This article contains findings obtained from research on animals:
- The results from animal research studies should not be directly applied to humans and the results may not generalise to the human population.
- There may be significant differences between species in terms of physiology, physiology, and pharmacology, as well as differences in the way diseases and treatments are modelled in animals.
- Any conclusions drawn from animal research should be considered with caution and in the context of other types of research studies such as observational studies, clinical trials, and reviews of the literature.
Insights & Discussion
Discover Related Insights
Acupuncture, either solo or alongside conventional treatment, results in a significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life for chronic rhinosinusitis sufferers.
2022 Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Acupuncture for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Lee B, Kwon CY, Park MY
Systematic Review Acupuncture Chronic Rhinosinusitis Sinusitis
To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating chronic rhinosinusitis, this study utilized 10 randomized controlled clinical trials, found through searching electronic databases. Through these trials, the posttreatment severity of chronic rhinosinusitis was measured, primarily focusing on the Total Effective Rate and patient ratings on the Visual Analogue Scale.
From the analysis of the trial data, it was revealed that acupuncture, when used alone or in combination with conventional treatment methods, led to significant improvements in the severity of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms and the quality of life of patients. This was indicated by enhanced ratings on the Visual Analogue Scale and the Total Effective Rate. It was also noted that the incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment methods. Despite these promising results, the researchers found a high degree of clinical heterogeneity across the included trials, as well as generally moderate-to-low quality of evidence.