The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yulan Yang, Jian Wen, Jianyun Hong
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2020-01-01
Series:Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1618767
id doaj-e34285b519bc4b3793f384724e9f6ca0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e34285b519bc4b3793f384724e9f6ca02020-11-25T03:27:00ZengHindawi LimitedEvidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine1741-427X1741-42882020-01-01202010.1155/2020/16187671618767The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisYulan Yang0Jian Wen1Jianyun Hong2Department of Acupuncture, Maoming People’s Hospital, Maoming, Guangdong, ChinaDepartment of Oncology, Maoming People’s Hospital, Maoming, Guangdong, ChinaDepartment of Acupuncture, Maoming People’s Hospital, Maoming, Guangdong, ChinaObjective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD = -1.45; 95% CI -2.80, -0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1618767
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yulan Yang
Jian Wen
Jianyun Hong
spellingShingle Yulan Yang
Jian Wen
Jianyun Hong
The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
author_facet Yulan Yang
Jian Wen
Jianyun Hong
author_sort Yulan Yang
title The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed The Effects of Auricular Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort effects of auricular therapy for cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
issn 1741-427X
1741-4288
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD = -1.45; 95% CI -2.80, -0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1618767
work_keys_str_mv AT yulanyang theeffectsofauriculartherapyforcancerpainasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jianwen theeffectsofauriculartherapyforcancerpainasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jianyunhong theeffectsofauriculartherapyforcancerpainasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yulanyang effectsofauriculartherapyforcancerpainasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jianwen effectsofauriculartherapyforcancerpainasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jianyunhong effectsofauriculartherapyforcancerpainasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1715211698670927872