Effect of traditional Chinese manipulation on ankle sprains: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 5 (5th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Baojian; Yin, Xunlu; Zhang, Ping; Yang, Kexin; Sun, Wu; Jin, Zhefeng; Li, Jianguo; Gao, Chunyu; Gao, Jinghua
• Other Names: Enix. Dennis section editor.
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 100:Issue 5(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02-05
• Subjects: ankle sprains -- Chinese manipulation -- meta-analysis -- randomized controlled trial; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024065
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract: Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese manipulation in treating ankle sprains. Methods: Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2020. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing traditional Chinese manipulation and other conservative therapy for ankle sprains was conducted. The Cochrane Handbook tool was applied to access the quality and risk of bias of each study. The meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 software (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results: In total, 14 articles and 1112 patients were included. The total effective rate of ankle manipulation was much higher than that of other conservative therapy (risk ratio [RR], 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17–1.30; P < .00001). The Baird–Jackson score (RR, 10.14; 95% CI, 5.57–14.70; P < .0001), visual analog scale score (RR, −1.78; 95% CI, −3.14 to −0.43; P = .01), and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (RR, 15.70; 95% CI, 12.72–18.68; P < .00001) were significantly lower in the manipulation group than in the control group. Further subgroup analysis showed that the visual analog scale score of the rotating-traction-poking manipulation was significantly lower than that of the control group (RRRTPM, −2.56; 95% CI, −4.54 to −0.58; P = .01), while there were no significant differences between the effects of other manipulations and the control group (RRother manipulation, −0.62; 95% CI, −1.52 to 0.28; P = .18). Conclusion: Traditional Chinese manipulation might have a better effect on ankle sprains than other types of conservative treatment. The rotating-traction-poking manipulation might achieve better effects than other manipulation techniques in terms of alleviating pain intensity. However, considering the overall high or unclear risk of bias, the evidence identified does not allow for a robust conclusion concerning the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese manipulation for treating ankle sprains. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.