Table 4.
Therapeutic Outcomes of Randomized Controlled Trials on Auriculotherapy for Constipation
| Study, year | Outcome measure | Main results | Adverse events |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cai et al., 2011 | 1. Scores of constipation symptoms 2. Score of lifestyle 3. Use of laxatives | 1. Significant improvement, p<0.05 E: pre-AT 16.10±3.24, post-AT 14.03±3.82 (p<0.05); C: pre-Rx 15.89±2.74, post-Rx 15.50±2.38 (p>0.05); E group had significant difference between follow-up period and pre-Rx (p<0.05) | None |
| 2. No difference between E and C (p>0.05) but significant improvement in E and C within groups E: pre-Rx 15.35±2.16, post-Rx17.65±2.09 (p<0.05); C: pre-Rx 15.10±3.57, post-Rx 17.25±3.77 (p<0.05) | |||
| 3. Significant difference, p<0.05; E: pre-Rx 48, post-Rx 22; C: pre-Rx 53 post-Rx 48 | |||
| Chen et al., 2012 | Total effective rate | No significant difference, p>0.05; E: 88.57% vs.; C: 75.76% | NM |
| Chen et al., 2011 | 1. Effective rate 2. Defecation habit score: ease of defecation, feeling of incomplete bowel evacuation, straining, duration of defecation | 1. E (excess: 42.0%, deficient: 31.0%) vs.; C: 0.0% at 30 d; E (excess: 74.2%, deficient: 79.3%) vs.; C: 0.0% at 60 d 2. Significant improvement at 60 d, p<0.001; E: 8.55±2.25 vs. C: 11.49±1.96; significant improvement within E group (p<0.001) | NM |
| He and Pei, 2012 | Total effective rate | Significant difference, p<0.01; E: 95.65% vs. C: 69.05% | NM |
| Hong and Shen, 2013 | Total effective rate | Significant difference, p<0.05; E: 93.3% vs. C: 70.0% | NM |
| Ji et al., 2010 | 1. Total effective rate 2. Symptom score: defecation interval, stool consistency, straining, duration of defecation, abdominal distension condition, loss of appetite 3. Occurrence of adverse effects 4. Use of other auxiliary defecation method | 1. Significant difference, p=0.00; E: 91.89% vs. C: 30.56% 2. Significant improvement in each symptom, p<0.05; significant improvement in E and C within groups (p<0.05) 3. No difference 4. E: None; C: 58. 3% (21/36) using other auxiliary defecation method | E: 1 patient with excess syndrome had slight localized redness and damage of skin (cured in 2 d after sterilizing with Anerdian) |
| Li et al., 2012 | 1. Symptoms of constipation: PAC-SYM 2. Quality of life: PAC-QOL 3. Physical Activity Questionnaire 4. Bowel movement per week 5. Stool consistency | 1. No significant group effects; time effects were significant in E group but not in C group 2. No significant group effects; time effects were significant in C group but not in E group 3. No mediating effects on outcome variables 4. Increased in E group but decreased in C group 5. 13 patients had softer stools after the intervention; E:6; C:7 | 7 patients with mild, tolerable, and short-term itchiness of the ears after adopting AT (n=7) E: 2 C: 5 |
| Liu et al., 2009 | Total effective rate | Significant difference, p<0.01; E: 97.7% vs. C: 68.2% | NM |
| Meng et al., 2011 | 1. Total effective rate | 1. No difference (p>0.05); E: 100% vs. C: 100% | NM |
| 2. Recurrence rate | 2. At 1-mo follow-up, E: 100% vs. C: 92.9%; at 3-mo follow-up, E: 91.7% vs. C: 85.7%; at 6-mo follow-up, E: 91.7% vs. C: 71.4% | ||
| Qian, 2012 | Total effective rate | Significant difference, p<0.05; E: 95.2% vs. C: 85.7% | None |
| Wang et al., 2011 | Total effective rate | Significant difference, p<0.05’ E: 93.7% vs. C: 78.7% | NM |
