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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Thomas (Continued) Sponsor NHS Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme (HTA) Notes Source: www.controlled-trials.com Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 68
D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S Comparison 1. acupuncture versus placebo or sham intervention ((Sub)acute LBP: < 3 months) Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size 1 pain (VAS) (lower values are better) 1.1 Immediately after end of sessions 2 functional status (higher scores are better). Generic instrument 2.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 3 physical examination: finger-floor distance (lower values are better) 3.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 4 mean difference in pain (final - initial) 4.1 Immediately after end of sessions 5 mean difference in functional status (final - initial) Generic instrument 5.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 6 mean difference in physical examination (final - initial): finger-floor distance 6.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable Comparison 2. acupuncture versus other intervention ((Sub)acute LBP: < 3 months) Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size 1 pain (VAS): lower values are better 1.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 1.2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) 1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Not estimable 1 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Not estimable Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 69
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: Munglani (Continued) Contact inform
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 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?