|
초록정보 내용
Objectives
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Chuna Manual Therapy (CMT) versus standard pharmacotherapy in patients with cervicogenic dizziness.
Methods
We searched nine international and Korean databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, KMbase, ScienceOn, RISS, KISS, OASIS) through April 30, 2025, for RCTs comparing CMT (alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) to drug treatment alone. Data on study design, participant numbers, interventions, follow-up, outcome measures (ESCV, CSS, VAS, total efficacy rate, hemodynamic and biomarker indices), and adverse events were extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB tool; meta-analyses were performed in RevMan 5.4.1 using fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity (I2, Q-test).
Results
Twenty-two RCTs (1,735 patients) were included. CMT yielded significantly greater improvements in ESCV scores (SMD 1.26; 95% CI 1.01-1.51; p<0.00001) and CSS components (dizziness SMD -1.70; neck-shoulder pain SMD -1.47; headache SMD -1.10; all p<0.00001) with low heterogeneity. Total efficacy rate was higher in both CMT-only (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.13-1.32; p<0.00001) and CMT + pharmacotherapy groups (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.15-1.32; p<0.00001). Hemodynamic analysis showed significant improvement in basilar artery PSV (SMD 0.59; 95% CI 0.31-0.87; p<0.0001). Adverse events were infrequent and mild.
Conclusions
Chuna Manual Therapy demonstrates superior symptomatic and functional benefits compared to pharmacotherapy, with a favorable safety profile, supporting its use in cervicogenic dizziness management. High-quality, multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm generalizability and refine integrated treatment protocols.
|