Efficacy of acupuncture on acute pharynx infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Several clinical reports have focused on acupuncture for the treatment of acute pharyngeal infections. However, the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of acute pharyngeal infections are controversial. To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in treating acute pharynx infections, thus providing a reference for clinical decision-making. Methods: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biomedical, clinical research registration platforms, gray literature, and reference lists of the selected studies from inception to October 30, 2022. The risk of bias assessment was performed using RevMan. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA with the Hedges’ g value. We also performed a subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias detection using Harbord’s and Egger’s tests. Results: We included 19 randomized controlled trials comprising 1701 patients, of which only one study had a high risk of bias. The primary outcome, i.e., the response rate, revealed that acupuncture was more effective than antibiotics. The secondary results revealed that the differences in the reduction of VAS scores, sore throat duration, and white blood cell counts were statistically significant in the acupuncture group compared with the antibiotic group. However, the difference in the modulation of the neutrophil percentage and C-reactive protein levels was insignificant. Moreover, the acupuncture treatment resulted in a lower incidence of adverse events than the antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: Thus, acupuncture therapy for acute pharyngeal infections is safe and its response rate is superior to that of antibiotics. Acupuncture showed positive outcomes for alleviating the sore throat symptoms, shortening the sore throat duration, and improving the immune inflammation index. Nevertheless, owing to the limitations of this study, our conclusions should be interpreted with caution. More high-quality trials are warranted in the future for improving the methodology and reporting quality.