Dataset Information

Traditional Chinese medicine for neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat various symptoms and diseases in China and has been demonstrated to be effective. The objective of the present study was to review and analyze the existing data about pain and disability in TCM treatments for NP and LBP.Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, up to September 1, 2013. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in managing NP and LBP.Seventy five randomized controlled trials (n = 11077) were included. Almost all of the studies investigated individuals experiencing chronic NP (CNP) or chronic LBP (CLBP). We found moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than sham-acupuncture in reducing pain immediately post-treatment for CNP (visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 cm, mean difference (MD) = -0.58 (-0.94, -0.22), 95% confidence interval, p = 0.01), CLBP (standardized mean difference = -0.47 (-0.77, -0.17), p = 0.003), and acute LBP (VAS 10 cm, MD = -0.99 (-1.24, -0.73), p< 0.001). Cupping could be more effective than waitlist in VAS (100 mm) (MD = -19.10 (-27.61, -10.58), p < 0. 001) for CNP or medications (e.g. NSAID) for CLBP (MD = -5.4 (-8.9, -0.19), p = 0.003). No serious or life-threatening adverse effects were found.Acupuncture, acupressure, and cupping could be efficacious in treating the pain and disability associated with CNP or CLBP in the immediate term. Gua sha, tai chi, qigong, and Chinese manipulation showed fair effects, but we were unable to draw any definite conclusions, and further research is still needed. The efficacy of tuina and moxibustion is unknown because no direct evidence was obtained. These TCM modalities are relatively safe.

SUBMITTER: Yuan QL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4339195 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Traditional Chinese medicine for neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yuan Qi-ling QL Guo Tuan-mao TM Liu Liang L Sun Fu F Zhang Yin-gang YG

PloS one 20150224 2

<h4>Background</h4>Neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat various symptoms and diseases in China and has been demonstrated to be effective. The objective of the present study was to review and analyze the existing data about pain and disability in TCM treatments for NP and LBP.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Coc ...[more]

PMID: 25710765

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the pain relief effect of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions on patients with low back pain, including in China. However, there is a dearth in the literature documenting the diverse goals of TCM interventions, let alone the overall effect of such interventions. In this study, the goal attainment scaling (GAS) method was adopted to evaluate individualised TCM interventions on chronic low back pain. Methods A pre-post intervention study was conducted on patients with chronic low back pain who received individualised TCM interventions in community health services. The study was undertaken in three community health centres in Hangzhou of China. A total of 165 eligible patients were invited, and 150 participated in the study, including 136 who completed both pre- and postintervention surveys. Each participant was asked to identify three to five intended goals from a pool of 26 outcome indicators and their corresponding expectations of these goals prior to the TCM interventions. Their conditions were rated against the selected indicators on a self-report five-point Likert scale before and after the TCM interventions, respectively. Gaps between the actual conditions and the expected goals were summed up for each participant and converted into a standardised GAS score, with a higher score indicating higher achievements, and 50 indicting patient expectations were met. Linear regression models were established to determine the factors associated with the pre-post GAS changes after adjustment for variations in other variables. Results On average, an increase of 14.99 (SD?=?9.81) in the GAS scores was achieved. This resulted in a mean GAS score of 48.33 (SD?=?9.74) after the TCM interventions, falling slightly short (<2) of patient expectations. The multivariate linear regression models revealed that local residents, the retired, and those who perceived lower professional competency of their attending doctors had a smaller increase in the GAS scores after adjustment for variations in other variables. Conclusion The individualised TCM interventions can help patients with low back pain to achieve their expected goals as measured by the GAS. Further studies are needed to better understand how patients set up their goals and the professional competency requirements to meet patient expectations.

Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.

Project description:BackgroundTrials on sling exercise (SE), commonly performed to manage chronic low back pain (LBP), yield conflicting results. This study aimed to review the effects of SE on chronic LBP.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials comparing SE with other treatments or no treatment, published up to August 2013, were identified by electronic searches. Primary outcomes were pain, function, and return to work. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, using a random-effects model.ResultsRisk of bias was rated as high in 9 included trials, where some important quality components such as blinding were absent and sample sizes were generally small. We found no clinically relevant differences in pain or function between SE and other forms of exercise, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture. Based on two trials, SE was more effective than thermomagnetic therapy at reducing pain (short-term: WMD -13.90, 95% CI -22.19 to -5.62; long-term: WMD -26.20, 95% CI -31.32 to -21.08) and improving function (short-term: WMD -10.54, 95% CI -14.32 to -6.75; long-term: WMD -25.75, 95% CI -30.79 to -20.71). In one trial we found statistically significant differences between SE and physical agents combined with drug therapy (meloxicam combined with eperisone hydrochloride) but of borderline clinical relevance for pain (short-term: WMD -15.00, 95% CI -19.64 to -10.36) and function (short-term: WMD -10.00; 95% CI -13.70 to -6.30). There was substantial heterogeneity among the two trials comparing SE and thermomagnetic therapy; both these trials and the trial comparing SE with physical agents combined with drug therapy had serious methodological limitations.InterpretationBased on limited evidence from 2 trials, SE was more effective for LBP than thermomagnetic therapy. Clinically relevant differences in effects between SE and other forms of exercise, physical agents combined with drug therapy, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture could not be found. More high-quality randomized trials on the topic are warranted.

