Objectives Acupuncture is an alternative therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD), but its efficacy and safety are controversial. This overview aimed to summarize the existing evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) in order to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for PD. Methods Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception until July 2019. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklists were used to assess evidence quality and methodological quality, respectively. The outcomes of study were calculated using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 12 SRs/MAs were included. All 12 SRs/MAs had more than one critical weakness in AMSTAR 2 and were considered of critically low methodological quality. The quality of evidence was unsatisfactory according to the GRADE checklist. Meta-analyses showed that acupuncture combined with drug for the treatment of PD can significantly improve the total effectiveness rate compared with drug alone (RR = 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16–1.34, P < 0.001). It was also found that acupuncture combined with drug significantly improved the UPDRS I–IV total summed scores (WMD=−6.18, 95 % CI -10.32 to –2.04, P < 0.001) and Webster scores (WMD=−4.20, 95 % CI -7.59 to –0.81, P < 0.001). Conclusion Acupuncture might improve the UPDRS score, Webster score, and total effective rate in treatment of PD. It might be a safe and useful adjunctive treatment for patients with PD. However, we should interpret the findings of these reviews with caution, considering the overall limited methodological and reporting quality.

Purpose: To evaluate the methodological quality and summarize evidence of important outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta analyses (MM) of acupuncture for anxiety. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) until November 30, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of evidence. In the pre-experiment, we used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement, the ICC value for overall score was 0.978. Results: Ten reviews were included. The assessment results of AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included studies was critically low. The lowest score were item "provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions" and item "report sources of funding for the included studies", none of studies provided information about the above two items, followed by the "providing a priori design" item with only two (20%) studies conforming to this item. For GRADE, of the 7 outcomes, high quality evidence was provided in only 1 (14.3%), moderate in 2 (28.6.7%), and low in 4 (57.1%). Conclusion: Although most of the included reviews indicated that acupuncture group was more effective than control group in the treatment of anxiety, more importantly, the methodological quality of the included reviews and the quality of evidence were low. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.