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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Analysis 12.5. Comparison 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 5 function: difference between within group changes. Review: Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain Comparison: 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) Outcome: 5 function: difference between within group changes Study or subgroup differences between (SE) differences between Weight differences between IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI 1 Immediately after the end of the sessions Leibing 2002 -11.3 (2.95) 44.9 % -11.30 [ -17.08, -5.52 ] Meng 2003 -2.6 (0.98) 55.1 % -2.60 [ -4.52, -0.68 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 100.0 % -6.51 [ -14.99, 1.98 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 33.01; Chi 2 = 7.83, df = 1 (P = 0.01); I 2 =87% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.50 (P = 0.13) 2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Meng 2003 -3.1 (1.1) 100.0 % -3.10 [ -5.26, -0.94 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 100.0 % -3.10 [ -5.26, -0.94 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 2.82 (P = 0.0048) 3 Intermediate-term follow-up (3 months to 1 year) Leibing 2002 -6.8 (2.96) 100.0 % -6.80 [ -12.60, -1.00 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 100.0 % -6.80 [ -12.60, -1.00 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 2.30 (P = 0.022) -20 -10 0 10 20 Favours acup + inter Favours interv alone Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 112
Analysis 12.6. Comparison 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 6 global measure. Review: Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain Comparison: 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) Outcome: 6 global measure Study or subgroup Acup + interv Intervention alone Risk Ratio Risk Ratio n/N n/N M-H,Random,95% CI M-H,Random,95% CI 1 Immediately after the end of the sessions Molsberger 2002 52/62 31/55 1.49 [ 1.15, 1.92 ] 2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Molsberger 2002 36/49 11/37 2.47 [ 1.46, 4.17 ] 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 favours interv alone favours acup + inter Analysis 12.7. Comparison 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 7 back specific functional status (lower scores mean better). Ex: RDQ, Oswestry and Aberdeen. Review: Comparison: Outcome: Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain 12 acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) 7 back specific functional status (lower scores mean better). Ex: RDQ, Oswestry and Aberdeen Study or subgroup Acup + intervention Intervention alone Std. Mean Difference Weight Std. Mean Difference N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI 1 Immediately after the end of the sessions Leibing 2002 35 11.3 (15) 39 22.3 (7.8) 43.0 % -0.93 [ -1.41, -0.44 ] Meng 2003 24 6.5 (4) 23 11.2 (4.8) 26.5 % -1.05 [ -1.66, -0.43 ] Yeung 2003 26 20.02 (10.47) 26 30.82 (13.03) 30.4 % -0.90 [ -1.47, -0.33 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 85 88 100.0 % -0.95 [ -1.27, -0.63 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.14, df = 2 (P = 0.93); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 5.90 (P < 0.00001) 2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Meng 2003 24 6.3 (4.4) 23 11.4 (4.8) 46.0 % -1.09 [ -1.71, -0.47 ] Yeung 2003 26 20.36 (13.06) 26 32.48 (15.31) 54.0 % -0.84 [ -1.41, -0.27 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 50 49 100.0 % -0.95 [ -1.37, -0.54 ] -2 -1 0 1 2 favours acup + inter favours interv alone (Continued ...) Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 113
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 103 and 104: pain and function (adjusted for bas
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 115: Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 acupun
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?