Table 2.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Author | Study sites | n | Diagnostic criteria | Participants | Participants' age (years, M ± SD) | Disease course (M ± SD) | Duration | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture vs sham electroacupuncture | ||||||||
| Da et al. [26] | 1 | 67 | Rome III | Treatment: 34 | 37.94 ± 18.06 | 139.59 ± 112.68 mos | 8 weeks | ①③⑥ |
| Control: 33 | 37.00 ± 17.89 | 106.21 ± 91.98 mos | ||||||
| Lee et al. [27] | 1 | 29 | Rome III | Treatment: 14 | 49.6 ± 12.7 | Not reported | 4 weeks | ①②⑥ |
| Control: 15 | 50.0 ± 10.5 | Not reported | ||||||
| Liu et al. [28] | 15 | 1075 | Rome III | Treatment: 536 | 47.01 ± 16.5 | 130.8 ± 122.6 mos | 8 weeks | ①②③⑤⑥ |
| Control: 539 | 47.33 ± 15.8 | 132.7 ± 127.0 mos | ||||||
| Wu [29] | 1 | 120 | Rome III | Treatment: 60 | 49 ± 34.5 | 68.5 ± 94.5 mos | 8 weeks | ②③⑥ |
| Control: 60 | 52.63 ± 12.9 | 101 ± 102.2 mos | ||||||
| Xue et al. [30] | 1 | 96 | Rome III | Treatment: 48 | 48.85 ± 13.30 | 7.65 ± 6.48 yrs | 4 weeks | ④⑥ |
| Control: 48 | 45.25 ± 11.28 | 8.48 ± 5.76 yrs | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Acupuncture vs polyethylene glycol | ||||||||
| Chen [31] | 1 | 61 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 48.80 ± 8.18 | 5.06 ± 3.66 mos | 4 weeks | ⑥ |
| Control: 31 | 48.58 ± 8.14 | 4.94 ± 3.68 mos | ||||||
| Mao [32] | 1 | 62 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 74.5 | 1 mos | 2 weeks | ⑤⑥ |
| Control: 32 | 73 | 1 mos | ||||||
| Ou [33] | 1 | 170 | Rome III | Treatment: 84 | 48.03 ± 17.19 | 24.52 ± 11.32 mos | 4 weeks | ⑤⑥ |
| Control: 86 | 46.64 ± 15.71 | 23.5 ± 10.36 mos | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Acupuncture vs mosapride | ||||||||
| Ding et al. [34] | 1 | 63 | Rome III | Treatment: 33 | 34.83 ± 11.76 | 5.71 ± 2.54 yrs | 4 weeks | ② |
| Control: 30 | ||||||||
| Lian et al. [35] | 1 | 63 | Rome III | Treatment: 33 | 26.85 ± 8.27 | 3.44 ± 2.56 yrs | 4 weeks | ② |
| Control: 30 | 27.60 ± 7.86 | 2.92 ± 2.24 yrs | ||||||
| Wang et al. [36] | 1 | 68 | Rome III | Treatment: 34 | 47.8 ± 10.1 | 7. 6 ± 6.4 yrs | 4 weeks | ① |
| Control: 34 | 46. 6 ± 11. 0 | 8.1 ± 5.9 yrs | ||||||
| Wang [37] | 1 | 54 | Rome III | Treatment: 37 | 28.08 ± 13.42 | 95.43 ± 103.03 mos | 4 weeks | ⑤ |
| Control: 17 | 27.59 ± 9.70 | 92.00 ± 78.48 mos | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Acupuncture vs prucalopride | ||||||||
| Dai [38] | 1 | 60 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 40.48 ± 2.96 | 110.76 ± 17.4 mos | 8 weeks | ①②③⑤ |
| Control: 30 | 42.80 ± 3.92 | 150.48 ± 30.84 mos | ||||||
| Mao [39, 40] | 1 | 56 | Rome III | Treatment: 28 | 44.85 ± 7.71 | 3.78 ± 2.12 yrs | 8 weeks | ①②③ |
| Control: 28 | 46.95 ± 9.83 | 3.88 ± 2.36 yrs | ||||||
| Song [41] | 1 | 39 | Rome III | Treatment: 20 | 51.40 ± 12.90 | Not reported | 8 weeks | ①②③⑤ |
| Control: 19 | 49.16 ± 12.31 | Not reported | ||||||
| Wang et al. [42] | 1 | 60 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 46 ± 7 | 4.52 ± 2.36 yrs | 4 weeks | ①② |
| Control: 30 | 47 ± 8 | 4.64 ± 2.65 yrs | ||||||
| Wang [43] | 1 | 38 | Rome III | Treatment: 19 | 41.53 ± 16.15 | 76.68 ± 7.75 mos | 8 weeks | ①②③⑤ |