Project description:Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP treatment is very challenging, and more effective treatment methods are needed. Myofascial release may be an effective therapy for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It is widely used clinically to treat CLBP, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. Methods: We selected PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database articles published until April 5, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of myofascial release for CLBP were included. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, quality of life, balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, and mental health. For each outcome, Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 375) were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the overall efficacy of myofascial release for CLBP was significant, including two aspects: pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.08), I 2 = 46%, P = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), I 2 = 44%, P = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), I 2 = 53%, P = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), I 2 = 82%, P = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), I 2 = 92%, P = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.88]. Conclusions: In this study, we systematically reviewed and quantified the efficacy of myofascial release in treating CLBP. The meta-analysis results showed that myofascial release significantly improved pain and physical function in patients with CLBP but had no significant effects on balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, mental health, and quality of life. However, due to the low quality and a small number of included literature, more and more rigorously designed RCTs should be included in the future to verify these conclusions.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to investigate whether there is a gap between evidence of traditional medicine (TM) interventions in East-Asian countries from the current Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and evidence from current systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MAs) and to analyze the impact of this gap on present CPGs. METHODS:We examined 5 representative TM interventions in the health care systems of East-Asian countries. We searched seven relevant databases for CPGs to identify whether core CPGs included evidence of TM interventions, and we searched 11 databases for SR-MAs to re-evaluate current evidence on TM interventions. We then compared the gap between the evidence from CPGs and SR-MAs. RESULTS:Thirteen CPGs and 22 SR-MAs met our inclusion criteria. Of the 13 CPGs, 7 CPGs (54%) mentioned TM interventions, and all were for acupuncture (only one was for both acupuncture and acupressure). However, the CPGs did not recommend acupuncture (or acupressure). Of 22 SR-MAs, 16 were for acupuncture, 5 for manual therapy, 1 for cupping, and none for moxibustion and herbal medicine. Comparing the evidence from CPGs and SR-MAs, an underestimation or omission of evidence for acupuncture, cupping, and manual therapy in current CPGs was detected. Thus, applying the results from the SR-MAs, we moderately recommend acupuncture for chronic LBP, but we inconclusively recommend acupuncture for (sub)acute LBP due to the limited current evidence. Furthermore, we weakly recommend cupping and manual therapy for both (sub)acute and chronic LBP. We cannot provide recommendations for moxibustion and herbal medicine due to a lack of evidence. CONCLUSIONS:The current CPGs did not fully reflect the evidence for TM interventions. As relevant studies such as SR-MAs are conducted and evidence increases, the current evidence on acupuncture, cupping, and manual therapy should be rigorously considered in the process of developing or updating the CPG system.

Project description:BackgroundPost-stroke depression (PSD) is common in stroke survivors, with significantly negative effects and serious impairments in terms of personal and social functioning. While both pharmacological and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions have been administered for PSD, there is still uncertainty about the balance between these and what treatment strategy should be preferred in clinical practice. Therefore, we aim to compare and rank, describing the protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), the commonly used TCM interventions for PSD.Methods and analysisWe will search CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, CBM and PsycINFO, the US National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organisation International Trials Registry Platform search portal from inception to November 2018. There will be no restrictions on language, publication year or publication type. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) accessing any TCM treatments against active comparator or other controls for PSD will be included. The primary outcomes will be efficacy (the total number of participants, declining more than 50% on the total score between baseline) and acceptability of treatment (dropout rate due to any cause). A Bayesian NMA will be performed to compare all relative outcome of different TCM interventions. we will conduct the network meta-regression meta-analyses of data on the sex ratio, the types of stroke and the treatment duration of TCM interventions. Potential explanations in extra subgroup analyses according to the results of heterogeneity and inconsistency will be explored, and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.Trials registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018082400.ConclusionOur study will generate evidence for TCM in the treatment of PSD and help to reduce the uncertainty about the effectiveness of PSD management, which will encourage further suggestions for TCM clinical practice or guideline.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Dataset Information

Traditional Chinese medicine for neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Traditional Chinese medicine for neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure