Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for angina pectoris: An overview of systematic reviews

Abstract

BackgroundThe number of systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the effectiveness of acupuncture for angina pectoris (AP) is increasing. Due to the inconsistent conclusions and unknown quality of these SRs/MAs, this overview aimed to systematically evaluate and synthesize the existing SRs/MAs, attempting to provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of AP. MethodsSRs/MAs were searched via eight databases from inception to March 14, 2022. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The quality of the methodology, reporting, and evidence were assessed by the Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Acupuncture (PRISMA-A), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively. ResultsSixteen SRs/MAs were included and fifteen SRs/MAs were considered being of critically low quality according to AMSTAR-2. Only three SRs/MAs were rated at low risk of bias. No study reported all the items listed in the PRISMA-A checklist. No high-quality evidence with GRADE assessment was found. With the low-quality evidence, acupuncture combined with other interventions was superior to monotherapy (medications or Chinese medicine) in the angina symptom and electrocardiogram recovery. No adverse effects owing to acupuncture were reported. ConclusionsOwing to the lack of high-quality evidence provided by the current SRs/MAs, the effectiveness of acupuncture for AP still warrants further proof. Further researches with more critical design and methodology are needed for providing more convincing evidence. RegistrationThis review was registered at PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/): CRD42021219367.