Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Acupuncture and herbal formulation compared with artificial tears alone: evaluation of dry eye symptoms and associated tests in randomised clinical trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Acupuncture and herbal formulation compared with artificial tears alone: evaluation of dry eye symptoms and associated tests in randomised clinical trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Acupuncture and herbal formulation compared with artificial tears alone: evaluation of dry eye symptoms and associated tests in randomised clinical trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Acupuncture and herbal formulation compared with artificial tears alone: evaluation of dry eye symptoms and associated tests in randomised clinical trial
2018
Overview
ObjectiveDry eye is a common disease with great health burden and no satisfactory treatment. Traditional Chinese medicine, an increasingly popular form of complementary medicine, has been used to treat dry eye but studies have been inconclusive. To address this issue, we conducted a randomised investigator-masked study which included the robust assessment of disease mechanisms.Methods and analysisEligible participants (total 150) were treated with artificial tear (AT) alone, with added eight sessions of acupuncture (AC) or additional daily oral herb (HB) over a month.ResultsParticipants treated with AC were more likely to respond symptomatically than those on AT (88% vs 72%, p=0.039) with a difference of 16% (95% CI: 0.18 to 31.1). The number-to-treat with AC to achieve response in one person was 7 (3 to 157). Participants in the AC group also had reduced conjunctival redness (automatic grading with Oculus keratograph) compared with AT (p=0.043) and reduced tear T helper cell (Th1)-cytokine tumour necrosis factor α (p=0.027) and Th2-cytokine interleukin 4 concentrations (p=0.038). AC was not significantly superior to AT in other outcomes such as tear osmolarity, tear evaporation rates, corneal staining and tear break-up times. No significant adverse effects were encountered. HB was not significantly different in the primary outcome from AT (80% vs 72%, p=0.26).ConclusionsAC is safe and provides additional benefit in mild to moderate dry eye up to 1 month, compared with ATs alone. Treatment is associated with demonstrable molecular evidence of reduced inflammation. Provided that suitably qualified practitioners are available to implement standardised treatment, AC may be recommended as adjunctive therapy to AT.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02219204)registered on 14 August 2014.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
Subject
