Acupuncture for the prevention of episodic migraine

Linde, Klaus; Allais, Gianni; Brinkhaus, Benno; Fei, Yutong; Mehring, M.; Vertosick, Emily; Vickers, Andrew; White, Adrian

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001218.pub3

Cited by 210 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

224

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Its mechanism of action does not have a definite explanation, but some studies suggest that acupuncture may have anti-inflammatory action via release of neuropeptides from nerve endings, including calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). 4 The authors found that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. 3 In acupuncture research, true acupuncture is often compared with sham acupuncture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review: Acupuncture vs Standard Pharmacological Therapy for Migraine Prevention

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background.-Standard pharmacological treatment of migraine has many shortcomings. Acupuncture is becoming a more widely used therapy for the prevention and treatment of migraine, but its effectiveness is still in question when compared to the pharmacological treatments even though very few of these have Class A and B evidence for migraine prevention. This is a systematic review of data from existing randomized trials that compare the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment with conventional migraine preventative medications.Methods.-Custom-designed strategy was used for searching Pubmed (includes MEDLINE), Scopus (includes EMBASE). The inclusion criteria were English language and randomized trials. No date restriction was utilized. We included randomized trials and randomized controlled trials in adult patients that compared the clinical effects of acupuncture with a standard migraine preventive medication in patients with a diagnosis of chronic or episodic migraine with or without aura. We excluded letters and studies on acupuncture for headaches other than migraine. Two reviewers checked eligibility; extracted information on patients, interventions, methods, and results; and assessed the quality of the acupuncture intervention based on the American Academy of Neurology Classification of evidence matrix for therapeutic trials. The present review was not registered.Results.-Out of the 706 search results, 7 clinical trials, with a total of 1430 participants, met inclusion criteria for trials comparing the effectiveness of acupuncture to standard pharmacologic treatment. Several of the studies showed acupuncture to be more effective than standard pharmacological treatments for migraine prevention; however, methodological heterogeneity precluded aggregation of these data.Conclusions.-There is growing evidence that acupuncture is just as effective and has fewer side effects than many of the standard pharmaceutical agents that are currently used. However, the heterogeneity of the existing studies limits the effective comparison and analysis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review: Acupuncture vs Standard Pharmacological Therapy for Migraine Prevention

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The remaining five had experience in systematic reviews but were ‘naïve’ to the tool, to independently carry out ratings of each trial such that 10 raters rated each domain for each trial. We also wanted to test the tool with authors of an ongoing systematic review, and for this purpose we asked the two authors of an update to a Cochrane review on acupuncture for migraine to rate each of 8 trials in the updated review [13]. One of the authors (KL) was involved in the tool development, but the other author was ‘naïve’.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy–Effectiveness Spectrum: development of a new tool for systematic reviews

Wieland

Berman

Altman

et al. 2017

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Randomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy-effectiveness nature of the included trials. Objective To develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy-effectiveness continuum. Methods We extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools, and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from 4 systematic reviews. Results The RITES (Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-effectiveness Spectrum) tool rates clinical trials on a 5-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from 3 reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.25–0.66 for the four domains), but when RITES was used on 1 review by the review authors with expertise on the topic the ratings were consistent (ICCs >0.80. Conclusion RITES may help to characterize the efficacy-effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews.

show abstract

“…However, findings were statistically heterogeneous. 16 Fewer trials have explored acupuncture in the prevention of tension headache. A systematic review (12 RCTs, 2349 patients) reported a ≥50% reduction in headache frequency in 48% and 45% of patients receiving acupuncture compared with nonacupuncture controls (4% and 19%) and in 51% of those receiving acupuncture compared with 43% of sham acupuncture controls (moderate quality evidence).…”

Section: Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and integrative medicine in the management of headache

Millstine

Chen

Bauer

2017

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Headaches, including primary headaches such as migraine and tension-type headache, are a common clinical problem. Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM), formerly known as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), uses evidence informed modalities to assist in the health and healing of patients. CIM commonly includes the use of nutrition, movement practices, manual therapy, traditional Chinese medicine, and mind-body strategies. This review summarizes the literature on the use of CIM for primary headache and is based on five meta-analyses, seven systematic reviews, and 34 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The overall quality of the evidence for CIM in headache management is generally low and occasionally moderate. Available evidence suggests that traditional Chinese medicine including acupuncture, massage, yoga, biofeedback, and meditation have a positive effect on migraine and tension headaches. Spinal manipulation, chiropractic care, some supplements and botanicals, diet alteration, and hydrotherapy may also be beneficial in migraine headache. CIM has not been studied or it is not effective for cluster headache. Further research is needed to determine the most effective role for CIM in patients with headache.

show abstract

Acupuncture for the prevention of episodic migraine

Cited by 210 publications

References 104 publications

Systematic Review: Acupuncture vs Standard Pharmacological Therapy for Migraine Prevention

Systematic Review: Acupuncture vs Standard Pharmacological Therapy for Migraine Prevention

Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy–Effectiveness Spectrum: development of a new tool for systematic reviews

Complementary and integrative medicine in the management of headache

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About