个性化顺势疗法药物治疗坐骨神经痛的疗效:双盲、随机、安慰剂对照试验。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Siddharth Kumar Das, Trishita Basu, Saleema Naaz Tabassum, Ashish Sarkar, Shubhamoy Ghosh, Munmun Koley, Subhranil Saha, Arunava Nath, Srimanta Khamrui
{"title":"个性化顺势疗法药物治疗坐骨神经痛的疗效:双盲、随机、安慰剂对照试验。","authors":"Siddharth Kumar Das, Trishita Basu, Saleema Naaz Tabassum, Ashish Sarkar, Shubhamoy Ghosh, Munmun Koley, Subhranil Saha, Arunava Nath, Srimanta Khamrui","doi":"10.1089/jicm.2023.0260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Sciatica is a debilitating condition that causes pain in its distribution or in the lumbosacral nerve root that is connected to it. Although there are claims that homeopathy can reduce sciatica pain, systematic scientific proof is currently lacking. The objective of the trial was to determine whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) were as effective as identical-looking placebos in treating sciatica pain. <b><i>Design:</i></b> This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. <b><i>Setting:</i></b> The study was conducted at Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India. <b><i>Subjects:</i></b> Sixty participants with sciatica pain were included in this study. <b><i>Interventions:</i></b> Verum (<i>n</i> = 30; IHMs plus concomitant care) versus control (<i>n</i> = 30; placebos plus concomitant care). <b><i>Outcome measures:</i></b> Primary-Sciatica Bothersome Index (SBI) and Sciatica Frequency Index (SFI) scores and secondary-Roland Morris Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMPDQ), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (OLBPQ) scores: all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Intention-to-treat sample (<i>n</i> = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated measure analysis of variance, primarily accounting for between groups and time interactions, and additionally, by unpaired <i>t</i> tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at <i>p</i> < 0.025 and <0.05 two tailed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Group differences could not achieve significance in SBI (<i>p</i> = 0.044), SFI (<i>p</i> = 0.080), and RMPDQ scores (<i>p</i> = 0.134), but were significant for SF-MPQ (<i>p</i> = 0.007) and OLBPQ (<i>p</i> = 0.036). <i>Gnaphalium polycephalum</i> (<i>n</i> = 6; 10%) was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The primary outcome failed to demonstrate evidently that homeopathy was effective beyond placebo, and the trial remained inconclusive. Independent replications are warranted to confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/10/028617.</p>","PeriodicalId":29734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Sciatica Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Siddharth Kumar Das, Trishita Basu, Saleema Naaz Tabassum, Ashish Sarkar, Shubhamoy Ghosh, Munmun Koley, Subhranil Saha, Arunava Nath, Srimanta Khamrui\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jicm.2023.0260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Sciatica is a debilitating condition that causes pain in its distribution or in the lumbosacral nerve root that is connected to it. Although there are claims that homeopathy can reduce sciatica pain, systematic scientific proof is currently lacking. The objective of the trial was to determine whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) were as effective as identical-looking placebos in treating sciatica pain. <b><i>Design:</i></b> This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. <b><i>Setting:</i></b> The study was conducted at Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India. <b><i>Subjects:</i></b> Sixty participants with sciatica pain were included in this study. <b><i>Interventions:</i></b> Verum (<i>n</i> = 30; IHMs plus concomitant care) versus control (<i>n</i> = 30; placebos plus concomitant care). <b><i>Outcome measures:</i></b> Primary-Sciatica Bothersome Index (SBI) and Sciatica Frequency Index (SFI) scores and secondary-Roland Morris Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMPDQ), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (OLBPQ) scores: all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Intention-to-treat sample (<i>n</i> = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated measure analysis of variance, primarily accounting for between groups and time interactions, and additionally, by unpaired <i>t</i> tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at <i>p</i> < 0.025 and <0.05 two tailed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Group differences could not achieve significance in SBI (<i>p</i> = 0.044), SFI (<i>p</i> = 0.080), and RMPDQ scores (<i>p</i> = 0.134), but were significant for SF-MPQ (<i>p</i> = 0.007) and OLBPQ (<i>p</i> = 0.036). <i>Gnaphalium polycephalum</i> (<i>n</i> = 6; 10%) was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The primary outcome failed to demonstrate evidently that homeopathy was effective beyond placebo, and the trial remained inconclusive. Independent replications are warranted to confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/10/028617.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jicm.2023.0260\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jicm.2023.0260","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:坐骨神经痛是一种使人衰弱的疾病,会导致其分布区或与其相连的腰骶部神经根疼痛。虽然有顺势疗法可以减轻坐骨神经痛疼痛的说法,但目前还缺乏系统的科学证明。该试验的目的是确定个性化顺势疗法药物(IHMs)在治疗坐骨神经痛疼痛方面是否与外观相同的安慰剂一样有效。设计:这是一项双盲、随机(1:1)、两组平行、安慰剂对照试验。研究地点研究在印度西孟加拉邦豪拉的马赫什-巴塔查里亚顺势疗法医学院和医院进行。研究对象: 60 名坐骨神经痛患者:60 名坐骨神经痛患者参与了本研究。干预:Verum(n = 30;IHMs 加辅助护理)与对照组(n = 30;安慰剂加辅助护理)。结果测量:初级--坐骨神经痛烦扰指数(SBI)和坐骨神经痛频率指数(SFI)评分,中级--罗兰-莫里斯疼痛与残疾问卷(RMPDQ)、麦吉尔疼痛简表(SF-MPQ)和奥斯韦斯特里腰痛问卷(OLBPQ)评分:所有评分均在基线时测量,每月测量一次,直至 3 个月。研究结果对意向治疗样本(n = 60)进行了分析。通过双向(分半)重复测量方差分析(主要考虑组间和时间间的交互作用)和非配对 t 检验(比较每个月单独获得的估计值)来检验组间差异。显著性水平设定为 p p = 0.044)、SFI(p = 0.080)和 RMPDQ 分数(p = 0.134),但 SF-MPQ (p = 0.007)和 OLBPQ (p = 0.036)显著。多头萘醌(n = 6;10%)是最常用的处方药。两组患者均未出现任何伤害、严重不良事件或并发症。结论:主要结果未能明显证明顺势疗法的疗效优于安慰剂,试验仍未得出结论。有必要进行独立的重复试验,以确认研究结果。临床试验注册号:CTRI/2020/10/028617.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Sciatica Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Objectives: Sciatica is a debilitating condition that causes pain in its distribution or in the lumbosacral nerve root that is connected to it. Although there are claims that homeopathy can reduce sciatica pain, systematic scientific proof is currently lacking. The objective of the trial was to determine whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) were as effective as identical-looking placebos in treating sciatica pain. Design: This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: The study was conducted at Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, West Bengal, India. Subjects: Sixty participants with sciatica pain were included in this study. Interventions: Verum (n = 30; IHMs plus concomitant care) versus control (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care). Outcome measures: Primary-Sciatica Bothersome Index (SBI) and Sciatica Frequency Index (SFI) scores and secondary-Roland Morris Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMPDQ), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (OLBPQ) scores: all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: Intention-to-treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated measure analysis of variance, primarily accounting for between groups and time interactions, and additionally, by unpaired t tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.025 and <0.05 two tailed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Group differences could not achieve significance in SBI (p = 0.044), SFI (p = 0.080), and RMPDQ scores (p = 0.134), but were significant for SF-MPQ (p = 0.007) and OLBPQ (p = 0.036). Gnaphalium polycephalum (n = 6; 10%) was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. Conclusions: The primary outcome failed to demonstrate evidently that homeopathy was effective beyond placebo, and the trial remained inconclusive. Independent replications are warranted to confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/10/028617.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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