Chinese General Practice ›› 2023, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (34): 4336-4342.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0896
• Evidence-based Medicine • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2022-10-17
Revised:
2023-06-02
Published:
2023-12-05
Online:
2023-06-30
Contact:
HAN Jing
通讯作者:
韩晶
作者简介:
基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0896
第一作者 | 发表时间(年) | 试验组治疗方案 | 对照组治疗方案 | 样本量(试验组/对照组,例) | 治愈率〔例(%)〕 | 有效率〔例(%)〕 | 治疗后VAS( | 改良Jadad量表评分(分) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | ||||||
陈硕康[ | 2017 | 通元针法每周3次,共12周 | 氟桂利嗪(10 mg)每晚1次,共12周 | 38/36 | 47.37(18/38) | 38.89(14/36) | 97.37(37/38) | 94.44(34/36) | 4.55±0.69 | 5.09±0.97 | 7 |
关淑婷[ | 2019 | 治神六穴每周5次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,每周5次,共4周 | 60/59 | 5.00(3/60) | 1.69(1/59) | 96.67(58/60) | 81.36(48/59) | 2.62±0.89 | 3.39±0.78 | 5 |
戴睛[ | 2017 | 骨边刺每周3次,共4周 | 尼莫地平(40 mg)每日3次,共4周 | 35/45 | 17.14(6/35) | 8.89(4/45) | 94.29(33/35) | 75.56(34/45) | 3.14±2.00 | 4.42±2.27 | 1 |
郭伟[ | 2011 | 常规针刺每日1次,共20 d | 阿司匹林(0.3 g)每日3次,共20 d | 35/33 | 80.00(28/35) | 0(0/33) | 94.29(33/35) | 42.42(14/33) | 0.30±0.83 | 2.74±1.68 | 2 |
刘云霞[ | 2020 | 常规针刺每日1次,共21 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每日2次,共30 d | 59/59 | 59.32(35/59) | 32.20(19/59) | 96.61(57/59) | 83.05(49/59) | 3.10±1.58 | 4.60±1.87 | 1 |
舒伟[ | 2017 | 常规针刺每日1次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(10 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 58/57 | 41.38(24/58) | 28.07(16/57) | 98.28(57/58) | 89.47(51/57) | 3.41±1.26 | 3.38±1.02 | 2 |
苏慧媛[ | 2016 | 常规针刺每日1次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 35/32 | 28.57(10/35) | 9.38(3/32) | 91.43(32/35) | 78.13(25/32) | 1.54±0.74 | 2.86±0.92 | 2 |
崔晶[ | 2016 | 常规针刺每周2次,共6周 | 对乙酰氨基酚(1 g)按需服用,共6周 | 32/33 | 25.00(8/32) | 6.06(2/33) | 87.50(28/32) | 69.70(23/33) | 2.73±2.22 | 3.11±1.72 | 7 |
张瑞秋[ | 2021 | 常规针刺每日1次,共24 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共24 d | 43/42 | 18.60(8/43) | 4.76(2/42) | 90.70(39/43) | 73.81(31/42) | 3.42±1.14 | 5.48±1.40 | 3 |
陈慧[ | 2019 | 胆经每日1次,共20 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共20 d | 50/48 | 64.00(32/50) | 22.92(11/48) | 90.00(45/50) | 72.92(35/48) | 0.85±0.28 | 1.13±1.09 | 3 |
于明[ | 2017 | 胆经、三焦经每周3次,共12周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,每周5 d,共12周 | 41/43 | 48.78(20/41) | 41.86(18/43) | 95.12(39/41) | 88.37(38/43) | 2.07±0.31 | 2.40±0.47 | 1 |
