Auriculotherapy for pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Side-effects of standard pain medications can limit their use. Therefore, nonpharmacologic pain relief techniques such as auriculotherapy may play an important role in pain management. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating auriculotherapy for pain management. DESIGN: MEDLINE,(®) ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane Library were searched through December 2008. Randomized trials comparing auriculotherapy to sham, placebo, or standard-of-care control were included that measured outcomes of pain or medication use and were published in English. Two (2) reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, quality, and abstracted data to a standardized form. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for studies using a pain score or analgesic requirement as a primary outcome. RESULTS: Seventeen (17) studies met inclusion criteria (8 perioperative, 4 acute, and 5 chronic pain). Auriculotherapy was superior to controls for studies evaluating pain intensity (SMD, 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 2.26]; 8 studies). For perioperative pain, auriculotherapy reduced analgesic use (SMD, 0.54 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.77]; 5 studies). For acute pain and chronic pain, auriculotherapy reduced pain intensity (SMD for acute pain, 1.35 [95% CI: 0.08, 2.64], 2 studies; SMD for chronic pain, 1.84 [95% CI: 0.60, 3.07], 5 studies). Removal of poor quality studies did not alter the conclusions. Significant heterogeneity existed among studies of acute and chronic pain, but not perioperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Auriculotherapy may be effective for the treatment of a variety of types of pain, especially postoperative pain. However, a more accurate estimate of the effect will require further large, well-designed trials.

Clinical utility of a Web-enabled risk-assessment and clinical decision support program.

PURPOSE: Risk-stratified guidelines can improve quality of care and cost-effectiveness, but their uptake in primary care has been limited. MeTree, a Web-based, patient-facing risk-assessment and clinical decision support tool, is designed to facilitate uptake of risk-stratified guidelines. METHODS: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of three clinics (two intervention, one control). PARTICIPANTS: consentable nonadopted adults with upcoming appointments. PRIMARY OUTCOME: agreement between patient risk level and risk management for those meeting evidence-based criteria for increased-risk risk-management strategies (increased risk) and those who do not (average risk) before MeTree and after. MEASURES: chart abstraction was used to identify risk management related to colon, breast, and ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer, and thrombosis. RESULTS: Participants = 488, female = 284 (58.2%), white = 411 (85.7%), mean age = 58.7 (SD = 12.3). Agreement between risk management and risk level for all conditions for each participant, except for colon cancer, which was limited to those <50 years of age, was (i) 1.1% (N = 2/174) for the increased-risk group before MeTree and 16.1% (N = 28/174) after and (ii) 99.2% (N = 2,125/2,142) for the average-risk group before MeTree and 99.5% (N = 2,131/2,142) after. Of those receiving increased-risk risk-management strategies at baseline, 10.5% (N = 2/19) met criteria for increased risk. After MeTree, 80.7% (N = 46/57) met criteria. CONCLUSION: MeTree integration into primary care can improve uptake of risk-stratified guidelines and potentially reduce "overuse" and "underuse" of increased-risk services.Genet Med 18 10, 1020-1028.