Meta-Analysis of Different Acupuncture Points in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis with Supervised Moxibustion

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the clinical efficacy of different acupuncture points in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis with supervised moxibustion. Methods. Retrospective analysis of 61 AS patients (diagnosed as ankylosing spondylitis of kidney-yang deficiency type by Chinese medicine) admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to February 2021, randomly divided into 30 cases in the experimental group (Du moxibustion + basic western medicine treatment) and 31 cases in the control group (basic western medicine treatment alone). The changes in quantitative scores of the main symptoms and major signs (thoracic mobility, occipital-wall distance, finger-ground distance, and laboratory index (ESR)) were analyzed before and after treatment. Results. Of the 30 cases in the experimental group, 2 were clinically cured, 3 were apparently effective, 21 were effective, and 4 were ineffective, with an overall effective rate of 86.7%; of the 31 cases in the control group, 1 was clinically cured, 1 was apparently effective, 1 was effective. 24 were effective, and 5 were ineffective, with an overall effective rate of 83.9%. Comparing the efficacy by t-test, P < 0.05 , indicating that the effect of Du moxibustion + Western medicine treatment was better. Conclusion. The treatment of ankylosing spondylitis with kidney-yang deficiency by moxibustion + western medicine can improve the efficacy, alleviate the inflammatory response and improve the patient’s symptoms and signs, and immune indexes.

Retracted: Meta‐Analysis of Different Acupuncture Points in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis with Supervised Moxibustion

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”