Sensitized-points acupuncture versus routine integrative acupuncture for chronic low back pain: A randomized-controlled feasibility study.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1177/10538127241289343

Huijuan Tan, Steve Tumilty, Cathy Chapple, Guangyi Huang, G David Baxter

{"title":"Sensitized-points acupuncture versus routine integrative acupuncture for chronic low back pain: A randomized-controlled feasibility study.","authors":"Huijuan Tan, Steve Tumilty, Cathy Chapple, Guangyi Huang, G David Baxter","doi":"10.1177/10538127241289343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a global health complaint. Acupuncture is an effective therapy for cLBP; however, evidence for an optimal acupuncture practice scheme is limited.Objective: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of two acupuncture regimes (sensitized-points acupuncture and routine integrative acupuncture package) for cLBP.Methods: This was a two-arm, assessor-blind, randomized-controlled feasibility study. Thirty adult participants with cLBP were randomly assigned into two groups. Each group received 8 sessions of either sensitized-points acupuncture or routine integrative acupuncture package, respectively. Treatments were conducted twice per week. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (week 0), on a weekly basis for four weeks (week 1, 2, 3, 4), and follow-up (week 12). Student's t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Fisher's exact tests, descriptive analyses, and power analyses were used for statistics.Results: Participants were recruited over 10 weeks with a recruitment rate of 12 participants per month. The treatment plan in both groups was well accepted and tolerated. Besides, the study was characterized by low adverse event rates (8.0% in Group A, 11.7% in Group B), high completion of the outcome measures (97.8% in Group A, 94.3% in Group B), and high participant retention rate (100% in Group A, 93.8% in Group B). Furthermore, preliminary analyses showed that both regimes of acupuncture were potentially efficacious and safe.Conclusions: Conducting a fully powered RCT to evaluate efficacy and safety of two acupuncture regimes in the management of cLBP is feasible.","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":"38 1","pages":"101-112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127241289343","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a global health complaint. Acupuncture is an effective therapy for cLBP; however, evidence for an optimal acupuncture practice scheme is limited.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of two acupuncture regimes (sensitized-points acupuncture and routine integrative acupuncture package) for cLBP.

Methods: This was a two-arm, assessor-blind, randomized-controlled feasibility study. Thirty adult participants with cLBP were randomly assigned into two groups. Each group received 8 sessions of either sensitized-points acupuncture or routine integrative acupuncture package, respectively. Treatments were conducted twice per week. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (week 0), on a weekly basis for four weeks (week 1, 2, 3, 4), and follow-up (week 12). Student's t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Fisher's exact tests, descriptive analyses, and power analyses were used for statistics.

Results: Participants were recruited over 10 weeks with a recruitment rate of 12 participants per month. The treatment plan in both groups was well accepted and tolerated. Besides, the study was characterized by low adverse event rates (8.0% in Group A, 11.7% in Group B), high completion of the outcome measures (97.8% in Group A, 94.3% in Group B), and high participant retention rate (100% in Group A, 93.8% in Group B). Furthermore, preliminary analyses showed that both regimes of acupuncture were potentially efficacious and safe.

Conclusions: Conducting a fully powered RCT to evaluate efficacy and safety of two acupuncture regimes in the management of cLBP is feasible.

查看原文本刊更多论文

致敏穴针刺与常规综合针刺治疗慢性腰痛：一项随机对照可行性研究。

背景：慢性腰痛（cLBP）是一个全球性的健康问题。针刺是治疗cLBP的有效方法；然而，最佳针灸实践方案的证据是有限的。目的：本研究旨在确定进行随机对照试验（RCT）的可行性，以评估两种针刺方案（敏化穴针刺和常规综合针灸包）治疗cLBP的有效性。方法：这是一项两组、评估盲、随机对照的可行性研究。30名患有cLBP的成年参与者被随机分为两组。每组分别接受8次致敏穴针刺或常规综合针刺治疗。治疗每周进行两次。在基线（第0周）、每周（第1、2、3、4周）和随访（第12周）评估结果。统计使用了学生t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验、Fisher精确检验、描述性分析和功率分析。结果：招募参与者超过10周，招募率为每月12名参与者。两组的治疗方案均被接受和耐受。此外，该研究的特点是不良事件发生率低（A组为8.0%，B组为11.7%），结果测量的完成率高（A组为97.8%，B组为94.3%），参与者保留率高（A组为100%，B组为93.8%）。此外，初步分析表明，两种针刺方案都是潜在的有效和安全的。结论：通过一项全功率随机对照试验来评估两种针刺治疗cLBP的有效性和安全性是可行的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

194

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.