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

Table 2. Methodological quality assessment
(Continued)
patient was not. So it is possible
that the blindness was broken, especially
because the outcomes are
subjective. One of the few studies
that adjusted for confounders in
the analysis, but small sample size
and did not account for attention
effects
Total “Yes” 17 14 14 18, 0, 19 15 15 20 28 16
Total “No” 3 5 3 15, 34, 10 2 3 12 4 10
Total
“DK”
15 16 18 2, 1, 6 18 17 3 3 9
Table 3. Clinical relevance assessment
Study Patients Interventions Relevant
outcomes
Size of effect Benefits and harms Serious deficiencies?
Araki 2001 N Y Y DK DK Population is poorly
described. Power to detect
a difference (alpha
0.05, 2-tailed) in pain
is 12% and in function
is 5.1%
Carlsson 2001 Y Y Y Y Y
Ceccherelli 2002 Y Y N DK DK
Cherkin 2001 Y N Y DK Y Intervention is individualized
to each patient.
Pragmatic trial
Coan 1980 Y N Y Y DK Intervention is poorly
described
Ding 1998 Y N Y Y Y The strong and deep
needling technique
may not be practical
for all acupuncture
settings
Edelist 1976 N Y N N DK Irrelevant outcomes.
Garvey 1989 N Y N Y N Benefists do not seem
to be worth the harms
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
120