Cochrane · systematic review · CD005062
Acupuncture for epilepsy
Cheuk, DKL, Wong, V · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
EpilepsyAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
36
current version
GRADE rated
33
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 3 · 8.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 31 · 86.1%Moderate 2 · 5.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus Chinese herbs versus Chinese herbs alone
Population: children (0‐18 years) with generalised epilepsy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus Chinese herbs vs Chinese herbs alone | RR 1.13 [0.97, 1.31] | 2 studies · 120 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse effects ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus Chinese herbs vs Chinese herbs alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate versus valproate alone
Population: participants with generalised epilepsy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Seizure freedom ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | RR 0.97 [0.72, 1.3] | 2 studies · 150 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | RR 1.34 [0.52, 3.48] | 2 studies · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Post‐treatment quality of life (QOLIE‐31 score, which has a range of 0‐200, with higher score indicates better quality of life) ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | RR 0.67 [0.12, 3.8] | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | RR 0.83 [0.27, 2.54] | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ nausea ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | RR 0.6 [0.15, 2.36] | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ sleepiness ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture plus valproate vs valproate alone | RR 0.71 [0.24, 2.08] | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Summary of findings: needle acupuncture versus sham acupuncture
Population: adults with intractable epilepsy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Percentage reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs sham acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Improvement in quality of life (QOLIE‐89 score, which has a range of 0‐100, with higher score indicates better quality of life) ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs sham acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs sham acupuncture | RR 1.33 [0.25, 7] | 1 study · 34 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs sham acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Summary of findings: needle acupuncture versus phenytoin
Population: participants with epilepsy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs phenytoin | RR 1.43 [0.46, 4.44] | 2 studies · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs phenytoin | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Summary of findings: needle acupuncture versus valproate
Population: participants with epilepsy (one included study only recruited children with absence epilepsy while another included study recruited both children and adults with generalised epilepsy)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Seizure freedom ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | RR 1.75 [0.93, 3.27] | 2 studies · 180 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | RR 1.32 [1.05, 1.66] | 2 studies · 180 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Post‐treatment quality of life (QOLIE‐31 score, which has a range of 0‐200, with higher score indicates better quality of life) ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | RR 1.13 [0.47, 2.68] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | RR 0.69 [0.33, 1.47] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ nausea ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | RR 0.14 [0.02, 1.12] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ sleepiness ( Summary of findings: needle acupuncture vs valproate | RR 0.6 [0.15, 2.38] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs versus antiepileptic drugs alone
Population: participants with epilepsy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Seizure freedom ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | RR 1.51 [0.93, 2.43] | 4 studies · 361 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | RR 1.42 [1.07, 1.89] | 5 studies · 401 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Post‐treatment quality of life (QOLIE‐31 score, which has a range of 0‐100, with higher score indicates worse quality of life) ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | RR 0.33 [0.13, 0.86] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | RR 0.5 [0.22, 1.15] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ nausea ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | RR 0.33 [0.09, 1.17] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs vs antiepileptic drugs alone | RR 0.25 [0.06, 1.13] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints versus valproate
Population: participants with generalised epilepsy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Seizure freedom ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | RR 2.82 [1.61, 4.94] | 4 studies · 381 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | RR 1.31 [0.94, 1.84] | 4 studies · 381 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Post‐treatment quality of life (QOLIE‐31 score, which has a range of 0‐200, with higher score indicates better quality of life) ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | RR 0.63 [0.22, 1.78] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | RR 0.92 [0.47, 1.82] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ nausea ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | RR 0.14 [0.02, 1.12] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia ( Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints vs valproate | RR 0.22 [0.05, 0.98] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |