Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of efficacy outcomes

From: Acupuncture for ankle sprain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Author (year)

Treatment (no. of participants analyzed/randomized)

Outcome measures

Results

Acupuncture as an add-on treatment

Sun (2011) [24]

(A) MA + functional exercise (41/41)

1) PRGA* at 14 d

1) NS

(B) Functional exercise (41/41)

2) Time to cure (d)

2) (A) significantly better than (B)

Zheng (2010) [25]

(A) MA + PRICE (≤ 24 h), MA + EA (≥ 24 h) (40/40†; 27/40‡)

1) PRGA* at 15 d

1) (A) significantly better than (B)

(B) PRICE (≤ 24 h), EA (≥ 24 h) (33/33†; 12/33‡)

2) Time to cure

2) NS

Wei (2010) [37]

(A) WA + massage (30/30)

PRGA§ at 10 d

NS

(B) TENS + massage (30/30)

Tang (2010) [38]

(A) EA + massage + IR (30/30)

1) PRGA * at 10 d

1) (A) significantly better than (B)

(B) Massage + IR (30/30†; 25/30‡)

2) Recurrence rate at 6 month follow-up (%)

2) NS

He (2010) [36]

(A) WA + small needle-knife therapy + drug injection + rehabilitation (87/87)

1) Pain (VAS) at immediately and two yrs after treatment

1) (A) significantly better than (B)

2) (A) significantly better than (B)

(B) Small needle-knife therapy + drug injection + rehabilitation (87/87)

2) QOL (SF-36) at immediately and two yrs after treatment

(C) WA + rehabilitation (87/87)

He (2006) [29]

(A) MA + PRICE (≤ 24 h), EA + WA (≥ 24 h) (46/46†; 31/46‡)

1) PRGA* at 15 d

1) (A) significantly better than (B)

(B) PRICE (≤ 24 h), EA (≥ 24 h) (33/33†; 12/33‡)

2) Time to cure

2) NS

Li (2002) [31]

(A) MA + oral/topical HM (23/23)

PRGA* at 8 d

(A) significantly better than (B)

(B) Oral/topical HM (23/23)

Ge (2000) [32]

(A) MA + oral HM (50/50)

PRGA§ at 10 d

NS

(B) Oral HM (30/30)

Yu (1999) [33]

(A) MA + topical NSAIDs (50/50)

PRGA†† at 7 d

NS

(B) Topical NSAIDs (50/50)

(C) MA (50/50)

Yu (2) (1999) [34]

(A) MA + topical NSAIDs + ice pack (30/30)

PRGA†† at 7 d

(A) significantly better than (B), (C), or (D)

(B) Topical NSAIDs + ice pack (30/30)

(C) Ice pack (30/30)

(D) MA (30/30)

Yu (1996) [35]

(A) MA + topical HM + ice pack (30/30)

PRGA§ at 7 d

(A) significantly better than (B)

(B) Topical HM + ice pack (30/30)

(C) Ice pack (30/30)

(D) MA (30/30)

Ruan (1995) [40]

(A) MA + massage (116/116)

PRGA‡‡

NS

(B) MA (112/112)

(C) Massage (110/110)

Acupuncture alone vs. other therapy

Ni (2010) [26]

(A) MA (64/64†; 61/64‡)

1) PRGA* at 3 d

1) (A) significantly better than (B)

(B) Ice pack (≤ 24 h), hot pack (≥ 24 h) + oral HM + IR (59/59†; 45/59‡)

2) Time to cure

2) NS

Luo (2009) [27]

(A) EA (23/23)

PRGA* at 4 wks

NS

(B) Topical NSAIDs (23/23)

Zhou (2008) [28]

(A) WA (26/26)

PRGA** at 5 d

(A) significantly better than (B)

(B) IR (23/23)

Zhao (2005) [30]

(A) EA (43/43)

PRGA* at 4 wks

NS

(B) Oral/topical NSAIDs + hot pack (33/33)

Wang (2005) [39]

(A) EA (27/27)

PRGA* at 5 d

(A) significantly better than (B)

 

(B) IR (30/30)

  
  1. *, cured/significantly improved/improved/failed; †, for outcome measure 1); ‡, for outcome measure 2); §, cured/improved/failed.
  2. **, decrease rate ≥ 5/decrease rate ≤ 5 (mean score of pain and swelling).
  3. ††, significantly improved/improved/failed.
  4. ‡‡, cured/significantly improved/improved.
  5. There were 4 trials which reported acupuncture alone vs. other treatment and acupuncture plus other treatment vs. other treatment [33–35, 40]. They were put as acupuncture as an add-on treatment trials in this table.
  6. d indicates days; EA, electroacupuncture; h, hours; HM, herbal medicine; IR, infrared radiation; MA, manual acupuncture; no., number; NS, no significant difference between groups; NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PRGA, patient-reported global assessment; PRICE, protection, rest, ice, compression and elevation; QOL, quality of life; TENS, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; VAS, visual analog scale; WA, warm acupuncture; wks, weeks; yrs, years.