Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 1<br />
<strong>pain</strong> (<strong>low</strong>er values are better).<br />
<strong>Review</strong>:<br />
Comparison:<br />
Outcome:<br />
<strong>Acupuncture</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>dry</strong>-<strong>needling</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>low</strong> <strong>back</strong> <strong>pain</strong><br />
6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months)<br />
1 <strong>pain</strong> (<strong>low</strong>er values are better)<br />
Study or subgroup <strong>Acupuncture</strong> Other intervention Std. Mean Difference Std. Mean Difference<br />
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,R<strong>and</strong>om,95% CI IV,R<strong>and</strong>om,95% CI<br />
1 Immediately after the end of the sessions<br />
Giles 1999 (manip) 16 5.1 (7.8) 32 2.5 (6.96) 0.35 [ -0.25, 0.96 ]<br />
Giles 1999 (NSAID) 16 5.1 (7.8) 20 3.8 (4.81) 0.20 [ -0.46, 0.86 ]<br />
Giles 2003 (manip) 33 7 (5.18) 35 3 (5.18) 0.76 [ 0.27, 1.26 ]<br />
Giles 2003 (NSAID) 33 7 (5.18) 39 5 (3.7) 0.45 [ -0.02, 0.92 ]<br />
Grant 1999 32 0 (0) 28 0 (0) 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 130 154 0.48 [ 0.21, 0.75 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 2.14, df = 3 (P = 0.54); I 2 =0.0%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 3.49 (P = 0.00048)<br />
2 Short-term fol<strong>low</strong>-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions)<br />
Cherkin 2001 (mass) 94 4 (0.4) 78 3.6 (0.3) 1.11 [ 0.79, 1.43 ]<br />
Cherkin 2001 (sc) 94 4 (0.4) 90 4.6 (0.4) -1.49 [ -1.82, -1.17 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 188 168 -0.19 [ -2.74, 2.36 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 3.37; Chi 2 = 123.26, df = 1 (P
Change language