已发表论文

耳针治疗偏头痛的临床疗效及安全性:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

 

Authors Zheng S , Liu L, He X

Received 26 August 2025

Accepted for publication 6 November 2025

Published 18 November 2025 Volume 2025:18 Pages 6125—6135

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S563246

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Houman Danesh

Shenmei Zheng,1,* Liguo Liu,2,* Xinfang He3 

1The First Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2The Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 3Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence: Xinfang He, Sanyuanli Campus of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Sanyuanli Street, Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, People’s Republic of China, Email 1246003030@qq.com

Background: Migraine is a prevalent and debilitating neurological disorder that results in significant disability and imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden. Auricular Acupuncture (AA) has emerged as a potential therapeutic intervention for alleviating migraine symptoms. Although AA is extensively utilized clinically to treat migraines, a reanalysis investigating its benefits and risks, whose studies were conducted exclusively in China, indicated that notable enhancements in four outcomes relative to controls were achieved by AA.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AA for migraine. Eight databases were searched from inception to April 18, 2025. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. All results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Data analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.
Results: Specifically, the visual analog scale (VAS) showed a mean difference (MD) of − 0.65 (95% Confidence Intervals (CI): − 0.86, − 0.43; p< 0.001) in ten RCTs involving 766 participants were included. Additionally, migraine attack frequency demonstrated an MD of − 0.49 (95% CI: − 0.59, − 0.40; p< 0.001) and attack duration had an MD of − 0.58 (95% CI: − 0.64, − 0.52; p< 0.001). The clinical effectiveness rate (CER) was reflected in a relative risk of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.25; p< 0.001).
Conclusion: Research evidence indicates that AA offers both efficacy and safety in the treatment of migraines. However, inferences resulting from this investigation face constraints arising from the methodological robustness of trials incorporated herein. To better define the role of AA in clinical guidelines, additional high-quality RCTs with expanded scope of population, standardized protocols and extended follow-up periods are required.
Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251028201.

Keywords: auricular acupuncture, migraine, meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trials