1Jaseng Spine and Joint Research Institute, Jaseng Medical Foundation, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2Jaseng Hospital of Korean Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Department of Korean Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University Korean Medicine Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea
©2023 Jaseng Medical Foundation
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: BCS. Methodology: DK. Formal analysis: GB. Investigation: DK. Writing original draft: DK and GB. Writing - review and editing: BCS.
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Funding
None.
Ethical Statement
This research did not involve any human or animal experiments.
Author, y [ref.] | Aims | Time period of search and databases used for search | No. included RCTs (patients) | Patients | Interventions | Comparisons | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cervical (n = 4) | |||||||
Wang et al, 2008 [19] | Evaluation of the efficacy of CMT for treatment of symptoms of cervical spondylosis | 1996–2007; 6 E and 2 Ch DB | 7 (926) | Cervical spondylosis | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Blood flow velocity 2) Blood viscosity 3) Severity of headache and vertigo |
Zhou et al, 2016 [21] | Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a combined therapy of CMT + acupuncture for the treatment of cervical disc herniation | Time period not specified; 2 Ch and 2 E DB + manual-searching | 5 (347) | Cervical disc herniation | CMT + acupuncture | Acupuncture | 1) Effective rate |
Yang et al, 2013 [22] | Comparative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of CMT VS traction for the treatment of cervical disc herniation | Up to April 16, 2013; 3 Ch and 2 E DB | 30 (2,807) | Cervical disc herniation | CMT alone | Traction |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome |
Lee et al, 2016 [23] | Evaluation of the effects of CMT on cervical pain | Up to July 2016; 2 K, 4 E, and 1 Ch DB | 7 (571) | Cervical pain | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Pain outcome (NRS, VAS) 2) Functional outcome (NDI) |
|
|||||||
Thoracolumbar (n = 7) | |||||||
|
|||||||
Zhou et al, 2023 [24] | Evaluation of the therapeutic effects of CMT on chronic/non-acute LBP | Up to May 2022; 3 E and 4 Ch DB | 17 (1,628) | LBP | CMT (alone or combined) | Usual care, sham Tuina/placebo, no treatment/wait list |
Not performed data synthesis and results analysis. RCTs included pain intensity, physical disability |
Yang et al, 2023 [25] | Evaluation of the treatment effects and safety of CMT on chronic/nonspecific LBP | Up to December 30, 2019; 7 E and 5 Ch DB + manual-searching | 15 (1,390) | LBP | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Pain outcome 2) Functional outcome 3) Quality of life measures |
Cho et al, 2021 [26] | Evaluation of the effects of CMT on postpartum LBP | Up to September 2021; 6 K, 5 E, and 1 Ch DB | 4 (454) | LBP | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
Not performed data synthesis 1) Pain outcome (VAS) 2) functional outcome (ODI) 3) Effective rate |
Wang et al, 2022 [27] | Presenting evidence for effects of CMT + acupuncture for treatment of LDH | January 2012 – December 2020; 4 Ch DB + manual-searching | 15 (1,786) | LDH | CMT + acupuncture | Acupuncture | 1) Effective rate |
Rao et al, 2019 [28] | Efficacy and safety of CMT for acute lumbar sprain | Up to October 2018; 4 Ch and 2 E DB | 11 (851) | Acute lumbar sprain | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Efficacy rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Recovery rate |
Hong et al, 2020 [29] | Evaluation of the effect of CMT on spondylolisthesis | Up to August 2020; 4 K, 5 E and 1 Ch DB | 11 (910) | Spondylolisthesis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) |
Lim et al, 2018 [30] | Evaluation of efficacy and safety of CMT for lumbar spinal stenosis | Up to October 2018; 6 K, 3 E and 1 Ch DB + manual-searching | 3 (220) | Spinal stenosis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) pain outcome (VAS) 2) effective rate |
|
|||||||
Upper extremity (n = 5) | |||||||
|
|||||||
Yan et al, 2021 [31] | Systematic review of efficacy of CMT for treatment of shoulder pain | Up to December 2019; 3 E and 2 Ch DB | 11 (1,100) | Shoulder pain | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Pain outcome 2) Functional outcome (ROM) 3) Muscle strength assessment |
Hong et al, 2021 [32] | Evaluation of efficacy of CMT for treatment of rotator cuff disorder | Up to January 2022; 4 K, 2 E and 2 Ch DB | 4 (284) | Rotator cuff disorder | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
Not performed data synthesis. 1) Pain outcome 2) Effective rate |
Cho et al, 2019 [33] | Evaluation of the effects of CMT on treatment of adhesive capsulitis | Up to August 2019; 5 K, 4 E and 1 Ch DB | 21 (3,016) | Adhesive capsulitis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Pain outcome (VAS, NRS) 2) Effective rate |
Han et al, 2022 [34] | Evaluation of the treatment effect of CMT for lateral epicondylitis of humerus | Up to April 2022; 5 K, 3 E, 1 Japanese, and 1 Ch DB | 8 (675) | Lateral epicondylitis of humerus | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
Not performed data synthesis 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Ability of daily life |
Park et al, 2021 [35] | Evaluation of efficacy and safety of CMT for carpal tunnel syndrome | Up to October 2021; 6 K, 4 E and 2 Ch DB + manual searching | 504 | Carpal tunnel syndrome | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (BCTQ) |
|
|||||||
Lower extremity (n = 9) | |||||||
|
|||||||
