19.04.2014 Views

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)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

improvement<br />

(Continued)<br />

Li 1997 Improved 13 26<br />

Li 1997 No change 0 2<br />

Analysis 12.1.<br />

Comparison 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic<br />

LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 1 <strong>pain</strong> (<strong>low</strong>er values are better).<br />

<strong>Review</strong>: <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 />

Comparison: 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months)<br />

Outcome: 1 <strong>pain</strong> (<strong>low</strong>er values are better)<br />

Study or subgroup Acup + intervention Intervention alone Std. Mean Difference Weight 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 />

Leibing 2002 35 2.1 (2.2) 39 4.4 (1.7) 24.1 % -1.17 [ -1.66, -0.67 ]<br />

Meng 2003 24 1.5 (1.2) 23 2.4 (1.3) 17.7 % -0.71 [ -1.30, -0.12 ]<br />

Molsberger 2002 58 2.6 (2.1) 58 3.9 (2.1) 38.5 % -0.61 [ -0.99, -0.24 ]<br />

Yeung 2003 26 3.81 (2.1) 26 5.12 (2.18) 19.7 % -0.60 [ -1.16, -0.05 ]<br />

Subtotal (95% CI) 143 146 100.0 % -0.76 [ -1.02, -0.50 ]<br />

Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.01; Chi 2 = 3.49, df = 3 (P = 0.32); I 2 =14%<br />

Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 5.69 (P < 0.00001)<br />

2 Short-term fol<strong>low</strong>-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions)<br />

Meng 2003 24 1.3 (0.8) 23 2.4 (1) 30.3 % -1.20 [ -1.82, -0.57 ]<br />

Molsberger 2002 47 2.3 (2) 36 5.2 (1.9) 36.4 % -1.47 [ -1.96, -0.98 ]<br />

Yeung 2003 26 3.77 (2.12) 26 5.19 (2.47) 33.3 % -0.61 [ -1.16, -0.05 ]<br />

Subtotal (95% CI) 97 85 100.0 % -1.10 [ -1.62, -0.58 ]<br />

Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.13; Chi 2 = 5.24, df = 2 (P = 0.07); I 2 =62%<br />

Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 4.15 (P = 0.000033)<br />

3 Intermediate-term fol<strong>low</strong>-up (3 months to 1 year)<br />

Leibing 2002 33 3.1 (1.8) 30 4.5 (2) 55.1 % -0.73 [ -1.24, -0.22 ]<br />

Yeung 2003 26 3.46 (2.18) 26 5.27 (2.31) 44.9 % -0.79 [ -1.36, -0.23 ]<br />

Subtotal (95% CI) 59 56 100.0 % -0.76 [ -1.14, -0.38 ]<br />

Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.03, df = 1 (P = 0.87); I 2 =0.0%<br />

Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 3.91 (P = 0.000091)<br />

-2 -1 0 1 2<br />

favours acup + inter<br />

favours inter alone<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 />

109

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!