Quality of evidence supporting the role of acupuncture for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BackgroundBreast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) may benefit from acupuncture as a therapeutic. However, the findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are inconsistent and their quality needs to be evaluated critically. We aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality, risk of bias, quality of reporting, and quality of evidence for SRs/MAs of acupuncture for BCRL.MethodsPublications were retrieved from four Chinese databases and four English databases. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed by two independent researchers using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), respectively.ResultsThere were a total of 8 SRs/MAs included. By AMSTAR-2, all SRs/MAs were graded as having low or very low methodological quality. By ROBIS, all SRs/MAs in phase 1, domain 1, and domain 4 of phase 2 were at low risk, while in domain 2 were at high risk. By PRISMA, reporting weaknesses in protocol and registration, as well as search method, were identified. By GRADE, the level of evidence quality was "low" to "very low", and the most commonly downgraded factor was the risk of bias.ConclusionsAcupuncture may be beneficial in improving BCRL. However, due to the identified limitations and conflicting findings, further more prescriptive and rigorous SRs/MAs are required to give strong evidence for final judgments.