Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD = -1.45; 95% CI -2.80, -0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.

PurposePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is essential to manage patients with COPD. The aim of this study was to investigate the appropriate intensity of PR exercise training for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.Patients and methodsA prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted from January 2014 to October 2018. The subjects were randomly assigned to three groups with different intensities of PR, according to their maximum oxygen uptake percentage determined by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. After 20 weeks of exercise training, the effects of low-, moderate-, and high-intensity exercise interventions on patients were compared to determine the most appropriate PR prescription.ResultsFor patients with moderate COPD, all the measured parameters were significantly improved in the moderate- and high-intensity PR groups (P<0.01), while there was no significant difference in the frequency of acute exacerbations and the mMRC questionnaire after 20 weeks of PR exercise in the low-intensity PR group. For patients with severe COPD, all variables were also improved in the high-intensity PR group (P<0.05), while the mean differences of pre- and post-PR were lower than those in patients with moderate COPD. Moreover, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale and body mass index showed no significant difference in low-intensity PR group (P>0.05).ConclusionHigh-intensity PR exercise is helpful for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Moderate COPD patients need to receive intensive PR training; the improvement degrees from PR intervention were higher than those of the severe COPD patients. For patients with severe COPD, high-intensity PR exercise may be more beneficial if patients can tolerate it.

Objective. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of acupoint injection for alleviating side effects of chemotherapy in people with cancer. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Date, and CBM were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception through December 28, 2020. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results. A total of 8 RCTs including 557 participants were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The selected RCTs studied acupoint injection for alleviating side effects of chemotherapy in people with cancer. Statistically significant improvements were observed for the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.26, 0.58; P  < 0.00001), the number of leukocyte (MD = 1.89; 95%CI 0.74, 3.03; P  = 0.001), and the number of platelet (MD = 28.82; 95%CI 19.33, 38.30; P  < 0.00001). Two of these studies suggested that acupoint injection can also reduce some other adverse reactions, which showed a statistical difference (RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.11, 0.75; P  = 0.01). Conclusion. The analysis indicated that acupoint injection can alleviate side effects of chemotherapy in people with cancer. However, due to the high risk of bias and small sample size in the included studies, the results need to be further confirmed by further large, rigorously designed trials.