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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Comparison 10. acupuncture versus other intervention (unknown / mixed duration of low back pain) Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size 1 pain score (lower values mean 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected better) 1.1 Immediately after the end 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 2 pain recovery: higher values are 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected better 2.1 Immediately after the end 1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 3 global measure (higher values are 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected better) 3.1 Immediately after the end 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 4 back specific functional status 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected (higher scores are better). Ex: Japan Orthopedic Association Score. 4.1 Immediately after the end 2 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 5 Side effects / Complications 1 Risk Difference (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 5.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 1 Risk Difference (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable Comparison 11. acupuncture versus acupuncture. (unknown / mixed duration of low back pain) Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size 1 pain (lower values are better) 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected 1.1 Short term (immediately 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable after end of sessions) 2 pain recovery (higher values are 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected better) 2.1 Immediately after the end 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 3 global measure (higher values are 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected better) 3.1 Short-term follow-up (up 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable to 3 months after the end of the sessions) 4 functional status (higher values 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected are better) 4.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 76
5 physical examination 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected (finger-floor distance) Higher values are better. 5.1 Immediately after the end 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 6 improvement Other data No numeric data 6.1 Long-term follow-up (more than 1 year) Other data No numeric data Comparison 12. acupuncture plus intervention versus other intervention alone. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size 1 pain (lower values are better) 4 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only 1.1 Immediately after the end 4 289 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.76 [-1.02, -0.50] of the sessions 1.2 Short-term follow-up (up 3 182 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -1.10 [-1.62, -0.58] to 3 months after the end of the sessions) 1.3 Intermediate-term 2 115 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) -0.76 [-1.14, -0.38] follow-up (3 months to 1 year) 2 pain: difference between within 2 differences between (Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only group changes 2.1 Immediately after the end 2 differences between (Random, 95% CI) -1.07 [-2.14, -0.00] of the sessions 2.2 Short-term follow-up (up 1 differences between (Random, 95% CI) -0.7 [-1.33, -0.07] to 3 months after the end of the sessions) 2.3 Intermediate-term 1 differences between (Random, 95% CI) -0.8 [-1.80, 0.20] follow-up (3 months to 1 year) 3 pain disability index (lower 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected values are better) 3.1 Immediately after the end 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 3.2 Intermediate-term 1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable follow-up (3 months to 1 year) 4 Pain: percentage of patients with 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected >50% pain reduction 4.1 Immediately after the end 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable of the sessions 4.2 Short-term follow-up (up 1 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) Not estimable to 3 months after the end of the sessions) 5 function: difference between 2 differences between (Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only within group changes 5.1 Immediately after the end of the sessions 2 differences between (Random, 95% CI) -6.51 [-14.99, 1.98] Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 77
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: 3.2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 m
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)

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

Delete template?

Save as template?