Effects of acupuncture and moxibustion on ulcerative colitis: An overview of systematic reviews

Wang et al. · Heliyon · 2024

📊Overview of Systematic Reviews📝10 studies analyzed⚠️Low-quality evidence
🎯

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the methodological and evidence quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture and moxibustion in the treatment of ulcerative colitis

👥

WHO

Analysis of 10 systematic reviews including 109 randomized clinical trials with 8,556 participants

⏱️

DURATION

Studies published between 2010-2023

📍

POINTS

Body acupuncture, electroacupuncture, moxibustion, and combined techniques

🔬 Study Design

8556participants
randomization

Acupuncture/Moxibustion

n=4278

Acupuncture and moxibustion techniques alone or combined

Controls

n=4278

Conventional medications or placebo

⏱️ Duration: 13-year analysis period

📊 Results in numbers

0%

Studies of low or very low quality

0%

Moderate-quality evidence

0%

Low-quality evidence

0%

Very low-quality evidence

Percentage highlights

100%
Studies of low or very low quality
22%
Moderate-quality evidence
30%
Low-quality evidence
48%
Very low-quality evidence

📊 Outcome Comparison

Methodological quality (AMSTAR-2)

Low quality
2
Critically low
8
💬 What does this mean for you?

This study analyzed the quality of existing research on acupuncture and moxibustion for ulcerative colitis. Although the techniques appear promising, most studies have important methodological problems that limit the reliability of the results, and higher-quality research is needed.

📝

Article summary

Plain-language narrative summary

This study represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture and moxibustion in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that significantly affects patients' quality of life, characterized by inflammation of the colonic mucosa, abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, and fecal urgency. With the global increase in incidence, especially in developing countries such as China, where the annual rate has risen to 1.18 per 100,000 people, finding effective and safe treatments has become crucial. The researchers conducted a systematic search in seven databases through May 2023, identifying 356 initial records.

After a rigorous selection process, 10 studies were included in the final analysis, encompassing 109 randomized clinical trials with 8,556 participants. The studies were published between 2010 and 2023, six in Chinese and four in English. The methodology employed four internationally recognized assessment tools: AMSTAR-2 for methodological quality, PRISMA for reporting quality, ROBIS for risk of bias, and GRADE for quality of evidence. The results revealed significant problems in the overall quality of the studies.

Using AMSTAR-2, only two studies were classified as low quality, while eight received a critically low classification. No study reached high methodological quality. The main problems identified included lack of prior registration of the research protocol, incomplete search strategies, and absence of a list of excluded studies with justifications. The PRISMA evaluation showed that no study completed all checklist items, with 40% of studies presenting significant deficiencies in reporting.

Items such as search strategy, evaluation of evidence certainty, and protocol registration were consistently poorly reported. Risk of bias, assessed by ROBIS, showed that 60% of studies had high risk, mainly due to problems in the search and selection of studies. Using GRADE, the quality of evidence was concerning: of the 27 outcomes evaluated, none had high quality, only 22% had moderate quality, 30% low quality, and 48% very low quality. The main factors contributing to low quality were limitations in the design of the original studies, especially problems with randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding, present in 100% of outcomes.

Imprecision of results affected 59% of outcomes, risk of publication bias 44%, and inconsistency 26%. Despite the methodological limitations, the analysis of clinical outcomes suggests that acupuncture and moxibustion may be effective in the treatment of UC. Studies demonstrated improvement in clinical cure rates compared with conventional medications, with a favorable safety profile. Reported adverse effects were mild and self-limited, including nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and minimal bleeding, with lower incidence than in the control group.

Subgroup analysis revealed efficacy of different modalities, including intermediate moxibustion, suspended moxibustion, fulminant moxibustion, and various combinations with Western medicine. However, the heterogeneity among studies was considerable, limiting the interpretation of pooled results. The clinical implications are important but should be interpreted with caution. Although traditional Chinese medicine, particularly acupuncture and moxibustion, offers advantages such as lower hepatic and renal toxicity, economy, and convenience compared with conventional pharmacologic treatments, the current evidence does not allow for definitive recommendations due to low methodological quality.

The study identified several areas for improvement in future research: prospective protocol registration, more comprehensive search strategies including gray literature, better control of bias in original trials, and standardization of diagnostic criteria and outcomes. The need for high-quality multicenter studies with larger samples is evident to definitively establish the role of acupuncture and moxibustion in the management of ulcerative colitis.