卢金荣[ | 2014 | 头部腧穴每日1次,共10 d | 尼莫地平(40 mg)每日3次,共10 d | 48/48 | 41.67(20/48) | 10.42(5/48) | 91.67(44/48) | 62.50(30/48) | 2.17±1.88 | 3.76±2.42 | 1 |
杨佳[ | 2018 | 头部腧穴每周3次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(用法用量不详) | 20/19 | 75.00(15/20) | 52.63(10/19) | 95.00(19/20) | 78.95(15/19) | 3.40±1.39 | 4.58±1.17 | 6 |
景允南[ | 2021 | 透刺法隔日1次,共28 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 31/33 | 58.06(18/31) | 33.33(11/33) | 96.77(30/31) | 87.88(29/33) | 2.71±1.55 | 3.94±1.46 | 7 |
刘波[ | 2021 | 透刺法每日1次,共28 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 40/40 | 15.00(6/40) | 5.00(2/40) | 97.50(39/40) | 85.00(34/40) | 2.57±1.05 | 3.54±1.19 | 1 |
杨雄庆[ | 2013 | 透刺法隔日1次,共40 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每日1次,共30 d | 30/28 | 56.67(17/30) | 28.57(8/28) | 96.67(29/30) | 78.57(22/28) | 2.40±1.04 | 4.12±1.10 | 2 |
杨旭光[ | 2006 | 四关穴每周3次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每日2次,共4周 | 35/33 | 22.86(8/35) | 15.15(5/33) | 91.43(32/35) | 72.73(24/33) | 1.31±0.57 | 1.67±0.85 | 5 |
Table 1 The basic characteristics of included studies
第一作者 | 发表时间(年) | 试验组治疗方案 | 对照组治疗方案 | 样本量(试验组/对照组,例) | 治愈率〔例(%)〕 | 有效率〔例(%)〕 | 治疗后VAS( | 改良Jadad量表评分(分) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | ||||||
陈硕康[ | 2017 | 通元针法每周3次,共12周 | 氟桂利嗪(10 mg)每晚1次,共12周 | 38/36 | 47.37(18/38) | 38.89(14/36) | 97.37(37/38) | 94.44(34/36) | 4.55±0.69 | 5.09±0.97 | 7 |
关淑婷[ | 2019 | 治神六穴每周5次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,每周5次,共4周 | 60/59 | 5.00(3/60) | 1.69(1/59) | 96.67(58/60) | 81.36(48/59) | 2.62±0.89 | 3.39±0.78 | 5 |
戴睛[ | 2017 | 骨边刺每周3次,共4周 | 尼莫地平(40 mg)每日3次,共4周 | 35/45 | 17.14(6/35) | 8.89(4/45) | 94.29(33/35) | 75.56(34/45) | 3.14±2.00 | 4.42±2.27 | 1 |
郭伟[ | 2011 | 常规针刺每日1次,共20 d | 阿司匹林(0.3 g)每日3次,共20 d | 35/33 | 80.00(28/35) | 0(0/33) | 94.29(33/35) | 42.42(14/33) | 0.30±0.83 | 2.74±1.68 | 2 |
刘云霞[ | 2020 | 常规针刺每日1次,共21 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每日2次,共30 d | 59/59 | 59.32(35/59) | 32.20(19/59) | 96.61(57/59) | 83.05(49/59) | 3.10±1.58 | 4.60±1.87 | 1 |
舒伟[ | 2017 | 常规针刺每日1次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(10 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 58/57 | 41.38(24/58) | 28.07(16/57) | 98.28(57/58) | 89.47(51/57) | 3.41±1.26 | 3.38±1.02 | 2 |
苏慧媛[ | 2016 | 常规针刺每日1次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 35/32 | 28.57(10/35) | 9.38(3/32) | 91.43(32/35) | 78.13(25/32) | 1.54±0.74 | 2.86±0.92 | 2 |
