Jeanette Ezzo

Bio: Jeanette Ezzo is an academic researcher from University of Maryland, Baltimore. The author has contributed to research in topics: Acupuncture & Systematic review. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 27 publications receiving 2448 citations.

Is acupuncture effective for the treatment of chronic pain? A systematic review

Abstract: Pain is the major complaint of the estimated one million U.S. consumers who use acupuncture each year. Although acupuncture is widely available in chronic pain clinics, the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain remains in question. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain within the context of the methodological quality of the studies. MEDLINE (1966–99), two complementary medicine databases, 69 conference proceedings, and the bibliographies of other articles and reviews were searched. Trials were included if they were randomized, had populations with pain longer than three months, used needles rather than surface electrodes, and were in English. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using a validated instrument. Inter-rater disagreements were resolved by discussion. Fifty one studies met inclusion criteria. Clinical heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling. Results were positive in 21 studies, negative in 3 and neutral in 27. Three fourths of the studies received a low-quality score and low-quality trials were significantly associated with positive results ( P =0.05). High-quality studies clustered in designs using sham acupuncture as the control group, where the risk of false negative (type II) errors is high due to large sample size requirements. Six or more acupuncture treatments were significantly associated with positive outcomes ( P =0.03) even after adjusting for study quality. We conclude there is limited evidence that acupuncture is more effective than no treatment for chronic pain; and inconclusive evidence that acupuncture is more effective than placebo, sham acupuncture or standard care. However, we have found an important relationship between the methodology of the studies and their results that should guide future research.

Acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review.

Abstract: Objective To evaluate trials of acupuncture for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, to assess the methodologic quality of the trials and determine whether low-quality trials are associated with positive outcomes, to document adverse effects, to identify patient or treatment characteristics associated with positive response, and to identify areas of future research. Methods Eight databases and 62 conference abstract series were searched. Randomized or quasi-randomized trials of all languages were included and evaluated for methodologic quality using the Jadad scale. Outcomes were pain, function, global improvement, and imaging. Data could not be pooled; therefore, a best-evidence synthesis was performed to determine the strength of evidence by control group. The adequacy of the acupuncture procedure was assessed by 2 acupuncturists trained in treating OA and blinded to study results. Results Seven trials representing 393 patients with knee OA were identified. For pain and function, there was limited evidence that acupuncture is more effective than being on a waiting list for treatment or having treatment as usual. For pain, there was strong evidence that real acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture; however, for function, there was inconclusive evidence that real acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the efficacy of acupuncture is similar to that of other treatments. Conclusion The existing evidence suggests that acupuncture may play a role in the treatment of knee OA. Future research should define an optimal acupuncture treatment, measure quality of life, and assess acupuncture combined with other modalities.

Acupuncture-point stimulation for chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting

Abstract: BACKGROUND There have been recent advances in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting using 5-HT(3) inhibitors and dexamethasone. However, many still experience these symptoms, and expert panels encourage additional methods to reduce these symptoms. OBJECTIVES The objective was to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture-point stimulation on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, MANTIS, Science Citation Index, CCTR (Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry), Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register, Cochrane Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive Care Specialized Register, Cochrane Cancer Specialized Register, and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials of acupuncture-point stimulation by any method (needles, electrical stimulation, magnets, or acupressure) and assessing chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were provided by investigators of the original trials and pooled using a fixed effect model. Relative risks were calculated on dichotomous data. Standardized mean differences were calculated for nausea severity. Weighted mean differences were calculated for number of emetic episodes. MAIN RESULTS Eleven trials (N = 1247) were pooled. Overall, acupuncture-point stimulation of all methods combined reduced the incidence of acute vomiting (RR = 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99; P = 0.04), but not acute or delayed nausea severity compared to control. By modality, stimulation with needles reduced proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.94; P = 0.01), but not acute nausea severity. Electroacupuncture reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.97; P = 0.02), but manual acupuncture did not; delayed symptoms for acupuncture were not reported. Acupressure reduced mean acute nausea severity (SMD = -0.19; 95% confidence interval -0.37 to -0.01; P = 0.04) but not acute vomiting or delayed symptoms. Noninvasive electrostimulation showed no benefit for any outcome. All trials used concomitant pharmacologic antiemetics, and all, except electroacupuncture trials, used state-of-the-art antiemetics. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review complements data on post-operative nausea and vomiting suggesting a biologic effect of acupuncture-point stimulation. Electroacupuncture has demonstrated benefit for chemotherapy-induced acute vomiting, but studies combining electroacupuncture with state-of-the-art antiemetics and in patients with refractory symptoms are needed to determine clinical relevance. Self-administered acupressure appears to have a protective effect for acute nausea and can readily be taught to patients though studies did not involve placebo control. Noninvasive electrostimulation appears unlikely to have a clinically relevant impact when patients are given state-of-the-art pharmacologic antiemetic therapy.

Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment

Abstract: Background More than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL. Search methods We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register from root to 24May 2013. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care. Data collection and analysis We collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into ReviewManger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD. Main results Six trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories. (1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction. (2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction forMLD (MD7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants. (3) MLD+ compression therapy versus nonMLDtreatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoringMLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P= 0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus selfadministered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant forMLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants). MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials. Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group. Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results. Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care. Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results. Authors' conclusions MLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data. In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify themost clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation. Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life. For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received. One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve. (Less)

Acupuncture-Point Stimulation for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Abstract: Purpose Assess the effectiveness of acupuncture-point stimulation on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. Materials and Methods Randomized trials of acupuncture-point stimulation by needles, electrical stimulation, magnets, or acupressure were retrieved. Data were provided by investigators of the original trials and pooled using a fixed-effects model. Results Eleven trials (N = 1,247) were pooled. Overall, acupuncture-point stimulation reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (relative risks [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .04), but not the mean number of acute emetic episodes or acute or delayed nausea severity compared with controls. By modality, stimulation with needles reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94; P = .01), but not acute nausea severity. Electroacupuncture reduced the proportion of acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P = .02), but manual acupuncture did not; delayed symptoms were not reported. A...

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007.

Abstract: Objective—This report presents selected estimates of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among U.S. adults and children, using data from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Trends in adult use were assessed by comparing data from the 2007 and 2002 NHIS. Methods—Estimates were derived from the Complementary and Alternative Medicine supplements and Core components of the 2007 and 2002 NHIS. Estimates were generated and comparisons conducted using the SUDAAN statistical package to account for the complex sample design. Results—In 2007, almost 4 out of 10 adults had used CAM therapy in the past 12 months, with the most commonly used therapies being nonvitamin, nonmineral, natural products (17.7%) and deep breathing exercises (12.7%). American Indian or Alaska Native adults (50.3%) and white adults (43.1%) were more likely to use CAM than Asian adults (39.9%) or black adults (25.5%). Results from the 2007 NHIS found that approximately one in nine children (11.8%) used CAM therapy in the past 12 months, with the most commonly used therapies being nonvitamin, nonmineral, natural products (3.9%) and chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation (2.8%). Children whose parent used CAM were almost five times as likely (23.9%) to use CAM as children whose parent did not use CAM (5.1%). For both adults and children in 2007, when worry about cost delayed receipt of conventional care, individuals were more likely to use CAM than when the cost of conventional care was not a worry. Between 2002 and 2007 increased use was seen among adults for acupuncture, deep breathing exercises, massage therapy, meditation, naturopathy, and yoga. CAM use for head or chest colds showed a marked decrease from 2002 to 2007 (9.5% to 2.0%).