Considering the heavy burden of migraine, it is essential to update insufficient and/or outdated clinical evidence supporting electroacupuncture (EA) in migraine therapy. In this study, a literature search of seven medical databases was performed. After data extraction and quality evaluation, 13 randomized controlled trials, including 1559 patients, were assessed in this analysis. Results demonstrated that EA was superior to control treatment (Western medicine, sham-EA, blank control, acupuncture, and acupoint catgut embedding) according to the visual analog scale (VAS) score, frequency of headache attack (Western medicine, sham-EA, blank control), self-rating anxiety scale (SAS [blank control]), self-rating depression score (SDS [Western medicine and blank control]), and clinical efficiency (Western medicine and sham-EA) after treatment ([Formula: see text]). Results of network meta-analysis (for VAS, SAS, and SDS) demonstrated statistically significant differences in VAS scores for EA compared with sham-EA, acupuncture with sham-EA, acupoint catgut embedding with sham-EA, and acupoint catgut embedding with blank control. Rank probability analysis of VAS, SAS, and SDS scores all demonstrated that EA ranked first. Most studies were symmetrically distributed on both sides of the midline in funnel plots for VAS, SAS, and SDS, which indicated a low likelihood of small sample effects. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the studies included in this research. EA is one of several effective treatments for migraine pain symptoms, and, to some extent, anxiety and depression. Nevertheless, multi-center studies with large sample sizes and/or well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be needed in the future.

On the background of high morbidity and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and rapid development of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of traditional insect Chinese medicine and related preparation for non-surgical HCC. RCTs were searched based on standardized searching rules in mainstream medical databases from the inception up to May 2016. Ultimately, a total of 57 articles with 4,651 patients enrolled in this meta-analysis. We found that traditional insect Chinese medicine and related preparation combined chemotherapy show significantly effectiveness and safety in objective response rate (P < 0.001), survival time extension [12 months (P < 0.001); 18 months (P < 0.001); 24 months (P < 0.001); 36 months (P < 0.001)], amelioration for life quality [QoL scores improvement (P < 0.001); KPS improvement (P < 0.001); AFP improvement (P < 0.001)] and reduction of therapeutic toxicity [WBC decrease (P = 0.04); gastrointestinal adverse reactions (P < 0.001)]. In conclusion, traditional insect Chinese medicine and related preparations could be recommended as auxiliary therapy combined chemotherapy for HCC therapy.

Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) has become a common skin disease that requires systematic and comprehensive treatment to achieve adequate clinical control. Traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments have shown clinical effects for AD in many studies. But the systematic reviews and meta-analyses for them are lacking. Objective The systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments for AD treatment. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched based on standardized searching rules in eight medical databases from the inception up to December 2016 and a total of 24 articles with 1,618 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Results The results revealed that traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments did not show statistical differences in clinical effectiveness, SCORAD amelioration, and SSRI amelioration for AD treatment compared with control group. However, EASI amelioration of traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments for AD was superior to control group. Conclusion We need to make conclusion cautiously for the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine and related treatment on AD therapy. More standard, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine and related treatment for AD were required to be conducted for more clinical evidences providing in the future.