崔晶[ | 2016 | 常规针刺每周2次,共6周 | 对乙酰氨基酚(1 g)按需服用,共6周 | 32/33 | 25.00(8/32) | 6.06(2/33) | 87.50(28/32) | 69.70(23/33) | 2.73±2.22 | 3.11±1.72 | 7 |
张瑞秋[ | 2021 | 常规针刺每日1次,共24 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共24 d | 43/42 | 18.60(8/43) | 4.76(2/42) | 90.70(39/43) | 73.81(31/42) | 3.42±1.14 | 5.48±1.40 | 3 |
陈慧[ | 2019 | 胆经每日1次,共20 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共20 d | 50/48 | 64.00(32/50) | 22.92(11/48) | 90.00(45/50) | 72.92(35/48) | 0.85±0.28 | 1.13±1.09 | 3 |
于明[ | 2017 | 胆经、三焦经每周3次,共12周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,每周5 d,共12周 | 41/43 | 48.78(20/41) | 41.86(18/43) | 95.12(39/41) | 88.37(38/43) | 2.07±0.31 | 2.40±0.47 | 1 |
卢金荣[ | 2014 | 头部腧穴每日1次,共10 d | 尼莫地平(40 mg)每日3次,共10 d | 48/48 | 41.67(20/48) | 10.42(5/48) | 91.67(44/48) | 62.50(30/48) | 2.17±1.88 | 3.76±2.42 | 1 |
杨佳[ | 2018 | 头部腧穴每周3次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(用法用量不详) | 20/19 | 75.00(15/20) | 52.63(10/19) | 95.00(19/20) | 78.95(15/19) | 3.40±1.39 | 4.58±1.17 | 6 |
景允南[ | 2021 | 透刺法隔日1次,共28 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 31/33 | 58.06(18/31) | 33.33(11/33) | 96.77(30/31) | 87.88(29/33) | 2.71±1.55 | 3.94±1.46 | 7 |
刘波[ | 2021 | 透刺法每日1次,共28 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每晚1次,共4周 | 40/40 | 15.00(6/40) | 5.00(2/40) | 97.50(39/40) | 85.00(34/40) | 2.57±1.05 | 3.54±1.19 | 1 |
杨雄庆[ | 2013 | 透刺法隔日1次,共40 d | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每日1次,共30 d | 30/28 | 56.67(17/30) | 28.57(8/28) | 96.67(29/30) | 78.57(22/28) | 2.40±1.04 | 4.12±1.10 | 2 |
杨旭光[ | 2006 | 四关穴每周3次,共4周 | 氟桂利嗪(5 mg)每日2次,共4周 | 35/33 | 22.86(8/35) | 15.15(5/33) | 91.43(32/35) | 72.73(24/33) | 1.31±0.57 | 1.67±0.85 | 5 |
治疗方案 | 治愈率 | 有效率 | VAS | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RR(95%CI) | I2(%) | P值 | 效应模型 | RR(95%CI) | I2(%) | P值 | 效应模型 | MD(95%CI) | I2(%) | P值 | 效应模型 | |
常规针刺[ | 2.62(1.93,3.55) | 45.2 | 0.104 | 固定 | 1.19(1.09,1.30) | 57.6 | 0.038 | 随机 | -1.29(-2.05,-0.52) | 91.9 | <0.001 | 随机 |
胆经腧穴[ | 1.78(0.76,4.19) | 81.8 | 0.019 | 随机 | 1.15(1.03,1.30) | 23.8 | 0.252 | 固定 | -0.32(-0.48,-0.16) | 0 | 0.845 | 固定 |
头部腧穴[ | 2.23(0.82,6.06) | 74.4 | 0.048 | 随机 | 1.38(1.15,1.65) | 20.7 | 0.262 | 固定 | -1.37(-1.96,-0.78) | 0 | 0.497 | 固定 |
透刺法[ | 1.96(1.28,2.98) | 0 | 0.801 | 固定 | 1.15(1.05,1.27) | 0 | 0.683 | 固定 | -1.29(-1.62,-0.96) | 49.8 | 0.136 | 固定 |
Table 2 Meta-analysis and heterogeneity test of cure rate,efficiency rate and VAS for each treatment plan
