The Effectiveness and Safety of Moxibustion for Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) seriously affects people’s life. Therefore, it has already become a worldwide health concern. Moxibustion has a significant clinical effect on KOA. This systematic review and meta-analysis is performed to renew previous studies and strictly evaluate the quality of RCT and thus test the effect and safety of moxibustion for KOA. Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment for alleviating pain and improving lower limb function for patients with KOA. Materials and Methods. CNKI (1979∼2019), CBM (1979∼2019), VIP (1989∼2019), WF (1998∼2019), PubMed (1966∼2019), Embase (1980∼2019), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (1900∼2019) were all retrieved by a computer from their inception to June 02, 2019, replenished by manual retrieval of relevant bibliographies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if moxibustion was compared to western medicine or negative control (placebo moxibustion or no treatment or UC) for treating KOA. The primary outcomes were the total effect and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC scale). The secondary outcomes include VAS, Symptom score, Lysholm score, and Lequesne score. RCTs were collected, and the quality of evidence was evaluated by using the Jadad scale and Cochrane risk assessment tools. We used RevMan5.3.0 software for meta-analysis. Results. A total of 39 RCTs were included, including 3293 patients. In the assessment of the quality, the evidence differs from low to high based on the Cochrane Bias Evaluation Tools and Jadad scale. Fourteen trials were of high quality, ten were of moderate quality, and 15 were of low quality. Therefore, the quality of the included studies was moderate. In this study, there were 66.67% of the literature, and only 17.95% of the literature correctly reported randomized grouping and allocation of hidden information, respectively. In adverse reactions, only 13 trials included were reported in the study. The main adverse reactions of moxibustion are burns and blisters, whereas the western medicine group was in epigastric discomfort. As for the total effective rate, the meta-analysis of 27 RCTs showed a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.25, I2 = 45%, P=0.007 ); as for the WOMAC scale, the subgroup meta-analysis of 13 trials showed that there was a statistically significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD = −11.08, 95% CI = −11.72 to −10.44, I2 = 98%, P<0.00001 ) and 2 trials on moxibustion VS negative control (MD = −8.38, 95% CI = −12.69 to −4.06, I2 = 0%, P=0.77 ); as for the VAS score, the meta-analysis of 6 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD = −2.12, 95% CI = −2.30 to −1.93, I2 = 98%, P<0.00001 ); as for the symptom score, the meta-analysis of 7 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD = −0.81, 95% CI = −1.24 to −0.37, I2 = 50%, P=0.06 ); as for the Lysholm score, the meta-analysis of 5 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD = 7.61, 95% CI = 6.04 to 9.17, I2 = 95%, P<0.00001 ); and as for the Lequesne score, the meta-analysis of 3 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.93 to 3.65, I2 = 99%, P<0.00001 ). Conclusion. Moxibustion treatment for KOA is more effective than the positive control (western medicine) or negative control (placebo moxibustion or no treatment or UC), and there were fewer adverse reactions to moxibustion. Due to the universally low quality of the eligible trials, it still needs further large-scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials to verify the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion in the treatment of KOA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".