{"title":"电针治疗慢性颈部疼痛的临床疗效:一项随机临床试验。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Clinical Efficacy of Electroacupuncture in the Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
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.