治疗方案 | 治愈率 | 有效率 | VAS | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RR(95%CI) | I2(%) | P值 | 效应模型 | RR(95%CI) | I2(%) | P值 | 效应模型 | MD(95%CI) | I2(%) | P值 | 效应模型 | |
常规针刺[ | 2.62(1.93,3.55) | 45.2 | 0.104 | 固定 | 1.19(1.09,1.30) | 57.6 | 0.038 | 随机 | -1.29(-2.05,-0.52) | 91.9 | <0.001 | 随机 |
胆经腧穴[ | 1.78(0.76,4.19) | 81.8 | 0.019 | 随机 | 1.15(1.03,1.30) | 23.8 | 0.252 | 固定 | -0.32(-0.48,-0.16) | 0 | 0.845 | 固定 |
头部腧穴[ | 2.23(0.82,6.06) | 74.4 | 0.048 | 随机 | 1.38(1.15,1.65) | 20.7 | 0.262 | 固定 | -1.37(-1.96,-0.78) | 0 | 0.497 | 固定 |
透刺法[ | 1.96(1.28,2.98) | 0 | 0.801 | 固定 | 1.15(1.05,1.27) | 0 | 0.683 | 固定 | -1.29(-1.62,-0.96) | 49.8 | 0.136 | 固定 |
治疗方案 | 治疗次数(加权平均值) | 治愈率的RR | 有效率的RR | VAS的MD | 改良Jadad评分(加权平均值) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
通元针法[ | 36.00 | 1.22 | 1.03 | -0.54 | 7.00 |
治神六穴[ | 20.00 | 2.95 | 1.19 | -0.77 | 5.00 |
骨边刺[ | 12.00 | 1.93 | 1.25 | -1.28 | 1.00 |
常规针刺[ | 22.69 | 2.62 | 1.19 | -1.29 | 2.56 |
胆经腧穴[ | 27.38 | 1.78 | 1.15 | -0.32 | 2.08 |
头部腧穴[ | 10.58 | 2.23 | 1.38 | -1.37 | 2.44 |
透刺法[ | 21.26 | 1.96 | 1.15 | -1.29 | 3.19 |
四关穴[ | 12.00 | 1.51 | 1.37 | -0.36 | 5.00 |
Table 3 Characteristics of each criterion for different treatment plans
治疗方案 | 治疗次数(加权平均值) | 治愈率的RR | 有效率的RR | VAS的MD | 改良Jadad评分(加权平均值) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
通元针法[ | 36.00 | 1.22 | 1.03 | -0.54 | 7.00 |
治神六穴[ | 20.00 | 2.95 | 1.19 | -0.77 | 5.00 |
骨边刺[ | 12.00 | 1.93 | 1.25 | -1.28 | 1.00 |
常规针刺[ | 22.69 | 2.62 | 1.19 | -1.29 | 2.56 |
胆经腧穴[ | 27.38 | 1.78 | 1.15 | -0.32 | 2.08 |
头部腧穴[ | 10.58 | 2.23 | 1.38 | -1.37 | 2.44 |
透刺法[ | 21.26 | 1.96 | 1.15 | -1.29 | 3.19 |
四关穴[ | 12.00 | 1.51 | 1.37 | -0.36 | 5.00 |
评价指标 | 信息熵值(e) | 差异度(d) | 权重系数(w) |
---|---|---|---|
治疗次数 | 0.961 6 | 0.038 4 | 21.27% |
治愈率 | 0.983 6 | 0.016 4 | 9.08% |
有效率 | 0.998 0 | 0.002 0 | 1.09% |
VAS | 0.941 5 | 0.058 5 | 32.42% |
改良Jadad评分 | 0.934 7 | 0.065 3 | 36.15% |
Table 4 The entropy value,variance and weight coefficient of each criterion
评价指标 | 信息熵值(e) | 差异度(d) | 权重系数(w) |
---|---|---|---|
治疗次数 | 0.961 6 | 0.038 4 | 21.27% |
治愈率 | 0.983 6 | 0.016 4 | 9.08% |
有效率 | 0.998 0 | 0.002 0 | 1.09% |
VAS | 0.941 5 | 0.058 5 | 32.42% |
改良Jadad评分 | 0.934 7 | 0.065 3 | 36.15% |
评价指标 | 正理想解(A+) | 负理想解(A-) |
---|---|---|
治疗次数 | 0.213 | 0.062 |
治愈率 | 0.091 | 0.038 |
有效率 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
VAS | 0.324 | 0.076 |
改良Jadad评分 | 0.362 | 0.052 |
Table 5 Positive and negative ideal solutions for each criterion
评价指标 | 正理想解(A+) | 负理想解(A-) |
---|---|---|
治疗次数 | 0.213 | 0.062 |
