Summary of findings 2.
Acupuncture compared to medical treatment for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
| Acupuncture compared to medical treatment for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome | |||||
| Patient or population: treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome Setting: outpatient, Korea, China and Turkey Intervention: acupuncture Comparison: medical treatment | |||||
| Outcomes | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | |
| Risk with medical treatment | Risk difference with acupuncture | ||||
| Prostatitis symptoms (NIH‐CPSI total) assessed with: NIH‐CPSI score Scale from: 0 to 43 follow‐up: 12 weeks | 78 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate1,2 | ‐ | The mean prostatitis symptoms (NIH‐CPSI total) ranged from 12 to 16 | MD 6.05 lower (7.87 lower to 4.24 lower) |
| Prostatitis symptoms: response defined as a 6‐point decrease in NIH‐CPSI score follow‐up: 6 weeks3 | 24 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,3 | RR 3.57 (1.45 to 8.80) | Study population | |
| 250 per 1000 | 643 more per 1000 (112 more to 1950 more) | ||||
| Adverse events | 78 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1,3 | ‐ | There were no adverse events in either group. | |
| Sexual dysfunction ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Quality of life ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Depression and anxiety ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; NIH‐CPSI: National Institutes of Health ‐ Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||||
1Downgraded 1 level due to risk of bias: included studies were not blinded, which affects both detection and performance bias.
2The initial analysis had greater statistical inconsistency (I2 = 70%) and included one study that included people with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using criteria that differed from that recommended by the Research Consensus (Chen 2009). In a sensitivity analysis, we excluded the results from this study and found greater statistical consistency (I2 = 0%), therefore, we chose to report these results in the 'Summary of findings' table. For this reason, we did not downgrade due to inconsistency.
3Downgraded 1 level due to imprecision issues: few events and wide confidence interval.