Effectiveness of stimulation of acupoint KI 1 by Artemisia vulgaris (Moxa) for the treatment of essential hypertension : a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Xiaochen Yang, Xingjiang Xiong, Guoyan Yang, Jie Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials has been performed to assess the effectiveness of stimulation of acupoint KI 1 by Artemisia vulgaris (the Japanese name is moxa) to lower blood pressure compared to antihypertensive drugs. Methods and Findings. Articles published from 1980 to August 2013 in databases of CENTRAL, Pubmed, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and online clinical trial registry websites were searched. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); moxibustion-type intervention on KI 1 compared with antihypertensive drugs; meta-analysis showed superior effects of moxibustion plus antihypertensive drugs on systolic blood pressure (WMD: −4.91 [−7.54, −2.28]; 𝑃 = 0.0003) but no superior effects on diastolic blood pressure (WMD: −6.38 [−17.17, 4.41]; 𝑃 = 0.25). Conclusions. Our systematic review of the current literature shows a beneficial effect of using moxibustion interventions on KI 1 to lower blood pressure compared to antihypertensive drugs. However, the results are influenced by the existing differences in design of the current trials.
Original languageEnglish
Article number187484
Number of pages8
JournalEvidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Open Access - Access Right Statement

© 2014 Xiaochen Yang et al.This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Effectiveness of stimulation of acupoint KI 1 by Artemisia vulgaris (Moxa) for the treatment of essential hypertension : a systematic review of randomized controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this