Lee et al, 2022 [36] | Evaluation of effect of CMT for management of symptoms after hip replacement surgery | Up to January 2022; 5 K, 2 E and 2 Ch DB | 11 (410) | Surgery for hip joint | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Harris hip score 2) DVT incidence |
Zang et al, 2023 [37] | Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of CMT for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) | Up to December 2019; 1 E and 4 Ch DB | 6 (359) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT alone or combination with functional exercise therapy | Blank control, Sham therapy, functional exercise |
1) Pain outcome (VAS) 2) Functional outcome (WOMAC) 3) Walking time |
Pan et al, 2022 [38] | Systematic review on the reliability of CMT for treatment of KOA | Time period not defined; 5 E and 4 Ch DB | 16 (1,670) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (WOMAC) |
Liu et al, 2021 [39] | Evaluation of efficacy of a combined therapy of CMT + intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) | From January 2001 to December 2019; 1 E and 3 Ch DB, +American medica abstracts DB | 10 (1,016) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT + Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate | Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate | 1) Effective rate |
Xu et al, 2019 [40] | Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of CMT for KOA | Up to February 1, 2019; 3 E and 3 Ch DB | 17 (1,387) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (WOMAC) |
Chen et al, 2019 [41] | Evaluation of efficacy and safety of CMT monotherapy for KOA | Up to May 2018; 2 E and 3 Ch DB+ manual-searching | 8 (632) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (JOA) |
Bai et al, 2018 [42] | Evaluation on the efficacy of a combined therapy (CMT + topical herbal medicine preparations from traditional Chinese medicine) for KOA | Up to November 27, 2017; 1 E and 3 Ch DB | 6 (495) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT + topical herbal medicine preparations | Oral administration or topical application of NSAIDS |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome 3) Functional outcome |
Lee et al, 2021 [43] | Evaluation of the effects of CMT for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty | Up to January 2021; 5 K, 2 E and 2 Ch DB DB | 23 (1,792) | Surgery for knee (total knee arthroplasty) | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) DVT incidence 3) Hospital for special surgery score (HSS) 4) Pain outcome (VAS) 5) Functional outcome (WOMAC) |
Kwark et al, 2018 [44] | Evaluation of the effects of CMT for ankle sprain | Up to October 2017; 2 K, 3 E, and 1 Ch DB | 24 (1,960) | Ankle sprain | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
Not performed data synthesis 1) Pain outcome (VAS, NRS) 2) Functional outcome (AOFAS) 3) Effective rate |
|
|||||||
Others (n = 8) | |||||||
|
|||||||
Moon et al, 2012 [45] | Evaluation of CMT efficacy for musculoskeletal pain reported in Korean literature | Up to April 2011; 7 K DB + manual-searching | 6 (207)* | Musculoskeletal | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
Not performed data synthesis Efficacy of experimental group (Positive significant effect / not significant different / negative significant effect) |
Lee et al, 2017 [46] | Systematic review of the effects of CMT on the outcomes of pain and function for patients with musculoskeletal disorders | Up to December 2016; 3 Ch, 1 Japanese, and 7 K DB + manual-searching | 66 (6,170)† | Musculoskeletal | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Pain outcome (VAS, NRS) 2) Functional outcome (NDI, ODI) |
Lee et al, 2023 [47] | Evaluation of the effects of CMT on TMD | Up to March 2020; 4 E, 1 Ch, 1 Japanese, and 5 K DB | 12 (863) | TMD (aged 19 years or older) | CMT (alone or combined) | usual care |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome 3) Functional outcome |
Bae et al, 2017 [48] | Evaluation on the effects of CMT for treatment of TMD | Up to May 2017; 6 K, 3 E, and 1 Ch DB | 14 (989) | TMD | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate, 2) Pain outcome (VAS) |
He et al, 2023 [49] | Systematic review on the efficacy and safety of CMT on TMD | Up to July 2022; 3 E and 3 Ch DB | 13 (1,141) | TMD | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (degree of pain relief) 3) Maximum active opining degree 4) Friction index |
Kim et al, 2018 [50] | Evaluation on the effects and safety of traditional Chinese medicine including CMT for treatment of osteoarthritis | Up to May 2018; 3 K, 4 E, and 1 Ch DB | 7 (633) | Osteoarthritis | CMT (combined) | Treatment other than CMT |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (JOA) |
Heo et al, 2018 [51] | Evaluation on the effects of CMT for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis | Up to April 2018; 4 K, 4 E, and 1 Ch DB | 5 (314) | Rheumatoid Arthritis | CMT (combined) | Usual care of traditional Korean medicine, medications of conventional medicine |
1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Duration of morning stiffness |
* TMD 2/neck pain 2/LBP 2.
† Cervical 24, Thoracolumbar 14, Upper extremity 13, Lower extremity 10, Others 4.
AOFAS = American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society; BCTQ = Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Ch = Chinese; DB = databases; DVT = deep vein thrombosis; E = English; FIQ = Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; HSS = Hospital for Special Surgery Knee-Rating Scale; JOA = Japanese Orthopedic Association; K = Korean; NDI = neck disability index; NRS = numeric rating scale; ROM = range of motion; VAS = visual analog scale; WOMAC = The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.
