Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 8, 2026
Acupoint Application as a Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment for Fatigue Associated with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Published on: September 5, 2025
Sanfu acupoint herbal patching for stable asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled
Fen Zhou1, Ning Liang2, Manfred Maier3
1School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 11 Bei San Huan Dong Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China; Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine; 11 Bei San Huan Dong Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China.
Background:
Sanfu acupoint herbal patching (SAHP) is extensively used in people with stable asthma in China. However, the evidence available is scarce. This systematic review aims to evaluate the preventive and therapeutic effect and safety of SAHP in people with stable asthma.
Methods:
We searched seven electronic databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies and RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro 3.6.1 were applied to perform data analyses.
Results:
A total of 34 RCTs involving 3313 participants were included. The overall methodological quality of the trials was of high risk of bias. SAHP plus conventional therapy (CT) decreased the mean frequency (times per year) of asthma exacerbations compared with CT alone (MD: -1.42; 95% CI: -2.19 to -0.65; 7 RCTs), and similar effect was found for SAHP versus sham SAHP (MD: 0.42; 95%CI: 0.26-0.69; 1 RCT). For lung function (including PEF%, FEV1% and FEV1/FVC), SAHP plus CT showed better effect than CT alone, and so did SAHP versus sham SAHP on PEF and PEF%. Adverse effects in the SAHP groups were reported to be mild and well tolerated.
Conclusions:
SAHP alone or combined with CT appears to be more effective than sham SAHP or CT on reduction of asthma exacerbations, improving lung function, and SAHP seems to be safe. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in trial quality. Further, rigorously designed, large-scale trials are warranted for robust evidence.
