Skip to main content
. 2018 Nov 13;2018(11):CD010559. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010559.pub2

Fan 2001.

Methods Design: parallel RCT
Randomisation method: not reported
Blinding: no
Power calculation: no
Dropouts/withdrawals: no
Participants The participants with respiratory and digestive system cancer receiving combination chemotherapy
Number (treatment 1/treatment 2/control): 63 (23/22/18)
Mean age (range): not reported
Gender (M/F): not reported
Country: Jiangsu province, China
Setting: hospital
Interventions Moxa stick vs acupoint injection vs conventional medicine
Treatment group 1:

  • Moxa stick

    • Moxa stick treatment for about 20 to 30 minutes on the acupoints ST36 (zusanli) and SP6 (sanyinjiao), once/d

    • Treatment duration: 18 days (5 days before chemotherapy til 7 days after chemotherapy)

  • Chemotherapy

    • Combination chemotherapy including cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, vepeside, cisplatin, methotrexate, and 5‐FU


Treatment group 2:

  • Acupoint injection

    • Huangqi injection on acupoints ST36 (zusanli) and SP6 (sanyinjiao), 4 mL, once/d

    • Treatment duration: 18 days (5 days before chemotherapy til 7 days after chemotherapy)

  • Chemotherapy (same as group 1)


Control group

  • Conventional medicine

    • Oral batilol 100 mg and leucogen 20 mg, 3 times/d

    • Treatment duration: 18 days

  • Chemotherapy (same as group1)
Outcomes WBC count
IgG
IgA
IgM
Outcomes measured at the end of treatment
Notes —
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk Not described; there was imbalance on the number of participants between groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No relevant description
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk There was no loss to follow‐up. All participants were included in the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Limited outcome measures were reported.
Other bias Unclear risk There was no baseline characteristics data presented and no statement of group similarity.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Subjective outcomes Unclear risk No subjective outcome was reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Objective outcomes Low risk No blinding; however, machine‐measured objective outcomes were not influenced substantially