CAJ | 학술논문

目的：对当前针灸疗法治疗血脂异常的系统评价与Meta分析进行汇总评价。方法通过检索Pubmed，Embase，Cochrane Library，CBM，CNKI和万方数据库，查找针灸疗法治疗血脂异常的系统评价与Meta分析的研究，对纳入的研究采用系统评价方法学质量评估工具AMSTAR评估方法学质量，并采用证据质量分级工具GRADE系统评估证据等级。结果最终纳入符合要求的系统评价1篇，比较针灸疗法与药物疗法。AMSTAR评估工具共有11个条目，结果显示：在条目一方面，该系统评价并未提供注册信息，也未提供研究计划书；条目二，该研究虽然介绍了有两名评价员分别评价，但没有详细列出具体评价员的信息；在条目十和条目十一方面，该系统评价在制作过程中，没有评估发表偏倚，也未对相关利益冲突做出说明；其余七个条目，该系统评价均做了较为充分的解释和说明。GRADE证据质量等级评估因“偏倚风险”，“不一致性”，“间接性”，“精确性”和“发表偏倚”5个方面降低证据质量。该系统评价关注的10个结局指标经评估后，证据质量均为“极低级”，均因存在“偏倚风险”、“不一致性”和“发表偏倚”而降级。结论当前针灸疗法治疗血脂异常的系统评价数量少，方法学质量不高且证据等级低，临床实践时应谨慎。
목적：대당전침구요법치료혈지이상적계통평개여Meta분석진행회총평개。방법통과검색Pubmed，Embase，Cochrane Library，CBM，CNKI화만방수거고，사조침구요법치료혈지이상적계통평개여Meta분석적연구，대납입적연구채용계통평개방법학질량평고공구AMSTAR평고방법학질량，병채용증거질량분급공구GRADE계통평고증거등급。결과최종납입부합요구적계통평개1편，비교침구요법여약물요법。AMSTAR평고공구공유11개조목，결과현시：재조목일방면，해계통평개병미제공주책신식，야미제공연구계화서；조목이，해연구수연개소료유량명평개원분별평개，단몰유상세렬출구체평개원적신식；재조목십화조목십일방면，해계통평개재제작과정중，몰유평고발표편의，야미대상관이익충돌주출설명；기여칠개조목，해계통평개균주료교위충분적해석화설명。GRADE증거질량등급평고인“편의풍험”，“불일치성”，“간접성”，“정학성”화“발표편의”5개방면강저증거질량。해계통평개관주적10개결국지표경평고후，증거질량균위“겁저급”，균인존재“편의풍험”、“불일치성”화“발표편의”이강급。결론당전침구요법치료혈지이상적계통평개수량소，방법학질량불고차증거등급저，림상실천시응근신。
Objective To conduct a summary overview on systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of acupuncture therapies for intervening dyslipidemia. Methods The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Database were retrieved for searching the studies on systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of acupuncture therapies for intervening dyslipidemia. The methodological quality of included studies was reviewed by using AMSTAR tools, and grades of evidence were reviewed by using GARDE system. Results There was finally only 1 eligible study included, which compared acupuncture therapy and medication therapy. The results of AMSTAR tools (totally 11 items) showed that in item 1, the study did not provide registration information and study proposal. In item 2, the study did not give reviewers’ information although it introduced there were 2 reviewers for separated reviewing. In item 10 and item 11, the study did not review publication bias and explain relevant interest conflicts during reviewing procedure. In other 7 items, the study described well. The quality grade reviewing of GRADE system showed that the quality of evidence was reduced due to risk of bias, inconsistency, indirection, precision and publication bias. The quality of evidence was at very low grade because risk of bias, inconsistency and publication bias after reviewing 10 outcome indicators focused by the study. Conclusion The quantity of systematic reviews of acupuncture therapy for dyslipidemia are smaller now, methodological quality is lower, and grade of evidence is very low, so the therapy should be applied cautiously in clinic practice.