Background: Acupuncture has been widely practiced for primary insomnia (PI). However, the relative benefit and harm among acupuncture therapies remain uncertain.Objectives: To compare and evaluate the effect differences of multiple acupuncture therapies for patients with PI.Methods: Systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using R and Stata software. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence and interpret results.Results: Fifty-seven RCTs with 4678 patients were included. Compared with usual treatment, multiple acupuncture therapies showed a better effect for Pittsburgh sleep quality index score. And acupoints catgut embedding (ACE) was proved to be the most effective with a moderate certainty of evidence; auricular acupressure or auricular acupuncture plus manual acupuncture (AP + MA), electroacupuncture plus acupoint application (EA + APA), and intradermal needle (IN) might be also the most effective with low certainty of evidence. ACE, ACE + MA, AP + MA, EA, EA + APA, HPN, MA and PBN + MA showed significantly improvement in effective rate when compared with usual treatment. Insufficient evidence reported on Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Athens Insomnia Scale, and recurrence rate. The most common slight adverse events mainly included hematoma, pain, headache, and bleeding.Conclusions: With moderate to low certainty of evidence, multiple acupuncture therapies showed impressive insomnia improvement, especially ACE, AP + MA, and EA + APA. Differences between therapies were small or insignificant and based-on low or very low certainty of evidence.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Background: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential intervention in the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: We searched for relevant studies in the CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other resources from their inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19 were included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Results: Overall, 19 studies with 1474 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.83-3.89, I-2 = 0%), improvement in the CT scan (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.803.29, I-2 = 0%), percentage of cases turning to severe/critical (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, I-2 = 17.1%), reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity rate (OR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.06-6.17, I-2 = 56.4%) and disappearance rate of symptoms (fever, cough, and fatigue) were superior by combined CHM treatment of COVID-19. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.46, 95% CI -3.87 - 2.95, I-2 = 99.5%), and rate of adverse effects (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.07, I-2 = 43.5%). The quality of evidence was very low to low. Conclusion: The combined treatment of COVID-19 with Chinese and Western medicine may be effective in controlling symptoms and reducing the rate of disease progression due to low quality evidence.

ObjectiveTo assess the registration quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical trials for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS.MethodWe searched for clinical trial registrations of TCM in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) on April 30, 2020. The registration quality assessment is based on the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.3.1) and extra items for TCM information, including TCM background, theoretical origin, specific diagnosis criteria, description of intervention, and outcomes.ResultsA total of 136 records were examined, including 129 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and 7 H1N1 influenza (H1N1) patients. The deficiencies in the registration of TCM clinical trials (CTs) mainly focus on a low percentage reporting detailed information about interventions (46.6%), primary outcome(s) (37.7%), and key secondary outcome(s) (18.4%) and a lack of summary result (0%). For the TCM items, none of the clinical trial registrations reported the TCM background and rationale; only 6.6% provided the TCM diagnosis criteria or a description of the TCM intervention; and 27.9% provided TCM outcome(s).ConclusionOverall, although the number of registrations of TCM CTs increased, the registration quality was low. The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by more detailed reporting of interventions and outcomes, TCM-specific information, and sharing of the result data.