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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lopacz 1979 (Continued) For results, see the comparisons: 5.2 Conclusions: “The therapeutic results were better, both immediately and after a series of acupuncture. The difference in the results of treatment was statistically significant in the patients with longest duration of pains (>3 months)” MacDonald 1983 Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes -A stratified random process to divide the sexes as equally as possible between the two groups. -Patients and observers were blinded. -Funding: North West Thames Regional Health Authority -Setting: London -Informed consent and ethics approval not reported -Follow-up: not reported -Analysis: Wilcoxon rank sum test. 17 patients referred from orthopaedic or rheumatological departments. Inclusion criteria: chronic LBP for at least one year, no relief from conventional treatments Diagnoses: spondylitis, ankylosing spondylitis, degenerative disc lesion, idiopathic, non-articular rheumatism, osteoarthritis, prolapsed intervertebral disc, arachnoiditis, ligamentous strain and Scheuermann’s osteochondritis Exclusion criteria: not reported Demographics: not reported. But it says ”the two groups were comparable in terms of age, duration of pain, mood scores, number of physical signs and severity of pain 1) Superficial needling: subcutaneous (4 mm) 30-gauge needle insertion at trigger points. (Number of trigger points unknown). 5 to 20 minutes, maximum of 10 treatments in 10 weeks. Electrical impulses 700µs at 2 Hz if manual stimulation failed. Randomized to this group: 8 Experience: unknown 2) Placebo transcutaneous electrical stimulation: electrodes connected to dummy apparatus, maximum 10 treatments in 10 weeks. Randomized to this group: 9 1) Pain relief: - worse (-1) - no change (0) - minimal improvement (1% to 24%) (1) - moderate improvement (25% to 49%) (2) - good (50% to 74%) (3) - excellent (75% to 99%) (4) - complete resolution (100%) (5) 2) Pain score reduction 3) Activity pain score reduction 4) Physical signs reduction 5) Severity and pain area reduction Costs: not reported Complications: not reported Intervention is dry-needling. Very small sample size, number of treatments unknown, and follow-up time unknown Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 48
MacDonald 1983 (Continued) Language: English Publication: full paper No additional information from authors Results: 1) Pain relief: dry-needling: 77.36, placebo: 30.14 (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: Li 1997 (Continued) Interventions O
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 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 107 and 108:
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 acupunct
Page 109 and 110:
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 acupun
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
improvement (Continued) Li 1997 Imp
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
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?