| ObjectivesTo assess the quality of reporting of acupuncture therapy on cancer pain in RCT and to evaluate efficacy and safety of acupuncture for relief of cancer-related pain.MethodsAccording to the CONSORT statement and Jadad score scale, methods of randomization, assessment of sample content, comparability of baseline, methods of blinding, therapeutic methods, statistical methods, following-up, drop-out, etc. in clinical studies were evaluated. According to Conchrane standards, Meta analysis would be used for evaluating the research which had high Jadad score, or qualitative analysis would be used for some researches which had large difference between each other.Result27 RCT were identified meeting the cirteria. Frequency was found to increase over time:from 2 (11.11%) in 1995-1998 to 9 (33.33%) in 2007-2010. There were less papers in this field published in foreign journals, besides, funding source and the chance of collaborative research with foreigners are still limited. Only 2 (7.41%) of the included trials reported approval by an ethics committee and only 3 (11.11%) adequately discussed informed consent. Visual analogue scales (VAS) was the main evaluation method of cancer pain (10 reports,37.04%). Nine studies (33.34%) are deemed to have authentic randomisation and twenty four (88.89%) papers provided no information about blinding of either participants or investigators. In 24 (88.89%) of papers, there was no information about the length of time for which participants were followed.ConclusionThe overall quality of acupuncture therapy on cancer pain in RCT was poor and should meet the standard of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Acupuncture therapy had some efficacy for relief of cancer-related pain. There is no sufficient evidence supporting that the efficacy of acupuncture on cancer pain is better than that of western medicine, which needed further research.
|
PDF Full Text Request