治愈率 | 0.091 | 0.038 |
有效率 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
VAS | 0.324 | 0.076 |
改良Jadad评分 | 0.362 | 0.052 |
方案 | 正理想解距离(D+) | 负理想解距离(D-) | 相对贴近度(C) | 排序结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
通元针法 | 0.253 | 0.314 | 0.554 | 2 |
治神六穴 | 0.202 | 0.244 | 0.547 | 3 |
骨边刺 | 0.313 | 0.260 | 0.454 | 7 |
常规针刺 | 0.257 | 0.250 | 0.493 | 5 |
胆经腧穴 | 0.380 | 0.062 | 0.139 | 8 |
头部腧穴 | 0.237 | 0.301 | 0.560 | 1 |
透刺法 | 0.227 | 0.260 | 0.534 | 4 |
四关穴 | 0.265 | 0.242 | 0.477 | 6 |
Table 6 Final evaluation results of each treatment plan based on TOPSIS method
方案 | 正理想解距离(D+) | 负理想解距离(D-) | 相对贴近度(C) | 排序结果 |
---|---|---|---|---|
通元针法 | 0.253 | 0.314 | 0.554 | 2 |
治神六穴 | 0.202 | 0.244 | 0.547 | 3 |
骨边刺 | 0.313 | 0.260 | 0.454 | 7 |
常规针刺 | 0.257 | 0.250 | 0.493 | 5 |
胆经腧穴 | 0.380 | 0.062 | 0.139 | 8 |
头部腧穴 | 0.237 | 0.301 | 0.560 | 1 |
透刺法 | 0.227 | 0.260 | 0.534 | 4 |
四关穴 | 0.265 | 0.242 | 0.477 | 6 |
[1] |
GBD Neurology Collaborators. Global,regional,and national burden of neurological disorders,1990-2016:a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016[J]. Lancet Neurol,2019,18(5):459-480. DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30499-X.
|
[2] |
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society(IHS)the international classification of headache disorders,3rd edition[J]. Cephalalgia,2018,38(1):1-211. DOI:10.1177/0333102417738202.
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
American headache society. The American Headache Society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice[J]. Headache,2019,59(1):1-18. DOI:10.1111/head.13456.
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
娄红岩. 针灸治疗偏头痛的网状Meta分析[D]. 乌鲁木齐:新疆医科大学,2020.
|
[12] |
王文通,王恩忠,李胜,等. 基于数据挖掘技术分析单纯针刺治疗偏头痛的取穴规律[J]. 中国中西医结合影像学杂志,2021,19(4):307-310. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-0512.2021.04.001.
|
[13] | |
[14] |
|
[15] |
刘永军,马林超,刘国恩. 多指标决策分析在卫生技术评价中的应用研究[J]. 中国药物经济学,2014,9(6):9-12.
|
[16] |
王健,孟庆跃,
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
王利然,宁文华,杨丽红,等. 针灸治疗中风后肩手综合征的优势方案筛选研究[J]. 针灸临床杂志,2022,38(2):46-52. DOI:10.19917/j.cnki.1005-0779.022032.
|
[19] |
秦懿囡,王利然,谢玥,等. 近10年针灸治疗血管性痴呆的优势方案筛选研究[J]. 中华中医药杂志,2020,35(8):4109-4112.
|
[20] |
张晶晶,黎波,杜元灏,等. 针灸治疗慢性疲劳综合征的优势方案筛选研究[J]. 中国中医基础医学杂志,2020,26(8):1123-1126,1217. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-3250.2020.08.027.
|
[21] |
刘佳琳,杜元灏,胡亚才,等. 基于层次分析法的针灸治疗脑卒中后抑郁症的优势方案研究[J]. 辽宁中医杂志,2018,45(3):595-598. DOI:10.13192/j.issn.1000-1719.2018.03.044.