Author, y [ref.] | Effective rate | Pain outcome | Functional outcome | Other outcomes | AE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cervical | |||||
|
|||||
Wang et al, 2008 [19] |
Blood flow velocity (980 patients): not significant - Hedgee’s g: 0.25 (−0.02 to 0.51) Vertigo and headache (data not synthesized): not significant |
||||
Zhou et al, 2016 [21] |
Significant (n = 5): OR 2.87 [1.30, 6.30] |
1) Recovery rate: significant OR 1.97 [1.28, 3.03] |
AEs reported in no RCTs | ||
Yang et al, 2013 [22] |
Significant (n = 22) RR 3.13 [2.27, 4.32] |
Significant (n = 9) MD −1.20 [−1.39, −1.02], |
AEs were reported in 14 RCTs. -no AE (n = 8) -mild AE (n = 6) |
||
Lee et al, 2016 [23] |
Significant -CMT vs traction (n = 5): SMD −1.01 [−1.67, −0.34], -CMT vs medication (n = 2): SMD −0.62 [−1.03, −0.21], |
Significant -CMT vs traction (n = 1) MD −3.60 [−6.67, −0.53], |
|||
|
|||||
Thoracolumbar | |||||
|
|||||
Zhou et al, 2023 [24] | No discussion on the outcomes | ||||
Yang et al, 2023 [25] |
Significant (n = 12) SMD −0.82 [−1.12, −0.53] |
Significant (n = 2) SMD −0.91 [−1.55, −0.27] |
1) Quality of life (n = 2): not significant SMD 0.58 [−0.04, 1.21] |
AEs were reported in 6 RCTs. -No SAE: n = 6 |
|
Cho et al, 2021 [26] |
Data not synthesized (n = 4) conflicted results −2 RCTs Significant, 2 RCTs not significant |
Data not synthesized (n = 2) - significant in all 2 RCTs |
Data not synthesized (n = 1) - significant in all 1 RCT |
No specific reports on AEs | |
Wang et al, 2022 [27] |
Significant (n = 15) OR 4.59 [3.15, 6.69] |
||||
Rao et al, 2019 [28] |
Significant (n = 11) OR 5.47 [3.27, 9.16] |
Significant (n = 4) WMD −2.24 [−2.36, −2.21] |
1) Recovery rate: significant (n = 11) OR 3.78 [2.34, 6.11] |
AEs were reported in 1 RCT. -No SAE: n = 1 |
|
Hong et al, 2020 [29] |
Significant -CMT vs traction (n = 3): RR 7.36 [2.96, 18.29], -CMT + exercise vs traction + exercise (n = 3) RR 2.83 [1.39, 5.75] |
AEs were reported in 2 RCTs -no ae: n = 2 |
|||
Lim et al, 2018 [30] |
Significant (n = 3) -RR 1.32 [1.11, 1.57] |
AEs were reported in 1 RCT | |||
|
|||||
Upper extremity | |||||
|
|||||
Yan et al, 2021 [31] |
Significant (n = 8) SMD −1.15 [−1.76, −0.54] |
Significant (n = 8) WMD −9.71 [−10.36, −9.07] |
1) Muscle strength assessment (n = 7): significant WMD −0.02 [−0.29, −0.1] 2) Daily living skills assessment (n = 7): significant WMD −2.37 [−2.72, −2.02], |
||
Hong et al, 2021 [32] |
Data not synthesized. Conflicted results (n = 2) −1 significant, 1 not significant |
Data not synthesized. Conflicted results (n = 3) −2 significant, 1 not significant |
AEs were reported in 2 RCTs. -no ae: n = 1 -feeling of stiffness: n = 1 |
||
Cho et al, 2019 [33] |
Significant -CMT vs Acu (n = 10): RR 1.10 [1.02, 1.18] -CMT + Acu vs Acu (n = 12): RR 1.19 [1.14, 1.23] |
Significant -CMT vs Acu (n = 4): SMD −0.45 [−1.06, 0.17] -CMT + Acu vs Acu (n = 2): SMD −1.81 [−2.54, −1.08], |
|||
Han et al, 2022 [34] |
Data not synthesized (n = 7) - significant in all 7 RCTs |
Data not synthesized (n = 4) - significant in all 4 RCTs |
Data not synthesized (n = 5) - significant in all 5 RCTs |
AEs were reported in 2 RCTs -mild skin redness: n = 2 |
|
Park et al, 2021 [35] |
Significant -CMT + KM vs WM (n = 2): RR 1.69 [1.35, 2.13], -CMT + KM vs WM (n = 4): RR 1.38 [1.14, 1.65] |
||||
|
|||||
Lower extremity | |||||
|
|||||
Lee et al, 2022 [36] |
1) Harris hip score: significant -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 2): MD 9.55 [7.18, 11.91] -CMT + fumigation therapy vs UC (n = 2): MD 2.91 [2.33, 3.50] 2) Incidence of DVT: conflicted results -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 4): Significant RR 0.25 [0.12, 0.52] -CMT + herbal medicine vs UC (n = 2): not significant RR 0.55 [0.21, 1.40], p=0.21 |
||||
Zang et al, 2023 [37] |
Not significant (n = 6) MD −0.38 [−1.35, −0.19] |
1) Walking time (n = 2): significant MD −1.60 [−2.57, −0.63] |
