Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 4 Side effects / Complications. Review: Comparison: Outcome: Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) 4 Side effects / Complications Study or subgroup Treatment Control Risk Difference Risk Difference n/N n/N M-H,Random,95% CI M-H,Random,95% CI 1 Immediately after the end of the sessions Giles 1999 (manip) 0/16 0/32 0.0 [ -0.09, 0.09 ] Giles 1999 (NSAID) 0/16 3/20 -0.15 [ -0.33, 0.03 ] Grant 1999 3/32 3/28 -0.01 [ -0.17, 0.14 ] Tsukayama 2002 4/9 3/10 0.14 [ -0.29, 0.58 ] 2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Cherkin 2001 (mass) 0/94 0/78 0.0 [ -0.02, 0.02 ] Cherkin 2001 (sc) 0/94 0/90 0.0 [ -0.02, 0.02 ] 3 Intermediate-term follow-up (3 months to 1 year) Cherkin 2001 (mass) 0/94 0/78 0.0 [ -0.02, 0.02 ] Cherkin 2001 (sc) 0/94 0/90 0.0 [ -0.02, 0.02 ] Lehmann 1986 0/13 0/13 0.0 [ -0.14, 0.14 ] -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Favours acupuncture Favours other interv Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 5 pain and function (adjusted for baseline values). pain and function (adjusted for baseline values) Study Comparison Outcome measure Timing p value Immediately after the end of the sessions Tsukayama 2002 Acupuncture versus TENS Functional status (JOA): higher scores are better Immediately after 0.24 Tsukayama 2002 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Cherkin 2001 (mass) Acupuncture versus massage Pain 9 weeks 0.23 Cherkin 2001 (mass) Function 9 weeks 0.01 (massage is better) Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 98
pain and function (adjusted for baseline values) (Continued) Cherkin 2001 (sc) Acupuncture versus selfcare education Pain 9 weeks 0.55 Cherkin 2001 (sc) Function 9 weeks 0.75 Intermediate-term follow-up (3 months to 1 year) Cherkin 2001 (mass) Acupuncture versus massage Pain 52 weeks 0.002 (massage is better) Cherkin 2001 (mass) Function 52 weeks 0.05 (massage is better) Cherkin 2001 (sc) Acupuncture versus selfcare education Pain 52 weeks 0.10 Cherkin 2001 (sc) Function 52 weeks 0.10 Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 acupuncture versus other intervention. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 6 general level of pain (0-15 points)(more points mean less pain). general level of pain (0-15 points)(more points mean less pain) Study Group Value p value Immediately after the end of the sessions Lehmann 1986 Acupuncture 10.59 F 2,50 = 1.66 (p
Page 1 and 2:
Acupuncture and dry-needling for lo
Page 3 and 4:
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 acupunct
Page 5 and 6:
[Intervention Review] Acupuncture a
Page 7 and 8:
traditional meridian acupuncture po
Page 9 and 10:
of experts in acupuncture treatment
Page 11 and 12:
ack pain. The average improvement i
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 2. Acupuncture compared to a
Page 15 and 16:
245 patients who received acupunctu
Page 17 and 18:
Although the conclusions showed som
Page 19 and 20:
R E F E R E N C E S References to s
Page 21 and 22:
Wu 1991 {published data only} Wu YC
Page 23 and 24:
treatments by traditional acupunctu
Page 25 and 26:
Araki 2001 (Continued) Conclusion:
Page 27 and 28:
Ceccherelli 2002 Methods Participan
Page 29 and 30:
Cherkin 2001 (Continued) or acupunc
Page 31 and 32:
Ding 1998 Methods Participants Inte
Page 33 and 34:
Garvey 1989 Methods Participants In
Page 35 and 36:
Giles 1999 Methods Participants Int
Page 37 and 38:
Giles 2003 Methods Participants Int
Page 39 and 40:
Grant 1999 Methods Participants Int
Page 41 and 42:
Gunn 1980 (Continued) varied) Costs
Page 43 and 44:
Inoue 2000 (Continued) Notes Langua
Page 45 and 46:
Kerr 2003 (Continued) For results,
Page 47 and 48:
Kurosu 1979(b) Methods Participants
Page 49 and 50:
Lehmann 1986 (Continued) Conclusion
Page 51 and 52: Li 1997 (Continued) Interventions O
Page 53 and 54: MacDonald 1983 (Continued) Language
Page 55 and 56: Meng 2003 (Continued) 12.7 Conclusi
Page 57 and 58: Sakai 1998 (Continued) 2) Oral medi
Page 59 and 60: Takeda 2001 (Continued) Mean age: 2
Page 61 and 62: Tsukayama 2002 Methods Participants
Page 63 and 64: Wang 1996 Methods Participants Inte
Page 65 and 66: Yeung 2003 Methods Participants Int
Page 67 and 68: (Continued) Kinoshita 1981 Koike 19
Page 69 and 70: GerAc (Continued) Interventions Out
Page 71 and 72: Munglani (Continued) Contact inform
Page 73 and 74: D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S Compa
Page 75 and 76: 3.1 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 m
Page 77 and 78: 13.1 Immediately after the end of t
Page 79 and 80: 3.2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 m
Page 81 and 82: 5 physical examination 1 Mean Diffe
Page 83 and 84: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 acupunct
Page 97 and 98: Analysis 5.10. sick leave Compariso
Page 99 and 100: Analysis 5.14. Comparison 5 acupunc
Page 101: Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 acupunct
Page 105 and 106: Review: Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7
Page 109 and 110: Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 acupun
Page 113 and 114: improvement (Continued) Li 1997 Imp
Page 121 and 122: Table 2. Methodological quality ass
Page 123 and 124: Table 2. Methodological quality ass
Page 125 and 126: Table 3. Clinical relevance assessm
Page 127 and 128: Table 4. Improvement in pain Compar
Page 129 and 130: Table 5. Adequacy of acupuncture (C
Page 131 and 132: Table 5. Adequacy of acupuncture (C
Page 133 and 134: 20 factorial$.ti,ab. (2463) 21 foll
Page 135 and 136: (Continued) 30 October 2004 New cit
show all

Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?