Acupuncture for treatment of anxiety, an overview of systematic reviews

• Published in: Complementary therapies in medicine 2019-04, Vol.43, p.247-252
• Main Authors: Li, Meixuan, Xing, Xin, Yao, Liang, Li, Xiuxia, He, Wenbo, Wang, Meng, Li, Huijuan, Wang, Xiaoqin, Xun, Yangqin, Yan, Peijing, Lu, Zhenxing, zhou, Biao, Yang, Xinmin, Yang, Kehu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acupressure; Acupuncture; Anxiety; Clinical trials; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Drug therapy; Evaluation; Evidence-based medicine; Intervention; Literature reviews; Overview; Quality; Quality assessment; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0965-2299; 1873-6963
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2019.02.013

•We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and summarize evidence of important outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta analyses (MAs) of acupuncture for anxiety.•We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs in six databases, AMSTAR-2 was used to assess the methodological quality of the reviews, and GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence.•Although most of the included reviews indicated that acupuncture group was more effective than control group in the treatment of anxiety, the methodological quality of the included reviews and the quality of evidence were low. To evaluate the methodological quality and summarize evidence of important outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta analyses (MAs) of acupuncture for anxiety. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) until November 30, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of evidence. In the pre-experiment, we used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement, the ICC value for overall score was 0.978. Ten reviews were included. The assessment results of AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included studies was critically low. The lowest score were item “provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions” and item “report sources of funding for the included studies”, none of studies provided information about the above two items, followed by the “providing a priori design” item with only two (20%) studies conforming to this item. For GRADE, of the 7 outcomes, high quality evidence was provided in only 1 (14.3%), moderate in 2 (28.6.7%), and low in 4 (57.1%). Although most of the included reviews indicated that acupuncture group was more effective than control group in the treatment of anxiety, more importantly, the methodological quality of the included reviews and the quality of evidence were low. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.