AEs were reported in 1 RCT -an increase in discomfort: n = 1 |
||
Pan et al, 2022 [38] |
Significant (n = 13) OR 4.53 [3.06, 6.69] |
Significant (n = 13) MD −2.72 [−4.19, −1.25] |
Significant (n = 6) MD −14.21 [−14.86, −13.56] |
HS score (n = 2): significant MD 6.32 [4.58, 8.06] |
|
Liu et al, 2021 [39] |
Significant (n = 10) OR 4.91 [3.05, 7.91] |
||||
Xu et al, 2019 [40] |
Significant (n = 16) MD 2.30 [1.65, 3.22], |
Not significant (n = 5) |
Significant (n = 5) MD −9.04 [−16.71, −1.36] |
AEs were reported in 3 RCTs -No significant differences between the two groups |
|
Chen et al, 2019 [41] |
Significant (n = 8) OR 2.03 [1.43, 2.88] |
Significant (n = 2) OR 0.58 [0.22, 0.93] |
Significant (n = 2) OR 0.65 [0.29, 1.01] |
No reports of SAEs | |
Bai et al, 2018 [42] |
Significant (n = 6) RR 1.20 [1.06, 1.36] |
||||
Lee et al, 2021 [43] |
Significant -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 2): RR 1.24 [1.10, 1.39] |
Significant -CMT + other therapy vs UC (n = 2): MD −1.44 [−1.81, −1.06] |
Data not synthesized (n = 2) - significant in all 2 RCTs |
1) DVT incidence: significant −CMT + UC vs UC (n = 3): RR −0.16 [−0.25, −0.07] 2) HSS: Significant -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 5): MD 8.89 [5.89, 11.88], -CMT + acupuncture, UC vs UC (n = 4): MD 5.78 [3.56, 8.00], -CMT + herbal medicine, UC vs UC (n = 4): MD 15.27 [6.21, 24.33], |
AEs were reported in 3 RCTs |
Kwark et al, 2018 [44] |
Data not synthesized (n = 13) conflicted results: −11 significant |
Data not synthesized (n = 10) conflicted results: −6 significant |
Data not synthesized (n = 4) - significant in all 4 RCTs |
No included RCTs reported on AEs | |
|
|||||
Others | |||||
|
|||||
Moon et al, 2012 [45] |
Data not synthesized. conflicted results −3 RCT (1 neck pain, 2 LBP): significant −3 RCT (1 neck pain, 2 TMD): not significant |
No included RCTs reported on AEs | |||
Lee et al, 2017 [46] |
Significant -CMT vs sham (n = 1): SMD −3.09 [−3.59, −2.59], -CMT vs traction (n = 9): SMD −0.64 [−0.87, −0.40], -CMT vs physical therapy (n = 3): WMD−0.97 [−1.46, −0.48], -CMT vs drug (n = 5): WMD −0.44 [−0.85, −0.02] |
NDI (n = 3): not significant SMD −1.45 [−2.92, 0.02] ODI: significant SMD −1.79 [−3.54, −0.04] shoulder function (n = 2): not significant WMD 3.33 [−4.59, 11.25], |
Reported in 7 RCTs -CMT was superior when compared with surgery (n = 5) RR 0.45 [0.26, 0.76] |
||
Lee et al, 2023 [47] |
Significant -CMT vs US (n = 3): RR 1.15 [1.05, 1.27] -CMT + TCM vs TCM (n = 4): RR 1.21 [1.10, 1.32], -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 2): RR 1.28 [1.08, 1.52] |
Significant -CMT vs UC (n = 3): MD −1.17 [−1.71, −0.64] -CMT + TCM vs TCM (n = 2): MD 0.24 [0.12, 0.35] |
Reported in 3 RCTs -no AE: n = 3 |
||
Bae et al, 2017 [48] |
Conflicted results -CMT + E.acu vs E.acu (n = 2): significant RR 0.16 [0.06, 0.27], -CMT vs acu (n = 2): not significant RR 1.09 [0.98, 1.20] -CMT vs DHT (n = 2): significant RR 1.16 [1.02, 1.31], |
No RCTs reported on AEs | |||
He et al, 2023 [49] |
Significant (n = 12) -RR 1.21 [1.16, 1.27], |
Significant (n = 5) -MD −0.91 [−1.39, −0.42] |
1) Maximum active opining degree (n = 2): significant -MD 4.88 [3.20, 6.56], 2) Friction index (n = 4): significant -DI index: MD −0.07 [−0.11, −0.02] -PI index: MD −0.04 [−0.07, −0.00] |
No report on AEs in both groups | |
Kim et al, 2018 [50] |
Significant (n = 6) -RR 1.21 [1.13, 1.30] |
Significant (n = 2) SMD 0.92 [0.15, 1.70], |
Significant (n = 3) -RR 1.89 [1.55, 2.24] |
No RCTs reported on AEs | |
Heo et al, 2018 [51] |
Conflicted results -CMT + KM vs medication (n = 4): significant RR 1.50 [1.28, 1.75], -CMT + medication vs medication (n = 1): not significant RR 1.19 [1.00, 1.42] |
Significant -CMT + KM vs medication (n = 3): SMD −2.55 [−2.98, −2.11] |
Duration of morning stiffness: significant -CMT + KM vs medication (n = 3): SMD −0.63 [−0.98, −0.28] |
All values are presented with 95% confidence intervals.