| Yin and Qin, 2012 | Total effective rate | Significant difference, p<0.01; E: 98.3% vs. C: 75.0% | None |
| Zeng et al., 2012 | 1. Total effective rate 2. Number of bowel sounds/min 3. Frequency of defecation per week 4. Symptom score | 1. No difference (p>0.05); E: 80.0% vs. C: 63.3% 2. Significant improvement, p=0.000; E: 4.37±0.67 vs. C: 3.33±0.66 3. E: 2.25±0.49 vs. C: 2.39±0.71; difference not reported 4. Difference between E and C not reported, significant improvement in E group; E: pre-AT 1.87±0.73 vs. post-AT 1.31±0.43 (p<0.05) | None |
| Zhang et al., 2009 | 1. Total effective rate 2. Condition of abdominal distension and loss of appetite 3. Effects on renal function: BUN, creatinine and BUA | 1. Significant difference, p<0.01; deficient: E: 96.7% vs. C: 70.0% (p<0.01); excess: E: 93.3% vs. C: 60.0% (p<0.01) 2. Significant difference in the symptom of anorexia, p<0.01; E: 64.3% vs. C: 40.4%; no difference in the symptom of abdominal distension (p>0.05); significant improvement in both symptoms in E and C within groups (p<0.01) 3. Excess: significant difference in BUN, p<0.05; E: 12.99±6.73 vs. C:17.55±8.91; no difference in BUA, creatinine, p>0.05; deficient: no difference in BUN, BUA, creatinine, p>0.05 | E: 2 patients with excess type had slight skin redness and soreness in the ear points (cured after sterilizing with Anerdian) |
| Zhang and Yang, 2009 | 1. Total effective rate 2. First defecation time 3. Scores of constipation symptoms: first defecation time, defecation interval, duration of defecation, stool consistency, ease of defecation, awareness of defecation, concomitant symptoms 4. Effect of individual symptoms | 1. No difference (p>0.05); E: 90% vs. C: 83.33% 2. Significant difference, p<0.05; E: 6.68±5.48 vs. C: 11.80±7.23 3. Significant improvement, p<0.01; E: 5.45±2.71 vs. C: 8.68±3.57; significant improvement in E and C within groups (p<0.01) 4. Significant difference between E and C in duration of defecation, stool consistency, awareness of defecation, ease of defecation (p<0.05); significant improvement in defecation interval, duration of defecation, stool consistency, ease of defecation, awareness of defecation in E and C within groups (p<0.01) | None |
| Zhong and Zhang, 2007 | 1. Total effective rate 2. Effective rate after one treatment course 3. Defecation in 24 h 4. CTT 5. Scores of constipation symptoms: defecation interval, duration of defecation, stool consistency, ease of defecation, concomitant symptoms | 1. Significant difference, p<0.05; E: 90% vs. C: 80% 2. No difference (p>0.05); E: 63.33% vs. C: 50% 3. No difference (p>0.05); E: 73.3% vs. C: 76.7% 4. No difference (p>0.05); E: 86.67% vs. C: 83.33% 5. Significant improvement in defecation interval, p<0.05; E: 0.3667±0.7184 vs. C: 0.7667±0.7739; significant improvement in concomitant symptoms, p<0.05; E: 0.4000±0.4624 vs. C: 0.7167±0.6783; no difference in duration of defecation, stool consistency, ease of defecation (p>0.05) | None |
| Zhou et al., 2012 | 1. Total effective rate | 1. Significant difference, p<0.05; E: 92.0% vs. C: 76.0% | None |
| 2. Quality of life: PAC-QOL | 2. Significant improvement, p<0.05; E: 56.3±17.8 vs. C: 70.1±19.0; significant improvement in E and C within groups (p<0.05) |
E, experimental group; C, control group; Rx, treatment; NM, not mentioned; PAC-SYM, Patient Assessment of Constipation–Symptom questionnaire; PAC-QOL, Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; BUA, blood uric acid; CTT, colonic transit time.