OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), compared with sham or placebo therapies.
METHODS: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL to December 2016, and conducted searches from 1980 to December 2016 in PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase. There were no regional restrictions applied. We included only randomised controlled trials of adults with NSLBP. Placebo/sham procedures were required of the control interventions. The trials were combined using meta-analysis when the data reported allowed for statistical pooling.
RESULTS: 14 trials (2110 participants) were included in the review, and 9 were included in the meta-analysis. Immediately after the acupuncture treatment we found statistically significant differences in pain reduction between acupuncture and sham or placebo therapy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.25; I2 7%; 753 participants; 9 studies), but there were no differences in function (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.05, 95% CI -3.61 to 1.52; I2 79%; 462 participants; 4 studies). At follow-up, there were significant differences in pain reduction (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.09; I2 67%), but not in function (WMD -0.98, 95%CI -3.36 to 1.40; I2 87%). We conducted subgroup analyses both immediately after treatment and at follow-up.
CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence of efficacy for acupuncture in terms of pain reduction immediately after treatment for NSLBP ((sub)acute and chronic) when compared to sham or placebo acupuncture.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42017059438.
BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture reveal no significant differences between acupuncture and so-called placebo acupuncture. There is a strong tendency to replace the term "placebo" by the term "sham," because any needling stimulates a certain physiological response. However, neither concept accounts for the great diversity of results in RCTs comparing verum acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture. Some trials have shown little or no difference, while other studies have found statistically significant differences.
OBJECTIVE: Verum acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture may achieve similar results to the extent that they share active constituents. We identified these common active constituents as dermatomes: the segmental structure of the human body. In our study, we tested the hypothesis that the more verum and sham (placebo) acupuncture share the same dermatomes, the closer the clinical outcomes will be, and vice versa.
METHODS: All major databases were searched for RCTs that tested acupuncture versus sham (placebo) acupuncture. The dermatome charts of Hansen and Schliack were used to verify verum and sham (placebo) needling locations. Reported clinical outcomes were assessed in relation to the percentage of overlap between the dermatomes stimulated by acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture.
RESULTS: Our literature search yielded a total of 1738 references. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The effects of sham (placebo) acupuncture varied according to the dermatomes stimulated: high overlap with those stimulated by verum acupuncture resulted in almost identical efficacy, while low overlap resulted in significant differences in efficacy. Clinical outcomes were similar when verum acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture shared the same dermatomes (p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION: The findings of this review confirm our hypothesis. Acupuncture studies that employed verum and sham locations on overlapping dermatomes helped to create a mediocre to negative picture of acupuncture's efficacy. The segmental structure of the body with its interconnected reflex system offers an additional neurophysiological explanation for the effectiveness of acupuncture applied to structures segmentally innervated by the spinal and visceral nervous system. Further comparative acupuncture studies should be based on knowledge of segmental anatomy. In testing verum acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, the chosen sham acupuncture needling locations should be situated on non-overlapping dermatomes.
BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP.
SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of acupuncture for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) through systematic review of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: Studies were identified in electronic databases from their inception to February 2018, and were grouped according to the control interventions. The outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist. The review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
RESULTS: 25 trials (n=7587 participants) were identified and included in a meta-analysis. The results showed that acupuncture was more effective at inducing pain relief than: no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.69, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.38); sham acupuncture in the immediate term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.18), short term (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.17), and intermediate term (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.05); and usual care in the short term (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.33) and intermediate term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.10). Also, adjunctive acupuncture with usual care was more effective than usual care alone at all time points studied. With regard to functional improvement, the analysis showed a significant difference between acupuncture and no treatment (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.30), whereas the other control therapies could not be assessed.
CONCLUSION: We draw a cautious conclusion that acupuncture appears to be effective for NSLBP and that acupuncture may be an important supplement to usual care in the management of NSLBP.
ABSTRACT Objective To investigate randomized clinical trials on the action of auricular acupuncture for chronic back pain in adults, and to identify the most commonly used outcomes for assessing this condition, the protocol used for applying the intervention, and the efficacy of the therapy on pain intensity. Method A systematic review and a metanalysis were carried out between June 2017 and May 2018, based on the PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Embase, Scopus, and the Virtual Health Library databases. Reference lists of systematic reviews were also explored. Results 427 studies were located, 15 included in the qualitative analysis, and seven in the quantitative analysis. Auricular acupuncture led to positive results in 80% of the studies. The most commonly used outcomes were pain intensity and quality, medication consumption, physical disability, and quality of life. There is a lack of protocol standardization for auricular acupuncture for chronic back pain. The metanalysis results showed that auricular acupuncture was effective in reducing pain intensity scores (p=0.038). Conclusion Auricular acupuncture is a promising practice for the treatment of chronic back pain in adults.
