Efficacy and safety of moxibustion therapy for bronchial asthma: a systematic review and network Meta-analysis.

What was studied

This review compared moxibustion treatments for asthma. It pooled 44 randomized trials. They had 3401 participants. Moxibustion came in several forms. It was used alone or with usual care. Outcomes were response rates, lung function and immune markers. The review used paired and network comparisons.

What they found

Heat-sensitive moxibustion did better than usual treatment for long-term outcomes. It improved lung function and Asthma Control Test scores. Adding it to usual treatment did better than usual treatment alone. This held for response rates, lung function, asthma control and immune markers. Different types ranked first for different outcomes. All side effects tied to the therapy were mild.

What it means for patients

The authors say moxibustion plus usual treatment gave better overall results than usual treatment alone. They say the heat-sensitive form did better for long-term lung function. It also did better for asthma control.

Why it is not certain yet

The authors cite limits in study quality. They say better trials are needed to confirm the findings. The rankings compare many treatment types across different trials. A review can only be as good as the studies in it.

Source

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion therapy for bronchial asthma: a systematic review and network Meta-analysis.

We restate facts from the source record in our own words. The original wording belongs to its publisher.