Clinical Efficacy of Electroacupuncture in the Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-06-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S515679
Wenting Li, Xiaoyang Liu, Jiahui Lin, Jianpeng Huang, Sheng Li, Nenggui Xu, Wenbin Fu, Jianhua Liu
{"title":"Clinical Efficacy of Electroacupuncture in the Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Wenting Li, Xiaoyang Liu, Jiahui Lin, Jianpeng Huang, Sheng Li, Nenggui Xu, Wenbin Fu, Jianhua Liu","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S515679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Chronic neck pain (CNP) is a common but challenging symptom in clinical practice. Acupuncture is widely used in alleviating the symptoms of CNP. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) in patients with CNP and to quantify the specific effects of EA by controlling for placebo effects.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A randomized sham-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of single hospital in China from November 2019 to November 2020 and a total of 105 participants with CNP were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to the EA group, sham electroacupuncture (SEA) group and waiting list (WL) group. The primary outcome was change in the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes included McGill Pain Questionnaire (MG), visual analogue scale (VAS) and pain threshold (PT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This randomized clinical trial included 98 patients. The EA group demonstrated a greater reduction in NPQ scores compared to the SEA group after 10 sessions (-7.2564, 95% CI=-12.2875 to -2.2253, <i>P</i>=0.0054) and at 3-month follow up (-7.0090, 95% CI=-10.5039 to -3.5140, <i>P</i>=0.0002). After 10 sessions, the EA and SEA groups exhibited greater reductions in NPQ scores compared to the WL group (EA vs WL: <i>P</i> <b><</b>0.001, [95% CI=6.570 to 15.503]; SEA vs WL: <i>P</i>=0.027, [95% CI=0.578 to 9.580]). However, the EA group achieved clinically significant NPQ improvements (>25%), whereas the SEA group failed to meet this criterion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This randomized clinical trial found that, in patients with CNP, EA significantly improved the symptoms compared with SEA and WL groups both immediately and cumulatively (at 5 weeks), and these benefits persisted through week 17. These comparisons demonstrated that EA's clinical benefits exceeded placebo effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"2909-2922"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12169039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S515679","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Chronic neck pain (CNP) is a common but challenging symptom in clinical practice. Acupuncture is widely used in alleviating the symptoms of CNP. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) in patients with CNP and to quantify the specific effects of EA by controlling for placebo effects.

Patients and methods: A randomized sham-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of single hospital in China from November 2019 to November 2020 and a total of 105 participants with CNP were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to the EA group, sham electroacupuncture (SEA) group and waiting list (WL) group. The primary outcome was change in the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes included McGill Pain Questionnaire (MG), visual analogue scale (VAS) and pain threshold (PT).

Results: This randomized clinical trial included 98 patients. The EA group demonstrated a greater reduction in NPQ scores compared to the SEA group after 10 sessions (-7.2564, 95% CI=-12.2875 to -2.2253, P=0.0054) and at 3-month follow up (-7.0090, 95% CI=-10.5039 to -3.5140, P=0.0002). After 10 sessions, the EA and SEA groups exhibited greater reductions in NPQ scores compared to the WL group (EA vs WL: P <0.001, [95% CI=6.570 to 15.503]; SEA vs WL: P=0.027, [95% CI=0.578 to 9.580]). However, the EA group achieved clinically significant NPQ improvements (>25%), whereas the SEA group failed to meet this criterion.

Conclusion: This randomized clinical trial found that, in patients with CNP, EA significantly improved the symptoms compared with SEA and WL groups both immediately and cumulatively (at 5 weeks), and these benefits persisted through week 17. These comparisons demonstrated that EA's clinical benefits exceeded placebo effects.

电针治疗慢性颈部疼痛的临床疗效:一项随机临床试验。
目的:慢性颈部疼痛(CNP)是临床实践中常见但具有挑战性的症状。针刺被广泛用于缓解CNP的症状。本研究的主要目的是评估电针(EA)对CNP患者的疗效和安全性,并通过控制安慰剂效应来量化EA的特定效应。患者和方法:2019年11月至2020年11月,在中国单一医院门诊部进行随机假对照试验,共纳入105名CNP患者。受试者按1:1:1的比例随机分为EA组、假电针(SEA)组和等候名单(WL)组。主要结果是诺斯威克公园颈部疼痛问卷(NPQ)的变化。次要结果包括McGill疼痛问卷(MG)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和疼痛阈值(PT)。结果:该随机临床试验纳入98例患者。与SEA组相比,EA组在10个疗程后(-7.2564,95% CI=-12.2875至-2.2253,P=0.0054)和3个月的随访(-7.0090,95% CI=-10.5039至-3.5140,P=0.0002)表现出更大的NPQ评分下降。10次治疗后,EA组和SEA组的NPQ得分比WL组下降更大(EA vs WL: P 0.001, [95% CI=6.570 ~ 15.503];SEA vs WL: P=0.027, [95% CI=0.578 ~ 9.580])。然而,EA组取得了临床显著的NPQ改善(>.25%),而SEA组未能达到这一标准。结论:这项随机临床试验发现,与SEA和WL组相比,EA可立即和累计(5周)显著改善CNP患者的症状,并且这些益处持续到第17周。这些比较表明,EA的临床效益超过安慰剂效应。
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 Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信