What is the evidence for moxibustion in treating osteoarthritis of the knee?
AMSTAR Rating
Summary
Patient Population:
No information was provided on the patient population.
Intervention:
All of the studies identified used indirect moxibustion techniques. Acupuncture points were selected based on traditional Chinese medicine. Number of sessions ranged from 1 – 6 (most commonly 2 sessions were provided with a day of rest between sessions).
Comparison:
Indirect moxibustion was compared with controls (sham treatment, no treatment or standard treatment for OA). There were 8 studies identified for inclusion in the present review. All studies originated in China. Most trials had a small sample size and were rated as having a high risk for bias. Only three trials reported an adequate method for generating a random allocation sequence – no trial reported a method for concealment of allocation. Patient blinding methods were unclear or absent. No trials used ITT analyses. At one point, the authors note that response rate = 70% symptom vs. baseline when referring to 2 trials – it is unclear if this response rate was used for all trials.
Outcome:
- “Response Rate”: moxibustion vs. oral diclofenac (5 studies) or celecoxib (1 study) – favourable response rate in favour of moxibustion therapy (RR=1.09, 95% CI 1.03, 1.17).
- “Response Rate”: moxibustion vs. topical therapy – no significant effect (1 study).