Acu = acupuncture; AE = adverse events; CMT = Chuna manual therapy; DHT = deep heat therapy; E.acu = electro acupuncture; KM = Korean medicine; MD = mean difference; OR = Odds ratio; RR = relative ratio; SAE = serious adverse event; SMD = standardized mean difference; UC = usual care; WM = western medicine; WMD = weight mean difference.
(n = number of RCTs included in each SR).
Author, y [ref.] | Aims | Time period of search and databases used for search | No. included RCTs (patients) | Patients | Interventions | Comparisons | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cervical (n = 4) | |||||||
Wang et al, 2008 [ |
Evaluation of the efficacy of CMT for treatment of symptoms of cervical spondylosis | 1996–2007; 6 E and 2 Ch DB | 7 (926) | Cervical spondylosis | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Blood flow velocity 2) Blood viscosity 3) Severity of headache and vertigo |
Zhou et al, 2016 [ |
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a combined therapy of CMT + acupuncture for the treatment of cervical disc herniation | Time period not specified; 2 Ch and 2 E DB + manual-searching | 5 (347) | Cervical disc herniation | CMT + acupuncture | Acupuncture | 1) Effective rate |
Yang et al, 2013 [ |
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of CMT VS traction for the treatment of cervical disc herniation | Up to April 16, 2013; 3 Ch and 2 E DB | 30 (2,807) | Cervical disc herniation | CMT alone | Traction | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome |
Lee et al, 2016 [ |
Evaluation of the effects of CMT on cervical pain | Up to July 2016; 2 K, 4 E, and 1 Ch DB | 7 (571) | Cervical pain | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Pain outcome (NRS, VAS) 2) Functional outcome (NDI) |
| |||||||
Thoracolumbar (n = 7) | |||||||
| |||||||
Zhou et al, 2023 [ |
Evaluation of the therapeutic effects of CMT on chronic/non-acute LBP | Up to May 2022; 3 E and 4 Ch DB | 17 (1,628) | LBP | CMT (alone or combined) | Usual care, sham Tuina/placebo, no treatment/wait list | Not performed data synthesis and results analysis. RCTs included pain intensity, physical disability |
Yang et al, 2023 [ |
Evaluation of the treatment effects and safety of CMT on chronic/nonspecific LBP | Up to December 30, 2019; 7 E and 5 Ch DB + manual-searching | 15 (1,390) | LBP | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Pain outcome 2) Functional outcome 3) Quality of life measures |
Cho et al, 2021 [ |
Evaluation of the effects of CMT on postpartum LBP | Up to September 2021; 6 K, 5 E, and 1 Ch DB | 4 (454) | LBP | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | Not performed data synthesis 1) Pain outcome (VAS) 2) functional outcome (ODI) 3) Effective rate |
Wang et al, 2022 [ |
Presenting evidence for effects of CMT + acupuncture for treatment of LDH | January 2012 – December 2020; 4 Ch DB + manual-searching | 15 (1,786) | LDH | CMT + acupuncture | Acupuncture | 1) Effective rate |
Rao et al, 2019 [ |
Efficacy and safety of CMT for acute lumbar sprain | Up to October 2018; 4 Ch and 2 E DB | 11 (851) | Acute lumbar sprain | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Efficacy rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Recovery rate |
Hong et al, 2020 [ |
Evaluation of the effect of CMT on spondylolisthesis | Up to August 2020; 4 K, 5 E and 1 Ch DB | 11 (910) | Spondylolisthesis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) |
Lim et al, 2018 [ |
Evaluation of efficacy and safety of CMT for lumbar spinal stenosis | Up to October 2018; 6 K, 3 E and 1 Ch DB + manual-searching | 3 (220) | Spinal stenosis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) pain outcome (VAS) 2) effective rate |
| |||||||
Upper extremity (n = 5) | |||||||
| |||||||
Yan et al, 2021 [ |
Systematic review of efficacy of CMT for treatment of shoulder pain | Up to December 2019; 3 E and 2 Ch DB | 11 (1,100) | Shoulder pain | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Pain outcome 2) Functional outcome (ROM) 3) Muscle strength assessment |
Hong et al, 2021 [ |
Evaluation of efficacy of CMT for treatment of rotator cuff disorder | Up to January 2022; 4 K, 2 E and 2 Ch DB | 4 (284) | Rotator cuff disorder | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | Not performed data synthesis. 1) Pain outcome 2) Effective rate |
Cho et al, 2019 [ |
Evaluation of the effects of CMT on treatment of adhesive capsulitis | Up to August 2019; 5 K, 4 E and 1 Ch DB | 21 (3,016) | Adhesive capsulitis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Pain outcome (VAS, NRS) 2) Effective rate |
Han et al, 2022 [ |
