Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis

Objective. To explore the status of electroacupuncture (EA) among other treatments for peripheral facial paralysis (PFP). Methods. Randomized controlled trials comparing EA with other treatments that met the eligibility criteria published in databases were included. The differences were observed and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wei-Hua Wang, Ruo-Wen Jiang, Na-Chuan Liu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2020-01-01
Series:Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/5419407
id doaj-61b6152470c74009aeaf241ae44d568f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-61b6152470c74009aeaf241ae44d568f2020-11-25T02:10:46ZengHindawi LimitedEvidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine1741-427X1741-42882020-01-01202010.1155/2020/54194075419407Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-AnalysisWei-Hua Wang0Ruo-Wen Jiang1Na-Chuan Liu2Second Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, ChinaHeilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150040, ChinaHeilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150040, ChinaObjective. To explore the status of electroacupuncture (EA) among other treatments for peripheral facial paralysis (PFP). Methods. Randomized controlled trials comparing EA with other treatments that met the eligibility criteria published in databases were included. The differences were observed and quantified through the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. Then, their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were recorded. Results. Twenty-three studies involving 1985 participants were included. META-analysis results showed that EA was better than manual acupuncture for PFP (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22, for responding rate; SMD: 2.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.37, for facial nerve function) and current promoted recovery (RR: 1.21, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.27, for responding rate; SMD: 2.87, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.58, for facial nerve function). When combined with other treatments, EA improved their effectiveness (RR: 1.19, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.28, responding rate; SMD: 1.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.03, facial nerve function). Conclusion. Patients with PFP received EA (used separately or combined with other treatments) resulting in a better prognosis. However, the quality of evidence was very low-to-moderate. Considering the poor quality of evidence, we are not very confident in the results. We look forward to more research and update results in the future and improve the evidence quality.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/5419407
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Wei-Hua Wang
Ruo-Wen Jiang
Na-Chuan Liu
spellingShingle Wei-Hua Wang
Ruo-Wen Jiang
Na-Chuan Liu
Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
author_facet Wei-Hua Wang
Ruo-Wen Jiang
Na-Chuan Liu
author_sort Wei-Hua Wang
title Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Electroacupuncture Is Effective for Peripheral Facial Paralysis: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort electroacupuncture is effective for peripheral facial paralysis: a meta-analysis
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
issn 1741-427X
1741-4288
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Objective. To explore the status of electroacupuncture (EA) among other treatments for peripheral facial paralysis (PFP). Methods. Randomized controlled trials comparing EA with other treatments that met the eligibility criteria published in databases were included. The differences were observed and quantified through the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. Then, their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were recorded. Results. Twenty-three studies involving 1985 participants were included. META-analysis results showed that EA was better than manual acupuncture for PFP (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22, for responding rate; SMD: 2.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.37, for facial nerve function) and current promoted recovery (RR: 1.21, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.27, for responding rate; SMD: 2.87, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.58, for facial nerve function). When combined with other treatments, EA improved their effectiveness (RR: 1.19, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.28, responding rate; SMD: 1.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.03, facial nerve function). Conclusion. Patients with PFP received EA (used separately or combined with other treatments) resulting in a better prognosis. However, the quality of evidence was very low-to-moderate. Considering the poor quality of evidence, we are not very confident in the results. We look forward to more research and update results in the future and improve the evidence quality.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/5419407
work_keys_str_mv AT weihuawang electroacupunctureiseffectiveforperipheralfacialparalysisametaanalysis
AT ruowenjiang electroacupunctureiseffectiveforperipheralfacialparalysisametaanalysis
AT nachuanliu electroacupunctureiseffectiveforperipheralfacialparalysisametaanalysis
_version_ 1715553452923289600