Background:This study aims to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline of acupuncture in the treatment of patients with moderate and severe cancer pain. Methods:The development of this guideline was triggered by a systematic review published in JAMA Oncology in 2020. We searched databases and websites for evidence on patient preferences and values, and other resources of using acupuncture for treatment of cancer pain. Recommendations were developed through a Delphi consensus of an international multidisciplinary panel including 13 western medicine oncologists, Chinese medicine/acupuncture clinical practitioners, and two patient representatives. The certainty of evidence, patient preferences and values, resources, and other factors were fully considered in formulating the recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results:The guideline proposed three recommendations: (1) a strong recommendation for the treatment of acupuncture rather than no treatment to relieve pain in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain; (2) a weak recommendation for the combination treatments with acupuncture/acupressure to reduce pain intensity, decrease the opioid dose, and alleviate opioid-related side effects in moderate to severe cancer pain patients who are using analgesics; and (3) a strong recommendation for acupuncture in breast cancer patients to relieve their aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia. Conclusion:This proposed guideline provides recommendations for the management of patients with cancer pain. The small sample sizes of evidence limit the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.

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.

Diagnosis related groups (DRGs)-based payment is increasingly used worldwide to control hospital costs instead of pre-existing cost-based payment, but the results of evaluations vary. A systematic analysis of the effects of DRGs-based payment is needed. This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of DRGs-based payment and cost-based payment on inpatient health utilization in terms of length of stay (LOS), total inpatient spending per admission and readmission rates. We included studies undertaken with designs approved by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care that reported associations between DRGs-based payment and one or more inpatient healthcare utilization outcomes. After a systematic search of eight electronic databases through October 2018, 18 studies were identified and included in the review. We extracted data and conducted quality assessment, systematic synthesis and meta-analyses on the included studies. Random-effects models were used to handle substantial heterogeneity between studies. Meta-analysis showed that DRGs-based payment was associated with lower LOS (pooled effect: -8.07 % [95 %CI -13.05 to -3.10], p = 0.001), and higher readmission rates (pooled effect: 1.36 % [95 %CI 0.45–2.27], p = 0.003). This meta-analysis revealed that DRGs-based payment may have cost-saving implications by lowering LOS, whereas hardly reduce the readmission rates. Policy-makers considering adopting DRGs-based payment should pay more attention to the hospital readmission rates compared with cost-based payment.