Evaluation of the treatment effect of CMT for lateral epicondylitis of humerus | Up to April 2022; 5 K, 3 E, 1 Japanese, and 1 Ch DB | 8 (675) | Lateral epicondylitis of humerus | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | Not performed data synthesis 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Ability of daily life |
Park et al, 2021 [ |
Evaluation of efficacy and safety of CMT for carpal tunnel syndrome | Up to October 2021; 6 K, 4 E and 2 Ch DB + manual searching | 504 | Carpal tunnel syndrome | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (BCTQ) |
| |||||||
Lower extremity (n = 9) | |||||||
| |||||||
Lee et al, 2022 [ |
Evaluation of effect of CMT for management of symptoms after hip replacement surgery | Up to January 2022; 5 K, 2 E and 2 Ch DB | 11 (410) | Surgery for hip joint | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Harris hip score 2) DVT incidence |
Zang et al, 2023 [ |
Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of CMT for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) | Up to December 2019; 1 E and 4 Ch DB | 6 (359) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT alone or combination with functional exercise therapy | Blank control, Sham therapy, functional exercise | 1) Pain outcome (VAS) 2) Functional outcome (WOMAC) 3) Walking time |
Pan et al, 2022 [ |
Systematic review on the reliability of CMT for treatment of KOA | Time period not defined; 5 E and 4 Ch DB | 16 (1,670) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (WOMAC) |
Liu et al, 2021 [ |
Evaluation of efficacy of a combined therapy of CMT + intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) | From January 2001 to December 2019; 1 E and 3 Ch DB, +American medica abstracts DB | 10 (1,016) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT + Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate | Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate | 1) Effective rate |
Xu et al, 2019 [ |
Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of CMT for KOA | Up to February 1, 2019; 3 E and 3 Ch DB | 17 (1,387) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (WOMAC) |
Chen et al, 2019 [ |
Evaluation of efficacy and safety of CMT monotherapy for KOA | Up to May 2018; 2 E and 3 Ch DB+ manual-searching | 8 (632) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT alone | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (JOA) |
Bai et al, 2018 [ |
Evaluation on the efficacy of a combined therapy (CMT + topical herbal medicine preparations from traditional Chinese medicine) for KOA | Up to November 27, 2017; 1 E and 3 Ch DB | 6 (495) | Knee osteoarthritis | CMT + topical herbal medicine preparations | Oral administration or topical application of NSAIDS | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome 3) Functional outcome |
Lee et al, 2021 [ |
Evaluation of the effects of CMT for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty | Up to January 2021; 5 K, 2 E and 2 Ch DB DB | 23 (1,792) | Surgery for knee (total knee arthroplasty) | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) DVT incidence 3) Hospital for special surgery score (HSS) 4) Pain outcome (VAS) 5) Functional outcome (WOMAC) |
Kwark et al, 2018 [ |
Evaluation of the effects of CMT for ankle sprain | Up to October 2017; 2 K, 3 E, and 1 Ch DB | 24 (1,960) | Ankle sprain | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | Not performed data synthesis 1) Pain outcome (VAS, NRS) 2) Functional outcome (AOFAS) 3) Effective rate |
| |||||||
Others (n = 8) | |||||||
| |||||||
Moon et al, 2012 [ |
Evaluation of CMT efficacy for musculoskeletal pain reported in Korean literature | Up to April 2011; 7 K DB + manual-searching | 6 (207) |
Musculoskeletal | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | Not performed data synthesis Efficacy of experimental group (Positive significant effect / not significant different / negative significant effect) |
Lee et al, 2017 [ |
Systematic review of the effects of CMT on the outcomes of pain and function for patients with musculoskeletal disorders | Up to December 2016; 3 Ch, 1 Japanese, and 7 K DB + manual-searching | 66 (6,170) |
Musculoskeletal | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Pain outcome (VAS, NRS) 2) Functional outcome (NDI, ODI) |
Lee et al, 2023 [ |
Evaluation of the effects of CMT on TMD | Up to March 2020; 4 E, 1 Ch, 1 Japanese, and 5 K DB | 12 (863) | TMD (aged 19 years or older) | CMT (alone or combined) | usual care | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome 3) Functional outcome |
Bae et al, 2017 [ |
Evaluation on the effects of CMT for treatment of TMD | Up to May 2017; 6 K, 3 E, and 1 Ch DB | 14 (989) | TMD | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate, 2) Pain outcome (VAS) |
He et al, 2023 [ |
