- 2026-04-17
- Blood pressure 35(1)
- Zhi-Hong Li
- Hua-Wei Gao
- Fang-Fang Shen
- Yan Lu
- Wei Chen
Study Design
- Type
- Meta-Analysis
- Population
- patients with primary hypertension
- Methods
- systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing acupuncture to control interventions; searched seven major databases; random-effects models; Cochrane Risk of Bias tool
Objective
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for primary hypertension, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2024.Methods
We searched seven major databases for RCTs comparing acupuncture to control interventions. The primary outcomes were changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Meta-analyses utilised random-effects models, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool assessed study quality.Results
Seven RCTs (n = 812) were included. Acupuncture was associated with lower SBP [mean differences (MD) = -6.73 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -8.84 to -4.62] and DBP (MD = -6.59 mmHg, 95% CI: -9.42 to -3.76). Heterogeneity was substantial for SBP (I2 = 73.3%) and considerable for DBP (I2 = 90.9%). Notably, the SBP analysis included seven studies, whereas the DBP analysis included six studies, and the similar absolute pooled reductions should be interpreted cautiously, given the small and not fully overlapping study sets. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested blood pressure reductions across several acupuncture modalities, though each subgroup contained very few studies. Adverse-event reporting was limited and inconsistent across studies. Formal tests for publication bias were underpowered given the small number of included studies.Conclusions
Acupuncture may have blood pressure-lowering effects in patients with primary hypertension, but the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity, a small number of studies and considerable variation in intervention type and exposure. Larger, well-designed, multi-centre RCTs with standardised protocols and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings and establish optimal treatment parameters.