Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 11;14(18):4419. doi: 10.3390/cancers14184419

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included RCTs with AT for cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer patients.

Author (Year) [Ref]
Country
Sample Size/
Cancer Stage/Current Antitumor Treatment
Mean Age (Year)
Intervention (Regimen, Randomized/
Analysed)
Control (Regimen, Randomized/
Analysed)
Fatigue Measurement Result AEs/Trial Registration
Number
Li (2020) [34]
China
40/I to III/ongoing-chemo
A: 47.5; B: 42; C: 50.5
(A) AT (1 time weekly for 20 weeks, n = 20/18) (B) Sham AT (noninsertive stimulation at non-AT points, n = 10/10)
(C) UC (n = 10/10)
MFI-20 A vs. B: MD −5.90 [−17.43, 5.63], p = 0.32; A vs. C: MD −13.70 [−28.50, 1.10], p = 0.07 Bruising
ChiCTR-IPR-17013652
Smith (2013) [35]
Australia
30/NR/off-treatment
A: 55.0; B: 53.0; C: 58.0
(A) AT (2 times weekly for 3 weeks and once weekly for 3 weeks, n = 10/9) (B) Sham AT (noninsertive stimulation at non-AT points, n = 10/10)
(C) WLC (n = 10/10)
BFI A vs. B: MD −1.70 [−3.70, 0.30], p = 0.10; A vs. C: MD −2.20 [−4.16, −0.24], p = 0.03 NR/ACTRN12610000720011
Mao (2014) [36]
USA
67/I to III/ongoing- HT
A: 57.5; B: 60.9; C: 60.6
(A) EA (2 times weekly for 2 weeks and once weekly for 6 weeks, n = 22/21) (B) Sham EA (noninsertive stimulation at non-AT points, n = 22/20)
(C) WLC (n = 23/22)
BFI A vs. B: MD −0.80 [−2.40, 0.80], p = 0.33; F/U: MD −0.70 [−2.13, 0.73], p = 0.34
A vs. C: MD −1.90 [−3.32, −0.48], p = 0.008; F/U: MD −1.60 [−3.14, −0.06], p = 0.04
NR/NCT01013337
Zhang (2019) [37]
China
104/I to IV/off-surgery
A: 45.1; B: 45.6
(A) AT (2 times weekly for 8 weeks, n = 53/53) (B) Sham AT (noninsertive stimulation at non-AT points, n = 51/51) EORTC QLQ-C30_Fatigue MD −1.95 [−5.43, 1.53], p = 0.27; F/U: MD −3.70 [−6.99, −0.41], p = 0.03 NR/NR
Yu (2017) [38]
China
72/I to III/off-treatment
A: 50.2; B: 51.4
(A) AT (2 times weekly for 4 weeks, n = 36/34) (B) Sham AT (noninsertive stimulation at non-AT points, n = 36/30) PFS MD −0.22 [−0.96, 0.52], p = 0.56;
F/U: MD −0.21 [−0.84, 0.42], p = 0.51
NR/ISRCTN71727232
Chen (2016) [39]
China
60/I to IV/ongoing-chemo
A: 50.9; B: 51.2
(A) AT (1 session [1 time daily for 10 days], total 2 session, n = 30/30) (B) UC (n = 30/30) (1) BFI
(2) ER
(1) MD −1.67 [−7.20, 3.86], p = 0.55
(2) RR 1.21 [1.00, 1.46], p = 0.05
NR/NR
Molassiotis (2013) [40]
UK
197/I to III/off-treatment
NR
(A) AT (1 time weekly for 10 weeks, n = 65/56)
(B) Self AT (n = 67/46)
(C) UC (n = 65/49) MFI A vs. C: MD −0.92 [−2.30, 0.46], p = 0.19; B vs. C: MD −0.89 [−2.30, 0.52], p = 0.22 NR/NCT00957112
Brinkhaus (2019) [41]
Germany
150/I to III/ongoing-chemo
A: 51.4; B: 50.6
(A) AT (NR for 6 months, least 6 sessions), n = 75/65) + (B) (B) UC (n = 75/55) FACIT-fatigue MD −1.30 [−4.49, 1.89,], p = 0.42 NR/NCT01727362
Zhou (2018) [42]
China
64/I to IV/mix off and ongoing chemo
A: 52; B: 50
(A) AT (3 times weekly for 5 weeks, n = 32/32) + (B) (B) UC (n = 32/32) (1) TCM Symptom Evaluation-fatigue
(2) ER
(1) MD −1.94 [−4.15, 0.27], p = 0.08
(2) RR 1.25 [1.00, 1.56], p = 0.05
NR/NR
Molassiotis (2012) [43]
UK
302/NR/off-treatment
A: 52; B: 53
(A) AT (1 time weekly for 6 weeks, n = 227/181) + (B) (B) UC (n = 75/65) MFI MD −3.10 [−3.45, −2.75], p < 0.00001 None/NCT00957112
Johnston (2011) [44]
USA
13/NR/off-treatment
A: 55; B: 53
(A) AT (1 time weekly for 8 weeks, n = 6/5) + (B) (B) UC (n = 7/7) BFI MD −2.25 [−4.41, −0.09], p = 0.04 None/NCT00646633
Zhu (2016) [45]
China
78/I to IV/ongoing-chemo
A: 47; B: 46
(A) AT (1 time for 5 days, n = 40/40) + (B) (B) UC (n = 38/38) ER (TCM Symptom Evaluation-fatigue) RR 1.16 [1.00, 1.34], p = 0.05 NR/NR

AEs: adverse events; AT: Acupuncture; BFI: Brief Fatigue Inventory; Chemo: Chemotherapy; ER: Effective rate; F/U: Follow-Up; HT: Hormonal therapy; MFI: Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; NR: Not Reported; PFS: Piper fatigue scale; RR: Risk Ratio; RT: radiotherapy; MD: Mean Difference; UC: Usual Care; WLC: Wait List Control.