Systematic review on the efficacy and safety of CMT on TMD | Up to July 2022; 3 E and 3 Ch DB | 13 (1,141) | TMD | CMT (alone or combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (degree of pain relief) 3) Maximum active opining degree 4) Friction index |
Kim et al, 2018 [ |
Evaluation on the effects and safety of traditional Chinese medicine including CMT for treatment of osteoarthritis | Up to May 2018; 3 K, 4 E, and 1 Ch DB | 7 (633) | Osteoarthritis | CMT (combined) | Treatment other than CMT | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Functional outcome (JOA) |
Heo et al, 2018 [ |
Evaluation on the effects of CMT for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis | Up to April 2018; 4 K, 4 E, and 1 Ch DB | 5 (314) | Rheumatoid Arthritis | CMT (combined) | Usual care of traditional Korean medicine, medications of conventional medicine | 1) Effective rate 2) Pain outcome (VAS) 3) Duration of morning stiffness |
Author, y [ref.] | Effective rate | Pain outcome | Functional outcome | Other outcomes | AE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cervical | |||||
| |||||
Wang et al, 2008 [ |
Blood flow velocity (980 patients): not significant - Hedgee’s g: 0.25 (−0.02 to 0.51) Vertigo and headache (data not synthesized): not significant |
||||
Zhou et al, 2016 [ |
Significant (n = 5): OR 2.87 [1.30, 6.30] |
1) Recovery rate: significant OR 1.97 [1.28, 3.03] |
AEs reported in no RCTs | ||
Yang et al, 2013 [ |
Significant (n = 22) RR 3.13 [2.27, 4.32] |
Significant (n = 9) MD −1.20 [−1.39, −1.02], |
AEs were reported in 14 RCTs. -no AE (n = 8) -mild AE (n = 6) | ||
Lee et al, 2016 [ |
Significant -CMT vs traction (n = 5): SMD −1.01 [−1.67, −0.34], -CMT vs medication (n = 2): SMD −0.62 [−1.03, −0.21], |
Significant -CMT vs traction (n = 1) MD −3.60 [−6.67, −0.53], |
|||
| |||||
Thoracolumbar | |||||
| |||||
Zhou et al, 2023 [ |
No discussion on the outcomes | ||||
Yang et al, 2023 [ |
Significant (n = 12) SMD −0.82 [−1.12, −0.53] |
Significant (n = 2) SMD −0.91 [−1.55, −0.27] |
1) Quality of life (n = 2): not significant SMD 0.58 [−0.04, 1.21] |
AEs were reported in 6 RCTs. -No SAE: n = 6 | |
Cho et al, 2021 [ |
Data not synthesized (n = 4) conflicted results −2 RCTs Significant, 2 RCTs not significant |
Data not synthesized (n = 2) - significant in all 2 RCTs |
Data not synthesized (n = 1) - significant in all 1 RCT |
No specific reports on AEs | |
Wang et al, 2022 [ |
Significant (n = 15) OR 4.59 [3.15, 6.69] |
||||
Rao et al, 2019 [ |
Significant (n = 11) OR 5.47 [3.27, 9.16] |
Significant (n = 4) WMD −2.24 [−2.36, −2.21] |
1) Recovery rate: significant (n = 11) OR 3.78 [2.34, 6.11] |
AEs were reported in 1 RCT. -No SAE: n = 1 | |
Hong et al, 2020 [ |
Significant -CMT vs traction (n = 3): RR 7.36 [2.96, 18.29], -CMT + exercise vs traction + exercise (n = 3) RR 2.83 [1.39, 5.75] |
AEs were reported in 2 RCTs -no ae: n = 2 | |||
Lim et al, 2018 [ |
Significant (n = 3) -RR 1.32 [1.11, 1.57] |
AEs were reported in 1 RCT | |||
| |||||
Upper extremity | |||||
| |||||
Yan et al, 2021 [ |
Significant (n = 8) SMD −1.15 [−1.76, −0.54] |
Significant (n = 8) WMD −9.71 [−10.36, −9.07] |
1) Muscle strength assessment (n = 7): significant WMD −0.02 [−0.29, −0.1] 2) Daily living skills assessment (n = 7): significant WMD −2.37 [−2.72, −2.02], |
||
Hong et al, 2021 [ |
Data not synthesized. Conflicted results (n = 2) −1 significant, 1 not significant |
Data not synthesized. Conflicted results (n = 3) −2 significant, 1 not significant |
AEs were reported in 2 RCTs. -no ae: n = 1 -feeling of stiffness: n = 1 | ||
Cho et al, 2019 [ |
Significant -CMT vs Acu (n = 10): RR 1.10 [1.02, 1.18] -CMT + Acu vs Acu (n = 12): RR 1.19 [1.14, 1.23] |
Significant -CMT vs Acu (n = 4): SMD −0.45 [−1.06, 0.17] -CMT + Acu vs Acu (n = 2): SMD −1.81 [−2.54, −1.08], |
|||
Han et al, 2022 [ |
Data not synthesized (n = 7) - significant in all 7 RCTs |
Data not synthesized (n = 4) - significant in all 4 RCTs |
Data not synthesized (n = 5) - significant in all 5 RCTs |
AEs were reported in 2 RCTs -mild skin redness: n = 2 | |
Park et al, 2021 [ |
Significant -CMT + KM vs WM (n = 2): RR 1.69 [1.35, 2.13], -CMT + KM vs WM (n = 4): RR 1.38 [1.14, 1.65] |
||||
| |||||
Lower extremity | |||||
| |||||
Lee et al, 2022 [ |
1) Harris hip score: significant -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 2): MD 9.55 [7.18, 11.91] -CMT + fumigation therapy vs UC (n = 2): MD 2.91 [2.33, 3.50] 2) Incidence of DVT: conflicted results -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 4): Significant RR 0.25 [0.12, 0.52] -CMT + herbal medicine vs UC (n = 2): not significant RR 0.55 [0.21, 1.40], p=0.21 |
||||
Zang et al, 2023 [ |
Not significant (n = 6) MD −0.38 [−1.35, −0.19] |
1) Walking time (n = 2): significant MD −1.60 [−2.57, −0.63] |
AEs were reported in 1 RCT -an increase in discomfort: n = 1 | ||
Pan et al, 2022 [ |
