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 6.2. Comparison 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 2<br />
<strong>back</strong> specific functional status (<strong>low</strong>er scores mean better). Ex: RDQ, Oswestry <strong>and</strong> Aberdeen.<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 />
2 <strong>back</strong> specific functional status (<strong>low</strong>er scores mean better). Ex: RDQ, Oswestry <strong>and</strong> Aberdeen<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 24.5 (26.6) 32 19.5 (30.74) 0.17 [ -0.43, 0.77 ]<br />
Giles 1999 (NSAID) 16 24.5 (26.6) 20 20 (21.47) 0.18 [ -0.47, 0.84 ]<br />
Giles 2003 (manip) 34 26 (20.7) 35 14 (24.4) 0.52 [ 0.04, 1.00 ]<br />
Giles 2003 (NSAID) 34 26 (20.7) 40 32 (23.7) -0.27 [ -0.72, 0.19 ]<br />
2 Short-term fol<strong>low</strong>-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions)<br />
Cherkin 2001 (mass) 94 7.9 (0.7) 78 6.3 (0.6) 2.43 [ 2.03, 2.82 ]<br />
Cherkin 2001 (sc) 94 7.9 (0.7) 90 8.8 (0.7) -1.28 [ -1.60, -0.96 ]<br />
3 Intermediate-term fol<strong>low</strong>-up (3 months to 1 year)<br />
Cherkin 2001 (mass) 94 8 (0.7) 78 6.8 (0.7) 1.71 [ 1.36, 2.06 ]<br />
Cherkin 2001 (sc) 94 8 (0.7) 90 6.4 (0.7) 2.28 [ 1.90, 2.65 ]<br />
-4 -2 0 2 4<br />
favours acupunctur<br />
favours other interv<br />
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 3<br />
return to work (higher values mean 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 />
3 return to work (higher values mean better)<br />
Study or subgroup <strong>Acupuncture</strong> Other intervention Risk Ratio Risk Ratio<br />
n/N n/N M-H,R<strong>and</strong>om,95% CI M-H,R<strong>and</strong>om,95% CI<br />
1 Intermediate-term fol<strong>low</strong>-up (3 months to 1 year)<br />
Lehmann 1986 7/13 8/13 0.88 [ 0.45, 1.70 ]<br />
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10<br />
favours other interv<br />
favours acupuncture<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> (<strong>Review</strong>)<br />
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.<br />
97
Change language