ABSTRACT Objective To investigate randomized clinical trials on the action of auricular acupuncture for chronic back pain in adults, and to identify the most commonly used outcomes for assessing this condition, the protocol used for applying the intervention, and the efficacy of the therapy on pain intensity. Method A systematic review and a metanalysis were carried out between June 2017 and May 2018, based on the PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Embase, Scopus, and the Virtual Health Library databases. Reference lists of systematic reviews were also explored. Results 427 studies were located, 15 included in the qualitative analysis, and seven in the quantitative analysis. Auricular acupuncture led to positive results in 80% of the studies. The most commonly used outcomes were pain intensity and quality, medication consumption, physical disability, and quality of life. There is a lack of protocol standardization for auricular acupuncture for chronic back pain. The metanalysis results showed that auricular acupuncture was effective in reducing pain intensity scores (p=0.038). Conclusion Auricular acupuncture is a promising practice for the treatment of chronic back pain in adults.
OBJECTIVES: Systematically review the literature about all available interventions to manage non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in older adults (≥60 years).
DESIGN: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases reference lists for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing interventions for NSLBP. Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and completeness of the description of interventions.
RESULTS: Eighteen (RCTs) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Evidence about interventions to manage NSLBP in older adults is weak. Very low to moderate quality evidence showed that complementary health approach (i.e., manual therapy, acupuncture, mindfulness, yoga), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), education, exercise or pharmacological agents were not effective to produce a clinically significant reduction in pain and disability at short-term and intermediate-term compared to sham, usual care or minimal intervention. Interventions were moderately well-described according to the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) and the risk of bias was moderate 6.4 points on the 10-point PEDro Scale (SD=1.44).
CONCLUSION: Evidence about interventions for NSLP in older adults is limited and new studies are highly likely to change these results. This result may impact healthcare providers due to the lack of effective evidence based interventions, patients, and policy makers that will expend financial resources with interventions that provide in the best scenario a not significant improvement of the clinical symptoms. Researchers need to consider the importance of designing clinical trials targeting older adults and examine possible outcome modifiers present in this population allowing the recommendation of more efficacious evidence-based interventions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42016036686).
OBJECTIVES: Many interventions are available to manage chronic pain; understanding the durability of treatment effects may assist with treatment selection. We sought to assess which noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for selected chronic pain conditions are associated with persistent improvement in function and pain outcomes at least 1 month after the completion of treatment.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through November 2017, reference lists, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
REVIEW METHODS: Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials of noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for five common chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain; chronic neck pain; osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand; fibromyalgia; and tension headache) that addressed efficacy or harms compared with usual care, no treatment, waitlist, placebo, or sham intervention; compared with pharmacological therapy; or compared with exercise. Study quality was assessed, data extracted, and results summarized for function and pain. Only trials reporting results for at least 1 month post-intervention were included. We focused on the persistence of effects at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months).
RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen publications (202 trials) were included. Many included trials were small. Evidence on outcomes beyond 1 year after treatment completion was sparse. Most trials enrolled patients with moderate baseline pain intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0 to 10 point numeric rating scale) and duration of symptoms ranging from 3 months to >15 years. The most common comparison was against usual care. Chronic low back pain: At short term, massage, yoga, and psychological therapies (primarily CBT) (strength of evidence [SOE]: moderate) and exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with usual care or inactive controls. Except for spinal manipulation, these interventions also improved pain. Effects on intermediate-term function were sustained for yoga, spinal manipulation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low), and psychological therapies (SOE: moderate). Improvements in pain continued into intermediate term for exercise, massage, and yoga (moderate effect, SOE: low); mindfulness-based stress reduction (small effect, SOE: low); spinal manipulation, psychological therapies, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (small effects, SOE: moderate). For acupuncture, there was no difference in pain at intermediate term, but a slight improvement at long term (SOE: low). Psychological therapies were associated with slightly greater improvement than usual care or an attention control on both function and pain at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term followup (SOE: moderate). At short and intermediate term, multidisciplinary rehabilitation slightly improved pain compared with exercise (SOE: moderate). High-intensity multidisciplinary rehabilitation (≥20 hours/week or >80 hours total) was not clearly better than non–high-intensity programs. Chronic neck pain: At short and intermediate terms, acupuncture and Alexander Technique were associated with slightly improved function compared with usual care (both interventions), sham acupuncture, or sham laser (SOE: low), but no improvement in pain was seen at any time (SOE: llow). Short-term low-level laser therapy was associated with moderate improvement in function and pain (SOE: moderate). Combination exercise (any 3 of the following: muscle performance, mobility, muscle re-education, aerobic) demonstrated a slight improvement in pain and function short and long term (SOE: low). Osteoarthritis: For knee osteoarthritis, exercise and ultrasound demonstrated small short-term improvements in function compared with usual care, an attention control, or sham procedure (SOE: moderate for exercise, low for ultrasound), which persisted into the intermediate term only for exercise (SOE: low). Exercise was also associated with moderate improvement in pain (SOE: low). Long term, the small improvement in function seen with exercise persisted, but there was no clear effect on pain (SOE: low). Evidence was sparse on interventions for hip and hand osteoarthritis . Exercise for hip osteoarthritis was associated with slightly greater function and pain improvement than usual care short term (SOE: low). The effect on function was sustained intermediate term (SOE: low). Fibromyalgia: In the short term, acupuncture (SOE: moderate), CBT, tai chi, qigong, and exercise (SOE: low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with an attention control, sham, no treatment, or usual care. Exercise (SOE: moderate) and CBT improved pain slightly, and tai chi and qigong (SOE: low) improved pain moderately in the short term. At intermediate term for exercise (SOE: moderate), acupuncture, and CBT (SOE: low), slight functional improvements persisted; they were also seen for myofascial release massage and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low); pain was improved slightly with multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the intermediate term (SOE: low). In the long term, small improvements in function continued for multidisciplinary rehabilitation but not for exercise or massage (SOE: low for all); massage (SOE: low) improved long-term pain slightly, but no clear impact on pain for exercise (SOE: moderate) or multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) was seen. Short-term CBT was associated with a slight improvement in function but not pain compared with pregabalin. Chronic tension headache: Evidence was sparse and the majority of trials were of poor quality. Spinal manipulation slightly improved function and moderately improved pain short term versus usual care, and laser acupuncture was associated with slight pain improvement short term compared with sham (SOE: low). There was no evidence suggesting increased risk for serious treatment-related harms for any of the interventions, although data on harms were limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, CBT, and mind-body practices were most consistently associated with durable slight to moderate improvements in function and pain for specific chronic pain conditions. Our findings provided some support for clinical strategies that focused on use of nonpharmacological therapies for specific chronic pain conditions. Additional comparative research on sustainability of effects beyond the immediate post-treatment period is needed, particularly for conditions other than low back pain.
Objectives: To establish whether sham acupuncture (SA) or placebo acupuncture (PA) is more efficacious for reducing low back pain (LBP) than other routine treatments and to discuss whether SA or PA is appropriate for randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for LBP. Methods: Six databases were searched on 31 May 2017. We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with LBP and lower back myofascial pain syndrome. The studies had at least two control arms: a sham-controlled acupuncture arm and a routine care or waiting list arm (people who did not receive acupuncture until the end of treatment). Trials were combined using meta-analysis methods when the data allowed statistical pooling. Pooled effect sizes were calculated by random effects models. Results: This review identified 7 trials (1768 participants); all were included in the meta-analysis. We found statistically significant differences in pain reduction post-intervention between SA or PA and routine care or a waiting list, with a standardized mean difference of −0.36 (95% CI −0.54 to −0.18; I2statistic=16%; participants=624; studies=6) for the Visual Analog Scale and −0.35 (95% CI −0.49 to −0.20; I2statistic=0%; participants=736; studies=1) for the Chronic Pain Grade Scale; however, no significant difference was observed between SA or PA and routine care or no treatment for post-intervention function. Conclusion: Compared with routine care or a waiting list, SA or PA was more efficacious for pain relief post-intervention. Concluding that SA or PA is appropriate for acupuncture research would be premature. Guidelines evaluating SA or PA control methods are needed to determine the specific effect of acupuncture over placebo.
