International immunopharmacology · 2024
Efficacy and safety of moxibustion as a complementary and alternative therapy for asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deng Guihua, Feng Xianjie, Zhang Haifeng, Li Linhui, Cao Qianan, Fu Yong, Zhou Xu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moxibustion as a complementary or alternative treatment for asthma.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched up to June 23, 2024, to identify RCTs assessing moxibustion for bronchial asthma. The outcomes of interest included response to treatment, asthma control, quality of life, lung function, immunological indicators, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The treatment effects were measured by proportional odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven RCTs (n = 2,879) were included. Moderate- to very low-quality evidence showed that compared with anti-asthmatic drugs alone, moxibustion plus anti-asthmatic drugs led to a significantly better response and greater increases in lung function, asthma control, and IgE levels. However, the combination therapy had no effect on children's quality of life. In the active comparisons, moxibustion resulted in a superior response to treatment and a greater improvement in asthma control and had comparable effects on lung function, quality of life, and IgE levels compared with anti-asthmatic drugs. The effects of moxibustion on the proportions of CD4 + and CD8 + T cells and the eosinophil count were inconsistent between the add-on and active comparisons. All reported AEs related to moxibustion were mild.
CONCLUSIONS: Moxibustion, as an adjunctive treatment or used alone, may improve the response to treatment, lung function, asthma control, and IgE levels in patients with asthma with good safety. Its effects on children's quality of life and immune cell levels remain uncertain.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched up to June 23, 2024, to identify RCTs assessing moxibustion for bronchial asthma. The outcomes of interest included response to treatment, asthma control, quality of life, lung function, immunological indicators, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The treatment effects were measured by proportional odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven RCTs (n = 2,879) were included. Moderate- to very low-quality evidence showed that compared with anti-asthmatic drugs alone, moxibustion plus anti-asthmatic drugs led to a significantly better response and greater increases in lung function, asthma control, and IgE levels. However, the combination therapy had no effect on children's quality of life. In the active comparisons, moxibustion resulted in a superior response to treatment and a greater improvement in asthma control and had comparable effects on lung function, quality of life, and IgE levels compared with anti-asthmatic drugs. The effects of moxibustion on the proportions of CD4 + and CD8 + T cells and the eosinophil count were inconsistent between the add-on and active comparisons. All reported AEs related to moxibustion were mild.
CONCLUSIONS: Moxibustion, as an adjunctive treatment or used alone, may improve the response to treatment, lung function, asthma control, and IgE levels in patients with asthma with good safety. Its effects on children's quality of life and immune cell levels remain uncertain.