TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of auricular therapy for pain management
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Yeh, Chao Hsing
AU - Chiang, Yi Chien
AU - Hoffman, Samuel L.
AU - Liang, Zhan
AU - Klem, Mary Lou
AU - Tam, Wilson W.S.
AU - Chien, Lung Chang
AU - Suen, Lorna Kwai Ping
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Chao Hsing Yeh et al.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Objective. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of auricular therapy by including a sham therapy control group. Methods. Relevant, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified by searching medical related databases from, depending on journal, 1900 (at the earliest) to 1994 (at the latest) through May 2013. The outcome measure was a pain intensity score. Results. Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 13 RCTs were included for meta-analysis. In these studies, auricular therapy provided significant pain relief when compared to a sham or control group. The overall standardized mean differences (SMD) was 1.59 (95% CI [-2.36, -0.82]) (13 trials, total subject numbers = 806), indicating that, on average, the mean decrease in pain score for auricular therapy group was 1.59 standard deviations greater than the mean decrease for the sham control. In terms of the efficacy of the different treatment methods, auricular acupressure boasts the largest strength of evidence for pain relief, followed by auricular acupuncture. Electroacupuncture stimulation did not show significant evidence for efficacy, which may be due to the small sample size (i.e., only 19 subjects were included). Conclusion. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to determine the efficacy of auricular therapy for pain.
AB - Objective. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of auricular therapy by including a sham therapy control group. Methods. Relevant, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified by searching medical related databases from, depending on journal, 1900 (at the earliest) to 1994 (at the latest) through May 2013. The outcome measure was a pain intensity score. Results. Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 13 RCTs were included for meta-analysis. In these studies, auricular therapy provided significant pain relief when compared to a sham or control group. The overall standardized mean differences (SMD) was 1.59 (95% CI [-2.36, -0.82]) (13 trials, total subject numbers = 806), indicating that, on average, the mean decrease in pain score for auricular therapy group was 1.59 standard deviations greater than the mean decrease for the sham control. In terms of the efficacy of the different treatment methods, auricular acupressure boasts the largest strength of evidence for pain relief, followed by auricular acupuncture. Electroacupuncture stimulation did not show significant evidence for efficacy, which may be due to the small sample size (i.e., only 19 subjects were included). Conclusion. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to determine the efficacy of auricular therapy for pain.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923305733&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2014/934670
DO - 10.1155/2014/934670
M3 - 文献综述
AN - SCOPUS:84923305733
SN - 1741-427X
VL - 2014
JO - Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
JF - Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
M1 - 934670
ER -