMD=-3.46, 95%CI（-4.11,-2.82）, Z=10.49, P〈0.00001]. Conclusion： Improvement and efficacy of acupuncture plus medicine on ischemic stroke in the acupuncture plus medicine group was obviously better. Because of low quality, low numbers and shortcomings of random and follow-up, efficacy and quality assessment still needed to be verified by randomized controlled trials of multi-center, large sample and high-quality.