Acupuncture to Promote Recovery of Disorder of Consciousness after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Main Authors: Li Tan, Liling Zeng, Ning Wang, Meijun Deng, Yinshi Chen, Tianyi Ma, Luhan Zhang, Zhenhua Xu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hindawi Limited 2019-01-01
• Series: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/5190515
• ISSN: 1741-427X; 1741-4288

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has become an economic and social burden for patients and their families. While acupuncture is an effective tool for promoting recovery of disorder of consciousness (DOC) following TBI, there have been no comprehensive meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews addressing this topic. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of acupuncture for DOC after TBI. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) incorporating acupuncture, or acupuncture combined with other interventions for DOC after TBI, were included and assessed by two independent investigators. Six outcome indicators were assessed: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS); Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS); mortality; efficacy rate; activities of daily living (ADL); and functional comprehensive assessment. Direct comparisons were performed using RevMan 5.3.0 software, with results presented as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and relative risk (RR) for binary outcomes. A total of 3511 patients from 49 trials were included. Pooled analyses indicated that acupuncture may have a superior effect on GCS score (MD=2.03, 95% CI :1.92 2.43, Z=16.54, and P<0.00001); GOS score (RR=1.23, 95%CI: 1.18 1.35, Z=6.65, and P<0.00001); efficacy rate (RR=1.48, 95%CI: 1.40 1.56, Z=13.49, and P<0.00001); ADL (MD=9.20, 95% CI:8.19 10.21, Z=17.84, and P<0.00001); and mortality (RR=0.50, 95% CI:0.38 0.67, Z=4.70, and P<0.00001). The results demonstrated that the acupuncture group fared better than the control group in the treatment of DOC after TBI. However, studies were generally of poor quality, and publication bias favoring positive studies was obvious. Therefore, rigorous evaluation standards and well-designed studies are necessary in future studies.