• Yiyi Cai, Claire Shuiqing Zhang, Shaonan Liu, Zehuai Wen, Anthony Lin Zhang, Xinfeng Guo, Chuanjian Lu, and Charlie Changli Xue.
• China-Australia International Research Centre for Chinese Medicine, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine), Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, and The Second Clinical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Dec 1; 98 (12): 2578-2589.e4.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) for stroke patients with spasticity.Data SourcesFive English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) and 4 Chinese databases (Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Database, Wanfang Database) were searched from their inception to September 2016.Study SelectionRandomized controlled trials were included if they measured spasticity with the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) in stroke patients and investigated the add-on effects of electroacupuncture to routine pharmacotherapy and rehabilitation therapies.Data ExtractionInformation on patients, study design, treatment details and outcomes assessing spasticity severity, motor function, and activities of daily living was extracted.Data SynthesisIn total, 22 trials involving 1425 participants met the search criteria and were included. The estimated add-on effects of EA to reduce spasticity in the upper limbs as measured by the MAS (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.84 to -.29), and to improve overall motor function as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery (mean difference [MD]=10.60; 95% CI, 8.67-12.53) were significant. Significant add-on effects of EA were also shown for spasticity in the lower limbs, lower-limb motor function, and activities of daily living ([SMD=-.88; 95% CI, -1.42 to -.35;], [MD=4.42; 95% CI, .06-8.78], and [MD=6.85; 95% CI, 3.64-10.05], respectively), although with high heterogeneity. For upper-limb motor function, no significant add-on effects of EA were found.ConclusionsEA combined with conventional routine care has the potential of reducing spasticity in the upper and lower limbs and improving overall and lower extremity motor function and activities of daily living for patients with spasticity, within 180 days poststroke. Further studies of high methodological and reporting quality are needed to confirm the effects and safety of EA, and to explore the adequate and optimal protocol of EA for poststroke spasticity, incorporating a group of comprehensive outcome measures in different populations.Copyright © 2016 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…