Significant (n = 13) OR 4.53 [3.06, 6.69] |
Significant (n = 13) MD −2.72 [−4.19, −1.25] |
Significant (n = 6) MD −14.21 [−14.86, −13.56] |
HS score (n = 2): significant MD 6.32 [4.58, 8.06] |
|
Liu et al, 2021 [ |
Significant (n = 10) OR 4.91 [3.05, 7.91] |
||||
Xu et al, 2019 [ |
Significant (n = 16) MD 2.30 [1.65, 3.22], |
Not significant (n = 5) | Significant (n = 5) MD −9.04 [−16.71, −1.36] |
AEs were reported in 3 RCTs -No significant differences between the two groups | |
Chen et al, 2019 [ |
Significant (n = 8) OR 2.03 [1.43, 2.88] |
Significant (n = 2) OR 0.58 [0.22, 0.93] |
Significant (n = 2) OR 0.65 [0.29, 1.01] |
No reports of SAEs | |
Bai et al, 2018 [ |
Significant (n = 6) RR 1.20 [1.06, 1.36] |
||||
Lee et al, 2021 [ |
Significant -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 2): RR 1.24 [1.10, 1.39] |
Significant -CMT + other therapy vs UC (n = 2): MD −1.44 [−1.81, −1.06] |
Data not synthesized (n = 2) - significant in all 2 RCTs |
1) DVT incidence: significant −CMT + UC vs UC (n = 3): RR −0.16 [−0.25, −0.07] 2) HSS: Significant -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 5): MD 8.89 [5.89, 11.88], -CMT + acupuncture, UC vs UC (n = 4): MD 5.78 [3.56, 8.00], -CMT + herbal medicine, UC vs UC (n = 4): MD 15.27 [6.21, 24.33], |
AEs were reported in 3 RCTs |
Kwark et al, 2018 [ |
Data not synthesized (n = 13) conflicted results: −11 significant |
Data not synthesized (n = 10) conflicted results: −6 significant |
Data not synthesized (n = 4) - significant in all 4 RCTs |
No included RCTs reported on AEs | |
| |||||
Others | |||||
| |||||
Moon et al, 2012 [ |
Data not synthesized. conflicted results −3 RCT (1 neck pain, 2 LBP): significant −3 RCT (1 neck pain, 2 TMD): not significant |
No included RCTs reported on AEs | |||
Lee et al, 2017 [ |
Significant -CMT vs sham (n = 1): SMD −3.09 [−3.59, −2.59], -CMT vs traction (n = 9): SMD −0.64 [−0.87, −0.40], -CMT vs physical therapy (n = 3): WMD−0.97 [−1.46, −0.48], -CMT vs drug (n = 5): WMD −0.44 [−0.85, −0.02] |
NDI (n = 3): not significant SMD −1.45 [−2.92, 0.02] ODI: significant SMD −1.79 [−3.54, −0.04] shoulder function (n = 2): not significant WMD 3.33 [−4.59, 11.25], |
Reported in 7 RCTs -CMT was superior when compared with surgery (n = 5) RR 0.45 [0.26, 0.76] | ||
Lee et al, 2023 [ |
Significant -CMT vs US (n = 3): RR 1.15 [1.05, 1.27] -CMT + TCM vs TCM (n = 4): RR 1.21 [1.10, 1.32], -CMT + UC vs UC (n = 2): RR 1.28 [1.08, 1.52] |
Significant -CMT vs UC (n = 3): MD −1.17 [−1.71, −0.64] -CMT + TCM vs TCM (n = 2): MD 0.24 [0.12, 0.35] |
Reported in 3 RCTs -no AE: n = 3 | ||
Bae et al, 2017 [ |
Conflicted results -CMT + E.acu vs E.acu (n = 2): significant RR 0.16 [0.06, 0.27], -CMT vs acu (n = 2): not significant RR 1.09 [0.98, 1.20] -CMT vs DHT (n = 2): significant RR 1.16 [1.02, 1.31], |
No RCTs reported on AEs | |||
He et al, 2023 [ |
Significant (n = 12) -RR 1.21 [1.16, 1.27], |
Significant (n = 5) -MD −0.91 [−1.39, −0.42] |
1) Maximum active opining degree (n = 2): significant -MD 4.88 [3.20, 6.56], 2) Friction index (n = 4): significant -DI index: MD −0.07 [−0.11, −0.02] -PI index: MD −0.04 [−0.07, −0.00] |
No report on AEs in both groups | |
Kim et al, 2018 [ |
Significant (n = 6) -RR 1.21 [1.13, 1.30] |
Significant (n = 2) SMD 0.92 [0.15, 1.70], |
Significant (n = 3) -RR 1.89 [1.55, 2.24] |
No RCTs reported on AEs | |
Heo et al, 2018 [ |
Conflicted results -CMT + KM vs medication (n = 4): significant RR 1.50 [1.28, 1.75], -CMT + medication vs medication (n = 1): not significant RR 1.19 [1.00, 1.42] |
Significant -CMT + KM vs medication (n = 3): SMD −2.55 [−2.98, −2.11] |
Duration of morning stiffness: significant -CMT + KM vs medication (n = 3): SMD −0.63 [−0.98, −0.28] |
TMD 2/neck pain 2/LBP 2. Cervical 24, Thoracolumbar 14, Upper extremity 13, Lower extremity 10, Others 4. AOFAS = American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society; BCTQ = Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Ch = Chinese; DB = databases; DVT = deep vein thrombosis; E = English; FIQ = Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; HSS = Hospital for Special Surgery Knee-Rating Scale; JOA = Japanese Orthopedic Association; K = Korean; NDI = neck disability index; NRS = numeric rating scale; ROM = range of motion; VAS = visual analog scale; WOMAC = The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.
All values are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Acu = acupuncture; AE = adverse events; CMT = Chuna manual therapy; DHT = deep heat therapy; E.acu = electro acupuncture; KM = Korean medicine; MD = mean difference; OR = Odds ratio; RR = relative ratio; SAE = serious adverse event; SMD = standardized mean difference; UC = usual care; WM = western medicine; WMD = weight mean difference. (