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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 acupuncture versus no treatment. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 5 functional status (standardized measures). Review: Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain Comparison: 4 acupuncture versus no treatment. (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) Outcome: 5 functional status (standardized measures) Study or subgroup Acupuncture No treatment Effect size (SE) Effect size Weight Effect size N N IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI 1 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Coan 1980 25 25 0.63 (0.29) 61.9 % 0.63 [ 0.06, 1.20 ] Thomas 1994 30 10 0.64 (0.37) 38.1 % 0.64 [ -0.09, 1.37 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 100.0 % 0.63 [ 0.19, 1.08 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.00, df = 1 (P = 0.98); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.78 (P = 0.0055) 2 Intermediate-term follow-up (3 months to 1 year) Thomas 1994 30 10 0.03 (0.37) 100.0 % 0.03 [ -0.70, 0.76 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 100.0 % 0.03 [ -0.70, 0.76 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.08 (P = 0.94) -2 -1 0 1 2 Favours no treatment Favours acupuncture Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 86
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 acupuncture versus placebo or sham intervention (Chronic LBP: > 3 months), Outcome 1 pain (lower values mean better). Review: Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain Comparison: 5 acupuncture versus placebo or sham intervention (Chronic LBP: > 3 months) Outcome: 1 pain (lower values mean better) Study or subgroup Acupuncture placebo / sham Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI 1 Immediately after the end of the sessions Kerr 2003 26 51.3 (22.4) 20 61.7 (30.6) 9.0 % -10.40 [ -26.34, 5.54 ] Leibing 2002 35 21 (22) 40 32 (22) 22.9 % -11.00 [ -20.98, -1.02 ] Mendelson 1983 36 30.2 (18) 41 40 (24.3) 25.3 % -9.80 [ -19.28, -0.32 ] Molsberger 2002 58 26 (21) 58 36 (19) 42.9 % -10.00 [ -17.29, -2.71 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 155 159 100.0 % -10.21 [ -14.99, -5.44 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.03, df = 3 (P = 1.00); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 4.20 (P = 0.000027) 2 Short-term follow-up (up to 3 months after the end of the sessions) Carlsson (even) 34 52 (24) 16 64 (25) 27.7 % -12.00 [ -26.67, 2.67 ] Molsberger 2002 47 23 (20) 41 43 (23) 72.3 % -20.00 [ -29.07, -10.93 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 81 57 100.0 % -17.79 [ -25.50, -10.07 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.83, df = 1 (P = 0.36); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 4.52 (P < 0.00001) 3 Intermediate-term follow-up (3 months to 1 year) Carlsson (even) 23 48 (22) 9 62 (30) 17.4 % -14.00 [ -35.56, 7.56 ] Leibing 2002 33 31 (18) 31 35 (22) 82.6 % -4.00 [ -13.88, 5.88 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 56 40 100.0 % -5.74 [ -14.72, 3.25 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.68, df = 1 (P = 0.41); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.25 (P = 0.21) 4 Long-term follow-up (more than 1 year) Carlsson (even) 21 42 (24) 6 54 (35) 100.0 % -12.00 [ -41.83, 17.83 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 21 6 100.0 % -12.00 [ -41.83, 17.83 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.79 (P = 0.43) -50 -25 0 25 50 favours acupuncture favours control Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 87
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 89: Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 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?