Woods, Jeffrey T.

Objective: Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) has gained widespread clinical use for patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs). This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to assess the efficacy and safety of BFA in ED settings. Methods: A literature search was conducted in OVID and Scopus databases for RCTs involving BFA applied in ED settings. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, while the methodological quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad score. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a qualitative analysis was performed. Results: Seven studies involving 758 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, five studies evaluated traditional BFA in conjunction with standard analgesia care, while two studies assessed modified BFA alongside standard care. Most of the included studies were found to have a high risk of bias, leading to an overall classification of low quality according to the Jadad criteria. A descriptive analysis was performed due to heterogeneity in the interventions, observational timepoints, and outcomes reported in the included studies. Positive results were demonstrated in 71% of the studies. The most common conditions documented as the primary ED presentation included back pain, acute abdominal pain, lower extremity pain, neck pain, and acute sore throat. Notably, no severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion: BFA may offer a safe adjunct to standard care for pain management in ED settings. However, the limited methodological rigor and small number of existing RCTs reduce confidence in the current evidence. Well-designed, robust studies are needed to clarify their effectiveness and support stronger clinical recommendations.

Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions are growing in popularity as possible treatments for long COVID symptoms. However, comprehensive analysis of current evidence in this setting is still lacking. Objective: This study aims to review existing published studies on the use of CAM interventions for patients experiencing long COVID through a systematic review. Design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed in multiple databases and clinical trial registries from September 2019 to January 2023. RCTs evaluating efficacy and safety of CAM for long COVID were included. Methodological quality of each included trial was appraised with the Cochrane ‘risk of bias’ tool. A qualitative analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity of included studies. Results: A total of 14 RCTs with 1195 participants were included in this review. Study findings demonstrated that CAM interventions could benefit patients with long COVID, especially those suffering from neuropsychiatric disorders, olfactory dysfunction, cognitive impairment, fatigue, breathlessness, and mild-to-moderate lung fibrosis. The main interventions reported were self-administered transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation, neuro-meditation, dietary supplements, olfactory training, aromatherapy, inspiratory muscle training, concurrent training, and an online breathing and well-being program. Conclusion: CAM interventions may be effective, safe, and acceptable to patients with symptoms of long COVID. However, the findings from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution due to various methodological limitations. More rigorous trials focused on CAM for long COVID are warranted in the future.

Objective: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) is a serious medical and social problem resulting in functional decline and decreased work ability. Tuina, a form of manual therapy, has been sparsely used to treat patients with CNLBP. To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of Tuina for patients with CNLBP. Methods: Multiple English and Chinese literature databases were searched until September 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Tuina in the treatment of CNLBP. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and certainty of the evidence was determined with the online Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Results: Fifteen RCTs with 1390 patients were included. Tuina demonstrated a significant effect on pain (SMD: −0.82; 95% CI −1.12 to −0.53; P < .001; I 2 = 81%) and physical function (SMD: −0.91; 95% CI −1.55 to −0.27; P = .005; I 2 = 90%) when compared to control. However, Tuina resulted in no significant improvement for quality of life (QoL) (SMD: 0.58; 95% CI −0.04 to 1.21; P = .07; I 2 = 73%;) compared to control. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence quality was determined to be low level for pain relief, physical function, and QoL measurements. Only six studies reported adverse events; none were serious. Conclusion: Tuina might be an effective and safe strategy for treating CNLBP in terms of pain and physical function, but not for QoL. The study results should be interpreted with caution for their low-level evidence. More multicenter, large-scale RCTs with a rigorous design are required to further confirm our findings.