Broad Syntheses that include this review

loading
2 articles (2 References) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Acupuncture for surgical conditions: an overview of systematic reviews.

blocked
Authors Lee MS , Ernst E
Journal International journal of clinical practice
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 10 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (10 references)

Loading references information
AIM: Several systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture for surgical conditions have recently been published with sometimes contradicting results. The aim of this overview was to summarise recent SRs of acupuncture for surgical conditions. METHOD: Thirteen electronic databases were searched for relevant reviews published since 2000. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: Twelve SRs met our inclusion criteria. They related to the prevention or treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting as well as to surgical or postoperative pain. Their results were far from uniform, and several caveats need to be considered. CONCLUSION: The evidence is insufficient to suggest that acupuncture is an effective intervention in surgical settings. More rigorous research seems warranted. This protocol was registered with PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42013004817).

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture published 1996-2005.

Authors Derry CJ , Derry S , McQuay HJ , Moore RA
Journal Clinical medicine (London, England)
Year 2006
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central Google Scholar

This article includes 33 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (33 references)

Loading references information
Systematic reviews of acupuncture have tended to support its use, but few applied rigorous inclusion criteria. We tested the credibility of conclusions of systematic reviews of acupuncture published since 1996 by applying rigorous inclusion criteria. Reinterpretation used randomised and double blind trials with valid outcomes or design, and with information available from at least four trials or from 200 patients. Qualified support for acupuncture was originally reported in 12 out of 35 systematic reviews, and strong support was found in another six. Applying stricter inclusion criteria, however, showed that none of the 35 reviews supported acupuncture, predominantly because there were too few patients in the randomised, double blind studies. Six reviews with more than 200 patients in randomised, double blind studies had good evidence of no benefit. Systematic reviews of acupuncture have overstated effectiveness by including studies likely to be biased. They provide no robust evidence that acupuncture works for any indication.