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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Table 3. Clinical relevance assessment (Continued) Giles 1999 N N Y Y DK Patients and interventions are poorly described Giles 2003 N Y Y DK DK Difficult to interpret results due to nature of data presentation. No follow-up beyond 9 weeks Grant 1999 N N Y N N Population and interventions are poorly described Gunn 1980 Y N N Y DK We don’t know how cointerventions were applied. We don’t have a separate measure for pain He 1997 Y N Y Y DK No description of acupuncture points used. Not sure about validity/reliability of outcome measure Inoue 2000 N Y DK N DK Inoue 2001 N Y DK Y Y Kerr 2003 N Y Y N DK No clinically important effects detected in this study Kittang 2001 Y N Y N DK Kurosu 1979(a); Kurosu 1979(b) N Y N DK DK Li 1997 Y N Y Y DK No description of acupuncture points used. Not sure about validity/reliability of outcome measure Lehmann 1986 N N N DK Y No description of acupuncture points used. Teh Chi unclear. Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 121
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 121 and 122: Table 2. Methodological quality ass
Page 123: Table 2. Methodological quality ass
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)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?