Observation on clinical effects of moxibustion therapy plus medications for chronic heart failure

Effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine Cutaneous Regions Therapy as adjuvant treatment of chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A preliminary search yielded 3957 relevant literature, which were screened strictly according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and finally included 18 [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] ] studies, all in Chinese. The literature screening process is shown in Fig.…”

“…A total of 18 studies were included [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] ], with a total of 1388 patients, including 695 in the experimental group and 693 in the control group. Three types of TCMCRTs were involved in the included studies: acupuncture, acupoint application, and moxibustion.…”

“…A detailed assessment of the risk of bias for the 18 RCTs [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] ] is shown in Fig. 2 .…”

“…2 . 1) Selective bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment): 12 studies [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , 32 , 33 , [36] , [37] , [38] , 40 , 41 ] were randomized by random number table; 2 studies [ 31 , 43 ] by computerized randomization; 2 study [ 35 , 42 ] used randomized grouping by order of admission, 1 study [ 28 ] referred to allocation concealment. Therefore, the risk of selection bias for the above-mentioned studies was considered to be low.…”

“…A total of 14 [ 27 , 28 , [30] , [31] , [32] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] ] studies in the included literature reported Cardiac function efficacy in a total of 1006 patients, including 504 in the experimental group and 502 in the control group. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies ( I 2 = 47%), so the data were combined using a fixed-effects model; the results of the Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in cardiac function efficacy between the groups [RR = 1.24, 95%CI (1.16, 1.32), P < 0.00001] suggesting that the experimental group improved cardiac function efficacy better than the control group.…”