Evaluating the effect on asthma quality of life of added reflexology or homeopathy to conventional asthma management - an investigator-blinded, randomised, controlled parallel group study.

IF 1.8 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Ayfer Topcu, Anders Løkke, Leila Eriksen, Lars Peter Nielsen, Ronald Dahl
{"title":"Evaluating the effect on asthma quality of life of added reflexology or homeopathy to conventional asthma management - an investigator-blinded, randomised, controlled parallel group study.","authors":"Ayfer Topcu, Anders Løkke, Leila Eriksen, Lars Peter Nielsen, Ronald Dahl","doi":"10.1080/20018525.2020.1793526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide without any known cure. Despite remarkable improvement in asthma treatment, better education and guideline implementation strategies, there is growing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine, like reflexology and homeopathy. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy and reflexology in asthma treatment is not available.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of reflexology and homeopathy as adjunctive therapies in asthma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a single centre, randomised, investigator blinded, controlled study 86 asthma patients were enrolled. They were assigned to one of three study groups (conventional treatment alone or conventional treatment with addition of either homeopathy or reflexology). All patients received their asthma treatment during the study and were followed as usual by their general practitioner. The study assignment group of individual patients were blinded to the investigators, who made the clinical evaluation of asthma control. The primary outcome was the change in the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) scores after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included asthma control questionnaire, EuroQol, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and total medication score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Minor improvements in the AQLQ score were observed in all three groups. However, no statistically significant changes in AQLQ scores were seen within or between groups. Likewise, secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the addition of homeopathy or reflexology to conventional treatment did not result in improved quality of life in asthma.</p>","PeriodicalId":11872,"journal":{"name":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"1793526"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7480456/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2020.1793526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide without any known cure. Despite remarkable improvement in asthma treatment, better education and guideline implementation strategies, there is growing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine, like reflexology and homeopathy. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy and reflexology in asthma treatment is not available.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of reflexology and homeopathy as adjunctive therapies in asthma.

Methods: In a single centre, randomised, investigator blinded, controlled study 86 asthma patients were enrolled. They were assigned to one of three study groups (conventional treatment alone or conventional treatment with addition of either homeopathy or reflexology). All patients received their asthma treatment during the study and were followed as usual by their general practitioner. The study assignment group of individual patients were blinded to the investigators, who made the clinical evaluation of asthma control. The primary outcome was the change in the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) scores after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included asthma control questionnaire, EuroQol, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and total medication score.

Results: Minor improvements in the AQLQ score were observed in all three groups. However, no statistically significant changes in AQLQ scores were seen within or between groups. Likewise, secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.

Conclusions: In this study, the addition of homeopathy or reflexology to conventional treatment did not result in improved quality of life in asthma.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估在传统哮喘治疗基础上增加反射疗法或顺势疗法对哮喘患者生活质量的影响--一项由研究者盲法随机对照的平行小组研究。
背景:哮喘是一种全球常见的慢性疾病,目前尚无根治方法。尽管哮喘治疗有了明显改善,教育和指南实施策略也得到了改善,但人们对使用反射疗法和顺势疗法等补充和替代医学的兴趣却与日俱增。然而,支持顺势疗法和反射疗法在哮喘治疗中的有效性的证据并不存在:本研究旨在评估反射疗法和顺势疗法作为哮喘辅助疗法的效果:在一项单中心、随机、研究者盲法对照研究中,86 名哮喘患者参与了研究。他们被分配到三个研究组中的一组(单纯常规治疗组或在常规治疗基础上加用顺势疗法或反射疗法组)。所有患者都在研究期间接受了哮喘治疗,并由其全科医生照常随访。研究人员对每个患者的研究分配组进行盲测,由研究人员对哮喘控制情况进行临床评估。研究的主要结果是 26 周后哮喘生活质量问卷 (AQLQ) 分数的变化。次要结果包括哮喘控制问卷、EuroQol、1秒用力呼气量、早晚高峰呼气流量、哮喘症状、抢救用药和用药总分:所有三组患者的 AQLQ 评分都略有提高。然而,在组内或组间,AQLQ 评分均未出现统计学意义上的显著变化。同样,各组之间的次要结果也没有差异:在这项研究中,在常规治疗的基础上增加顺势疗法或反射疗法并不能改善哮喘患者的生活质量。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信