刺络拔罐治疗急性踝关节扭伤的系统评价与Meta分析

Pricking-Cupping for Acute Ankle Sprain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

摘要: 目的：系统评价刺络拔罐治疗急性踝关节扭伤(AAS)的疗效并进行Meta分析。方法：检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文期刊服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库、Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library及Web of Science，收集建库至2025年7月17日刺络拔罐治疗AAS的随机对照文献。两名研究人员对文献进行筛选、提取数据并评估偏倚风险，所有荟萃分析均采用固定效应模型。结果：纳入RCT文献8篇，共607例患者。与空白对照相比，刺络拔罐可以提高治愈率[RR = 4.42, (95% CI: 2.39, 8.18)]，降低VAS评分[WMD = −2.84, (95% CI: −3.09, −2.58)]；与常规治疗相比，刺络拔罐可以提高治愈率[RR = 1.51, (95% CI: 1.25, 1.82)]，降低VAS评分[WMD = −3.16, (95% CI: −3.35, −2.97)]，以及改善AOFAS评分[WMD = 26.45, (95% CI: 25.30, 27.61)]。结论：刺络拔罐可能对治疗AAS有效，有待进一步高质量、大规模临床随机对照研究验证此结果。

Abstract: Aim: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of pricking-cupping therapy for acute ankle sprains (AAS) and conduct a meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform (Wanfang), VIP Chinese Journal Service Platform, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pricking-cupping therapy for AAS published up to July 17, 2025, were included. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. All meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effect model. Results: A total of 8 RCTs with 607 patients were included. Compared with the no treatment group, pricking-cupping therapy significantly increased the cure rate [RR = 4.42, (95% CI: 2.39, 8.18)] and reduced the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score [WMD = −2.84, (95% CI: −3.09, −2.58)]. Compared with conventional treatment, pricking-cupping therapy also increased the cure rate [RR = 1.51, (95% CI: 1.25, 1.82)], reduced the VAS score [WMD = −3.16, (95% CI: −3.35, −2.97)], and improved the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score [WMD = 26.45, (95% CI: 25.30, 27.61)]. Conclusion: Pricking-Cupping therapy shows favorable efficacy in treating AAS. Further high-quality, large-scale clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.