Acupoint catgut embedding for obesity

Abstract

Background: Obesity is a chronic metabolic disease in which patients are overweight due to the excessive accumulation of fat in the body. As a subtype of acupuncture, catgut embedding at acupoints has increased in clinical application for obesity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupoint catgut embedding therapy for simple obesity. Methods and analysis: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Springer Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan-Fang Data (WANFANG), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP databases) will be performed. The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry will also be searched for ongoing trials. Databases will be searched from inception to August 2020.Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) will be included if acupoint catgut embedding was evaluated as the sole treatment (diet or exercise therapy as the control group will be allowed) for simple obesity. The primary outcomes will consist of the improvement rate and reduction in body weight (BW). The secondary outcomes will include body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), fat percentage (F %) and adverse effects. Two reviewers will undertake the study selection, data extraction and assessments of study quality. After screening the studies, the quality of the included studies will be assessed according to the quality criteria specified by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0). Meta-analysis will be performed by RevMan 5.3 software. Results: According to the data of improvement rate and reduction in BW, BMI, WC, and F %, this study will provide an evidence-based review of acupoint catgut embedding therapy for simply. Conclusions: This systematic review will present the current evidence for acupoint catgut embedding therapy for obesity. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not necessary since this protocol is only for systematic review and does not involve privacy data. The findings of this study will be disseminated electronically through a peer-review publication or presented at a relevant conference. Trial registration number: INPLASY2020110045.

Network Meta-Analysis of Acupoint Catgut Embedding in Treatment of Simple Obesity

“…Simple obesity is defined as malnutrition without obvious causes. When the accumulation of body fat exceeds the consumption level of the body, the patient's weight exceeds the standard weight due to excessive body fat [ 43 ]. Nowadays, many factors are considered to be the etiology of obesity, such as neuroregulation, free radicals, and heredity [ 44 , 45 ].…”

Comparing acupoint catgut embedding and acupuncture therapies for simple obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Fifty-five trials included patients with simple obesity; [ 15 , 22 , 23 , 25 – 28 , 32 – 34 , 36 – 41 , 43 – 46 , 49 – 51 , 54 , 56 – 59 , 61 – 63 , 65 – 67 , 69 – 73 , 75 – 80 , 82 – 90 , 92 ] six included patients with abdominal obesity; [ 14 , 31 , 47 , 52 , 68 , 74 ] one included a patient with central obesity; [ 24 ] one included a patient with lower body obesity; [ 91 ] the remaining ten trials did not mention the type of obesity. [ 29 , 30 , 35 , 42 , 48 , 53 , 55 , 60 , 64 , 81 ] The other detail of treatment was showed in Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/MD/H824 .…”

“…All included studies were divided into seven groups based on the intervention and comparison groups: ACE versus MA (n = 30), [ 14 , 22 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 44 , 45 , 48 – 51 , 56 – 58 , 60 – 62 , 64 , 69 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 84 , 85 , 88 – 90 ] ACE versus EA (n = 25), [ 15 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 36 , 39 – 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 52 – 54 , 59 , 63 , 65 , 71 , 74 , 79 , 82 , 83 , 86 , 87 , 91 ] ACE plus MA versus MA (n = 6), [ 26 , 31 , 38 , 42 , 50 , 78 ] ACE plus EA versus EA (n = 10), [ 23 , 24 , 33 , 47 , 54 , 67 , 70 , 75 , 80 , 92 ] ACE plus AA versus AA (n = 2), [ 35 , 77 ] ACE...…”

“…The outcomes for ACE plus MA versus MA were reported in six studies. [ 26 , 31 , 38 , 42 , 50 , 78 ] The pooled data favored ACE plus MA (n = 574, RR = 1.15 [1.02, 1.29]; P = .02, I 2 = 60%).…”

“…Two trials [ 42 , 50 ] studied the effect of ACE plus MA on BMI. In all, 198 participants showed an improvement in this outcome; however, the results showed boundary differences between ACE plus MA and MA (n = 198, MD = 0.70 [−0.79, 2.19]; P = .35, I 2 = 75%).…”