The effectiveness of moxibustion for cancer-related fatigue: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine on Cancer-Related Fatigue in Adults: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

“…CRF was significantly improved with acupoint stimulation methods: acupressure or acupuncture versus standard treatment (SMD = −0.95, 95% CI: −1.66, −0.25; low-quality) or sham therapies (SMD = −0.28, 95% CI: −0.54, −0.01; moderate-quality) 25 ; acupuncture versus control (4 SRs, SMD = −0.39, 95% CI: −0.55, −0.22; moderate-quality; SMD = −1.19, 95% CI: −2.25, −0.12; very low-quality; SMD = −1.26, 95% CI: −1.80, −0.71; low-quality; SMD = −1.06, 95% CI: −1.73, −0.40; low-quality) 27 , 28 , 30 , 33 ; acupressure versus control (SMD = −0.87, 95% CI: −1.19, −0.55; moderate-quality) 31 ; and moxibustion versus control (SMD = −1.17, 95% CI: −1.44, −0.90; moderate-quality). 32 Also, a combination of auricular point with standard care significantly reduced CRF compared with standard care alone (RR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.42, 2.17; very low-quality). 29 The addition of moxibustion to routine care provided a slight improvement in severe CRF (the score of Piper Fatigue Scale ≥7 points) compared with routine care alone (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.37; low-quality), but none to mild or moderate CRF.…”

“…Finally, we included 30 SRs for further analysis ( Figure 1 ). 12 - 41 One hundred twenty-nine excluded records and the reasons for excluding them are provided in the Supplemental Appendix 3 .…”

“…Nine SRs 25 - 33 reported the effects of acupoint stimulation therapies (acupuncture, moxibustion, auricular point therapy, and acupressure) on fatigue in adults with cancer ( Table 5 ). CRF was significantly improved with acupoint stimulation methods: acupressure or acupuncture versus standard treatment (SMD = −0.95, 95% CI: −1.66, −0.25; low-quality) or sham therapies (SMD = −0.28, 95% CI: −0.54, −0.01; moderate-quality) 25 ; acupuncture versus control (4 SRs, SMD = −0.39, 95% CI: −0.55, −0.22; moderate-quality; SMD = −1.19, 95% CI: −2.25, −0.12; very low-quality; SMD = −1.26, 95% CI: −1.80, −0.71; low-quality; SMD = −1.06, 95% CI: −1.73, −0.40; low-quality) 27 , 28 , 30 , 33 ; acupressure versus control (SMD = −0.87, 95% CI: −1.19, −0.55; moderate-quality) 31 ; and moxibustion versus control (SMD = −1.17, 95% CI: −1.44, −0.90; moderate-quality).…”

“… 26 QoL was also improved with acupuncture versus control (MD = 10.09, 95% CI: 7.26, 12.92; low-quality), 27 auricular point therapy plus standard care versus standard care alone (MD = 7.34, 95% CI: 5.11, 9.57; low-quality), 29 and moxibustion versus control (SMD = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.22; high-quality). 32 A combination of auricular point therapy with standard care or moxibustion also significantly improved role function (MD = 8.99, 95% CI: 7.45, 10.53; MD = 9.39, 95% CI: 2.22, 16.56; both low-quality), emotional function (MD = 8.75, 95% CI: 6.51, 10.98; MD = 11.71, 95% CI: 4.41, 19.01; both low-quality), cognitive function (MD = 7.17, 95% CI: 4.85, 9.50; low-quality; MD = 7.96, 95% CI: 3.08, 12.85; moderate-quality), and social function (MD = 5.64, 95% CI: 4.17, 7.10; low-quality; MD = 11.01, 95% CI: 7.46, 14.56; moderate-quality) compared with standard care alone. 29 , 32 In addition, one SR 33 revealed that acupuncture did not provide significant benefits in CRF compared with the control.…”

The Effects of Complementary Therapies on Patient-Reported Outcomes: An Overview of Recent Systematic Reviews in Oncology

“…According to the four included meta-analyses, moxibustion can significantly reduce physical symptoms in patients with cancer, such as fatigue [ 51 ] (see Table 4 ). Except for inappetence and abdominal pain , significant effects on the amelioration of gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and abdominal distension , were reported for patients using moxibustion [ 52 , 53 ].…”