Accumulated Korean Clinical Research and Recent Trends in Chinese Clinical Studies on Moxibustion for Stroke: A Descriptive Comparison

Objectives: To describe the accumulated clinical research on moxibustion for stroke in Korea and to compare it descriptively with recent clinical research trends in China.Methods: Korean studies were searched in DBpia, RISS, OASIS, and KISS from database inception to June 2026. Chinese studies were searched in CNKI, with analysis restricted to September 2020-June 2026. PubMed was additionally searched as a supplementary source. Study design, target symptoms, sample size, moxibustion methods, outcome measures, control of non-moxibustion treatment conditions, and adverse-event reporting were analyzed.Results: Fourteen Korean and 185 Chinese studies were included. Korean studies were concentrated in 2000-2011, whereas Chinese studies continued after 2020. Randomized controlled or comparative studies accounted for 50.0% of Korean studies and 86.5% of Chinese studies. Direct moxibustion predominated in Korea (78.6%), whereas recent Chinese studies used more diverse methods and covered broader post-stroke symptoms. Non-moxibustion treatment conditions were controlled in 57.1% of Korean studies and 44.3% of Chinese studies.Conclusions: Korean research has shown a prolonged research gap since 2011, while recent Chinese studies have continued across diverse designs and interventions. Because the analysis periods differed, the findings should be interpreted as a descriptive comparison rather than a direct contemporaneous comparison. Future Korean studies should use clinically applicable methods, appropriate comparison groups, standardized outcomes, and systematic safety reporting.