An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Acupuncture in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension

Objective: Acupuncture treatment is widely used for essential hypertension (EH), and numerous systematic reviews on acupuncture for EH have been published. This article provides an overview of the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for EH and assesses the quality of reports, methodological bias, quality of evidence and risk of bias for inclusion in the evaluation. Methods: Two researchers independently computer searched Pubmed, EMbase, The Cochrane library, WOS, CBM, CNKI, Wangfang Data, VIP and other Chinese and English databases with a search time frame from the date of creation to 13th October 2022; and independently screened systematic reviews of acupuncture therapy for EH; and finally The Report Quality Assessment Tool (PRISMA 2020), Methodological Quality Assessment Tool (AMSTAR2), Grading of Evidence Assessment Tool (GRADE), and Bias Assessment Tool (ROBIS) were used independently to assess the bias of the included literature. Results: A total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The included studies mainly reported on outcome indicators such as efficiency rate, end SBP, end DBP, SBP change value, DBP change value, etc. Deficiencies in the quality of PRISMA 2020 reporting were mainly in the areas of independent screening by multiple researchers, use of GRADE for analysis, early registration, description of conflict of interest, and public access to information; the results of the AMSTAR 2 tool evaluation were mostly were very low, and of the 16 entries affecting the methodological quality of the systematic evaluation, entries 2/3/4/5/12/16 had the greatest methodo-logical bias; GRADE assessed the quality of evidence for key outcome indicators, with a few being low and all others being very low; and ROBIS reported a high level of bias in the literature. Conclusion: Current acupuncture has some efficacy in the treatment of essential hypertension, but its quality of evidence is low. It is hoped that the quality of relevant literature reporting, methodological quality, quality of evidence, and bias will improve.