REVIEWING AND META-ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACUPUNCTURE THERAPY FOR FUNCTIONAL DYSPEPSIA
Keywords:
Acupuncture therapy; Functional Dyspepsia; Clinical efficacy; Systematic evaluationAbstract
Background: Functional Dyspepsia (FD) is an upper abdominal condition characterized by upper abdominal discomfort, including vague pain, loss of appetite, nausea, early satiety, bloating, regurgitation, heartburn, and other digestive symptoms. Several factors may be involved in the etiology and pathogenesis of functional dyspepsia. Aim: A literature review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of acupuncture therapy on FD. Methods: The literature of randomized controlled clinical studies on the efficacy of acupuncture therapy on Functional Dyspepsia was searched by computer in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane databases, and the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that met the requirements were selected and used RevMan5.4 software for Meta-analysis. Results: The overall response rate was higher in the experimental group than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant [MD=0.71; 95% CI (-0.08 to -1.50) P<0.05]. The cure rate was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. However, the difference was not statistically significant [MD=0.52; 95% CI (-0.85,1.89) P=0.46]. The experimental group had lower symptom scores, but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant [MD=-0.09;95% CI (-1.71,1.53) P=0.91]. NDI quality of life scores improved more in the experimental group, but the difference was not statistically significant [MD=0.16, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.14), P=0.76]. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the experimental group, but the difference was statistically significant [MD=-0.44,95%CI (-0.79,0.10), P=0.01<0.05]. Conclusions: The overall efficacy, cure rate, symptom score, and NDI quality of life score of acupuncture treatment for functional dyspepsia were more pronounced than those of the control group, and its clinical efficacy is still lacking sufficient basis, so further in-depth study is needed.