|
[22] |
张晶晶,杜元灏,李晶,等. 针灸治疗股外侧皮神经炎的优势方案筛选研究[J]. 中国针灸,2019,39(3):323-328. DOI:10.13703/j.0255-2930.2019.03.026.
|
[23] |
|
[24] | |
[25] |
张瑞秋,陈英华. "标本、根结"理论指导针刺治疗偏头痛的临床观察[J]. 广州中医药大学学报,2021,38(2):306-310. DOI:10.13359/j.cnki.gzxbtcm.2021.02.016.
|
[26] |
于明,周倩文,徐宇浩. 针刺对慢性偏头痛患者血浆CGRP、β-EP和5-HT的影响[J]. 江苏医药,2017,43(10):710-713. DOI:10.19460/j.cnki.0253-3685.2017.10.011.
|
[27] |
杨旭光. 电针"四关"穴治疗无先兆偏头痛的近期疗效和远期疗效的临床观察[D]. 成都:成都中医药大学,2006.
|
[28] | |
[29] |
杨佳,沈燕,王舒. 针刺与盐酸氟桂利嗪对比治疗偏头痛的预防性临床疗效观察[J]. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化,2018,20(5):750-755. DOI:10.11842/wst.2018.05.021.
|
[30] |
苏慧媛,李晶,杜元灏. 调神疏肝针刺法治疗偏头痛35例疗效观察[J]. 湖南中医杂志,2016,32(8):102-103. DOI:10.16808/j.cnki.issn1003-7705.2016.08.046.
|
[31] |
舒伟,彭天忠,黄学娣,等. 间歇式柔肝调神针刺法预防性治疗偏头痛疗效观察[J]. 上海针灸杂志,2017,36(6):727-730. DOI:10.13460/j.issn.1005-0957.2017.06.0727.
|
[32] |
卢金荣,姚素媛. 电针治疗偏头痛48例疗效观察[J]. 中国中医药科技,2014,21(1):92.
|
[33] | |
[34] | |
[35] |
景允南. 疏肝宁神针刺法预防性治疗偏头痛的临床疗效观察[D]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江中医药大学,2021.
|
[36] | |
[37] |
关淑婷,冶尕西,张瑜,等. 针刺"治神六穴"治疗偏头痛的临床疗效评价[J]. 时珍国医国药,2019,30(7):1664-1666. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-0805.2019.07.042.
|
[38] |
戴晴,江彬,杨柳,等. 骨边刺法治疗偏头痛35例疗效观察[J]. 浙江中医杂志,2017,52(9):687-688. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0411-8421.2017.09.041.
|
[39] |
崔晶. 针刺治疗瑞士白种人无先兆型偏头痛的临床疗效观察[D]. 成都:成都中医药大学,2016.
|
[40] |
陈硕康. 赖氏通元针法治疗肝阳上亢型无先兆型偏头痛的临床观察[D]. 广州:广州中医药大学,2017.
|
[41] | |
[42] |
周怡,赵小龙. 医学信息分析与决策[M]. 北京:电子工业出版社,2014.
|
[43] |
杨丰文,张俊华,张伯礼. 中医药网状Meta分析质量评价[J]. 中华中医药杂志,2018,33(10):4599-4606.
|
[44] |
刘佳琳,杜元灏,黎波,等. 基于多指标决策法的针灸治疗枕神经痛的优势方案研究[J]. 辽宁中医杂志,2019,46(9):1799-1803. DOI:10.13192/j.issn.1000-1719.2019.09.002.