Strengths

  • 1First comprehensive evaluation of systematic reviews on acupuncture/moxibustion for ulcerative colitis
  • 2Use of multiple validated assessment tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA, ROBIS, GRADE)
  • 3Protocol prospectively registered on PROSPERO
  • 4Comprehensive search across seven databases
  • 5Rigorous analysis of methodological quality and evidence
⚠️

Limitations

  • 1Critically low methodological quality of most included studies
  • 2High risk of bias in 60% of the analyzed reviews
  • 3Significant heterogeneity among original studies
  • 4Blinding limitations due to the nature of the interventions
  • 5Possible overlap of primary studies not fully evaluated
Prof. Dr. Hong Jin Pai

Expert Commentary

Prof. Dr. Hong Jin Pai

PhD in Sciences, University of São Paulo

Clinical Relevance

Ulcerative colitis remains an ongoing therapeutic challenge, especially in patients who do not tolerate or respond unsatisfactorily to aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants. In this scenario, acupuncture and moxibustion emerge as adjunctive options with an attractive safety profile — mild and self-limited adverse effects, without the hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity associated with the conventional pharmacologic arsenal. This overview of systematic reviews, gathering 109 randomized clinical trials and 8,556 participants over thirteen years of publications, consolidates the current evidence landscape in an unprecedented way. For the clinician integrating acupuncture into gastroenterology, the immediate value lies less in the certainty of effects and more in the systematization of modality subgroups — intermediate, suspended, and fulminant moxibustion, and their combinations with Western medicine — allowing more informed therapeutic choices while higher-rigor research is awaited.

Notable Findings

The most striking finding of this overview is not an isolated clinical result, but the anatomy of the evidential problem: of the 27 outcomes assessed by GRADE, none reached high quality, only 22% achieved moderate quality, and a striking 48% were classified as very low quality. The most ubiquitous factor degrading the evidence was limitations in the design of primary studies — problems with randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding present in 100% of evaluated outcomes. Equally revealing is that 60% of the included systematic reviews presented high risk of bias by ROBIS, and none completed all PRISMA items. Paradoxically, even on this fragile methodological base, the data consistently point to improvement in clinical cure rates compared with pharmacologic controls, making the results clinically suggestive, though not definitive.

From My Experience

In my practice at the Pain Center of HC-FMUSP, ulcerative colitis in active disease usually arrives referred from gastroenterology after partial failure or medication intolerance, and I have observed that moxibustion — especially at points ST-25, ST-36, and CV-4 — produces a perceptible response in terms of abdominal comfort and bowel-movement frequency around the fourth to sixth session. I usually work in cycles of twelve initial sessions, with joint reassessment with the gastroenterologist before deciding on biweekly maintenance. Combination with mesalamine at optimized doses appears to potentiate results, and this pattern is consistent with what this analysis describes in acupuncture-Western medicine combinations. Patients with mild-to-moderate disease, without systemic complications and with good adherence to non-pharmacologic treatments, form the profile that responds best. I avoid recommending the technique as monotherapy in moderate-to-severe flares — in those cases, the role is clearly adjunctive. What this work confirms is that our accumulated empiric practice has support in a body of evidence that is still immature, but growing and coherent in its directions.

Specialist physician in Medical Acupuncture. Adjunct Professor at the Institute of Orthopedics, HC-FMUSP. Coordinator of the Acupuncture Group at the HC-FMUSP Pain Center.

Full original article

Read the full scientific study

Heliyon · 2024

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27524

Access original article
CITED IN · 01 PAGE

Condition pages and clinical articles that cite this evidence as the basis of their recommendations.

Scientific Review

Marcus Yu Bin Pai, MD, PhD

Marcus Yu Bin Pai, MD, PhD

CRM-SP: 158074 | RQE: 65523 · 65524 · 655241

PhD in Health Sciences, University of São Paulo. Board-certified in Pain Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Medical Acupuncture. Scientific review and curation of every entry in this library.

Learn more about the author →
⚕️

Medical disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not replace consultation, diagnosis, or treatment by a qualified professional. Some information may be assisted by artificial intelligence and is subject to inaccuracies. Always consult a physician.

Content reviewed by the medical team at CEIMEC — Integrated Centre for Chinese Medicine Studies, a reference in Medical Acupuncture for over 30 years.