Acupoint stimulation for cancer-related fatigue: A quantitative synthesis of randomised controlled trials. (November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tan, Jing-Yu (Benjamin); Wang, Tao; Kirshbaum, Marilynne N.; Zhao, Isabella; Eliseeva, Sabina; Polotan, Mary Janice; Yao, Li-Qun; Huang, Hou-Qaing; Zheng, Si-Lin
• Is Part Of: Complementary therapies in clinical practice. Volume 45(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-11
• Subjects: Acupuncture -- Acupressure -- Fatigue -- Cancer -- Randomised controlled trials -- Evidence synthesis; Integrative medicine -- Periodicals; Integrative medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; Alternative medicine -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2021.101490
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1744-3881

Abstract

Abstract: Background and purpose: This study aimed to identify the research evidence on acupoint stimulation (AS) for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) management. Methods: Randomised controlled trials that utilised AS for CRF management were retrieved. The Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias Tool was used for quality appraisal. RevMan 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results: Fifteen studies were included. Both the overall (SMD = −0.95, p = 0.008) and sub-group (acupuncture: SMD = −1.25, p = 0.002; short-term AS: SMD = −0.95, p = 0.02; medium-term AS: SMD = −0.96, p = 0.003) analyses indicated that AS was more effective in alleviating CRF than standard treatment/care. A comparison between the true and sham AS interventions favoured the true AS for CRF management, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: This study identified a promising role of AS in improving CRF. However, the study findings should be interpreted prudently due to the limited quality and sample sizes of some of the included studies. Highlights: Acupoint stimulation (AS) can contribute to the improvement of cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Preliminary research evidence supports the use of AS as a promising intervention for CRF management. AS protocols should be developed based on best available research evidence and tested through rigorously designed clinical trials. More well-designed sham-controlled clinical trials are needed to provide more robust evidence on AS for CRF management.