|
[45] |
闫超. 应用多指标决策方法评价选择针灸治疗痤疮优势方案[J]. 湖南中医杂志,2017,33(11):136-138. DOI:10.16808/j.cnki.issn1003-7705.2017.11.068
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[1] | ZHANG Di, LI Hongpeng, MA Jiang, NIE Qian, SUN Jianfeng, WU Zhipeng, ZHANG Hongcai, ZHAO Jue. Effect of Ocular Acupuncture and Exercise Combination Therapy on Postoperative Heart Rate Variability and Prognosis of Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(36): 4535-4544. |
[2] | XIE Xuemei, GAO Jing, BAI Dingxi, LU Xianying, HE Jiali, LI Yue. Current Status of Polypharmacy in the Elderly and Its Influencing Factors: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(35): 4394-4403. |
[3] | WANG Yue, CHEN Qing, LIU Lurong. Detection Rate of Depression and Its Influencing Factors in Chinese Elderly: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(34): 4329-4335. |
[4] | SU Kaiqi, LYU Zhuan, WU Mingli, LUO Meng, GAO Jing, NIE Chenchen, LIU Hao, FENG Xiaodong. Effect of Electroacupuncture on BDNF/TrkB/PI3K/Akt Pathway and Hippocampal Neuronal Protection in Rats with Learning and Memory Impairment after Ischemia Reperfusion [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(33): 4187-4193. |
[5] | JIAN Qiufeng, XU Ronghua, YAO Qian, ZHOU Yuanyuan. A Meta-analysis of the Prevalence and Influencing Factors of Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment in Chinese Elderly Patients [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(32): 4070-4079. |
[6] | JIA Yu, ZHOU Zitong, CAO Xuehua, HU Wanqin, XIANG Feng, XIONG Langyu, WANG Xiaoxia. Incidence of Perimenopausal Syndrome in Chinese Women Aged 40 to 65 Years: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(32): 4080-4088. |
[7] | LI Jixin, QIU Linjie, REN Yan, WANG Wenru, LI Meijie, ZHANG Jin. The Correlation of Dietary Inflammatory Index with Overweight, Obesity and Abdominal Obesity: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(32): 4089-4097. |
[8] | HE Jingyi, WANG Fang, SHUI Xiaoling, LI Ling, LIANG Qian. Efficacy of Non-pharmacological Interventions to Improve Perimenopausal Insomnia Symptoms: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(31): 3963-3974. |
[9] | QU Hui, LI Huan, TANG Ruohan, DU Yuzheng, ZHAO Qi. Outcome Indicators Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Hypopnea Syndrome in the Past Decade [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3734-3739. |
[10] | ZHU Lin, GUO Yankui, GAO Chen, CHEN Xuezhi, WANG Fashuai. Efficacy of Western Medicine, Chinese Patent Medicine and Their Combination on Post-stroke Insomnia: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3823-3832. |
[11] | ZHANG Dongli, SHEN Chong, ZHANG Weichuan, CHEN Haibin, ZHAO Jianjun. Efficacy and Safety of Programmed Death-1/Programmed Death-1 Ligand Inhibitors in the Treatment of Renal Cell Cancer: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(30): 3815-3822. |
[12] | HE Li, ZHANG Yifan, SHEN Xuechun, SUN Yan, ZHAO Yang. Prevalence Trends of Multimorbidity among Residents in Mainland China: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(29): 3599-3607. |
[13] | YAO Junjie, SHANG Qiangqiang, WANG Yufeng, LI Jiahui, LIU Chang, PANG Tingting. Wearable Inertial Sensors-based Efficacy Evaluation of Comprehensive Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapy for Lumbar Disc Herniation Due to Qi-stagnation and Blood-stasis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(27): 3450-3455. |
[14] | LIN Yang, WANG Fang, WANG Han, WU Rong, WANG Yao, XU Ziyao, WANG Xu, WANG Yanding. Prevalence of Frailty in Elderly Patients with Comorbidity: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(25): 3185-3193. |
[15] | ZHANG Guoqing, TONG Tingting, WANG Ying, LI Kuiwu, ZHANG Lida, WU Xiaoqing, LI Chenglong, WANG Junli, ZHANG Junyu, HAN Wei. Effect and Mechanism of Tongdu Tiaoshen Electroacupuncture Pretreatment-mediated MiR-124-3p/GSK-3β/Cyp-D Signaling Pathway on Mitochondrial Permeability Transition Pore in Cerebral Cortex of Rats with Cerebral Ischemia-reperfusion Injury [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(24): 3050-3060. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||