| Control: 19 | 35.29 ± 13.26 | 76 ± 4.93 mos | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Acupuncture vs cisapride | ||||||||
| Zhou et al. [44] | 1 | 60 | The guidelines for clinical research | Treatment: 30 | 37. 36 ± 10. 32 | 2. 54 ± 1. 63 yrs | 4 weeks | ⑤ |
| Control: 30 | 39. 58 ± 11. 63 | 2. 72 ± 1. 76 yrs | ||||||
| Acupuncture vs lactulose | ||||||||
| Jin [45] | 1 | 37 | Rome III | Treatment: 22 | 39.14 ± 14.45 | 115.18 ± 108.08 mos | 4 weeks | ④ |
| Control: 15 | 45.13 ± 17.09 | 157.4 ± 142.24 mos | ||||||
| Liu et al. [46] | 1 | 60 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 53. 13 ± 9. 65 | 3.70 ± 2. 54 yrs | 2 weeks | ①⑤ |
| Control: 30 | 52.76 ± 8.87 | 3.96 ± 2.68 yrs | ||||||
| Ruan et al. [47] | 1 | 45 | Rome III | Treatment: 21 | 68 ± 9 | 17.90 ± 9.77 mos | 3 weeks | ②③ |
| Control: 24 | 69 ± 8 | 16.92 ± 10.04 mos | ||||||
| Shi [48] | 1 | 60 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 64.87 ± 4.208 | 5.27 ± 3.51 yrs | 4 weeks | ②④⑥ |
| Control: 30 | 66.27 ± 3.513 | 5.5 ± 3.94 yrs | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture vs lactulose | ||||||||
| Peng et al. [49, 50] | 3 | 128 | Rome III | Treatment: 64 | 53 ± 13 | 125.1 ± 128.6 mos | 4 weeks | ④⑥ |
| Control A: 33 | 52 ± 17 | 118 ± 105.8 mos | ||||||
| Control B: 31 | 59 ± 12 | 97.8 ± 123 mos | ||||||
| Wang et al. [51] | 1 | 95 | Rome III | Treatment: 48 | 48.8 ± 13.3 | 7.65 ± 6.48 yrs | 4 weeks | ④⑥ |
| Control A: 24 | 40.8 ± 10.0 | 9.46 ± 5.89 yrs | ||||||
| Control B: 23 | 44.6 ± 15.2 | 7.65 ± 5.65 yrs | ||||||
| Wu et al. [52] | 5 | 475 | Rome III | Treatment: 228 | 45.88 ± 16.85 | 110.84 ± 99.85 mos | 4 weeks | ④⑥ |
| Control A: 112 | 46.25 ± 16.81 | 109.25 ± 100.70 mos | ||||||
| Control B: 115 | 44.12 ± 17.48 | 111.04 ± 110.15 mos | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Acupuncture vs mosapride vs mosapride & sham electroacupuncture | ||||||||
| Xu [53] | 1 | 90 | Rome III | Treatment: 30 | 35.26 ± 19.07 | 8.88 yrs | 4 weeks | ②③⑤⑥ |
| Control A: 30 | 35.42 ± 15.28 | 8.71 yrs | ||||||
| Control B: 30 | 36.00 ± 17.20 | 8.83 yrs | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Low intensity acupuncture vs high intensity acupuncture vs mosapride | ||||||||
| Wu et al. [54] | 3 | 190 | Rome III | Treatment A: 58 | 34.00 ± 15.62 | 70.44 ± 85.53 mos | 4 weeks | ⑥ |
| Treatment B: 65 | 37.20 ± 18.19 | 86.29 ± 104.06 mos | ||||||
| Control: 67 | 43.60 ± 17.90 | 68.09 ± 74.13 mos | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Shu-mu vs He vs Shu-mu-he vs mosapride | ||||||||
| Wu et al. [55] | 1 | 104 | Rome III | Treatment A: 19 | 61 (16) | 130 mos | 4 weeks | ⑥ |
| Treatment B: 34 | 53 ± 12 | 123 mos | ||||||
| Treatment C: 26 | 56 ± 9 | 217.35 mos | ||||||
| Control: 25 | 55 ± 11 | 130 mos | ||||||
Notes: M ± SD, the mean ± standard deviation; mos, months; yrs, years; ① complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM); ② Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS); ③ responder rate; ④ constipation symptoms scores (CSS); ⑤ Patient Assessment Of Constipation Quality Of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire; ⑥ safety evaluation.