Dataset Information

Dry cupping in the treatment of individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a protocol for a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Low back pain is a very prevalent condition in the population and cupping therapy has been presented as a frequently used non-pharmacological treatment in this population. However, there is a lack of well-designed studies that evaluate the effects of this technique. This protocol describes a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study that aims to evaluate the effect of dry cupping therapy on pain, physical function, trunk range of motion, quality of life and psychological symptoms in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Ninety individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain, aged from 18 to 59 years, will be randomised into two groups: intervention group, which will be submitted to dry cupping therapy application with two suctions; and placebo group which will undergo placebo dry cupping therapy. Both applications will occur bilaterally in parallel to the vertebrae from L1 to L5. The application will be performed once a week for 8 weeks. The volunteers will be evaluated before the treatment (T0), immediately after the first intervention (T1), after 4 weeks of intervention (T4) and after 8 weeks of intervention (T8). The primary outcome will be pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will be physical function, lumbar range of motion, patient expectation, overall perception of effect, quality of life and psychological factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of FACISA/UFRN (number: 3639814). The results of the study will be disseminated to participants through social networks and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03909672.

SUBMITTER: Silva HJA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6937004 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dry cupping in the treatment of individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a protocol for a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study.

Silva Hugo Jário de Almeida HJA Saragiotto Bruno T BT Silva Rodrigo Scattone RS Lins Caio Alano de Almeida CAA de Souza Marcelo Cardoso MC

BMJ open 20191222 12

<h4>Background</h4>Low back pain is a very prevalent condition in the population and cupping therapy has been presented as a frequently used non-pharmacological treatment in this population. However, there is a lack of well-designed studies that evaluate the effects of this technique. This protocol describes a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study that aims to evaluate the effect of dry cupping therapy on pain, physical function, trunk range of motion, quality of life and psychologi ...[more]

PMID: 31871257

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two different forms of dry pulsatile cupping in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) compared to medication on demand only in a three-armed randomized trial.Methods110 cLBP patients were randomized to regular pulsatile cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 37), minimal cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 36) or the control group with paracetamol on demand only (n = 37). Primary outcome was the pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100 mm) after 4 weeks, secondary outcome parameter included VAS pain intensity after 12 weeks, back function as measured with the 'Funktionsfragebogen Hannover Rücken' (FFbH-R) and health related quality of life questionnaire Short form 36 (SF-36) after 4 and 12 weeks.ResultsThe mean baseline-adjusted VAS after 4 weeks was 34.9 mm (95% CI: 28.7; 41.2) for pulsatile cupping, 40.4 (34.2; 46.7) for minimal cupping and 56.1 (49.8; 62.4) for control group, resulting in statistically significant differences between pulsatile cupping vs. control (21.2 (12.2; 30.1); p < 0.001) and minimal cupping vs. control (15.7 (6.9; 24.4); p = 0.001). After 12 weeks, mean adjusted VAS difference between pulsatile cupping vs. control was 15.1 ((3.1; 27.1); p = 0.014), and between minimal cupping vs. control 11.5 ((- 0.44; 23.4); p = 0.059). Differences of VAS between pulsatile cupping and minimal cupping showed no significant differences after 4 or 12 weeks. Pulsatile cupping was also better (- 5.8 (- 11.5;-0.1); p = 0.045) compared to control for back function after 4 weeks, but not after 12 weeks (- 5.4 (- 11.7;0.8); p = 0.088), pulsatile cupping also showed better improvements on SF-36 physical component scale compared to control at 4 and 12 weeks (- 5.6 (- 9.3;-2.0); p = 0.003; - 6.1 (- 9.9;-2.4); p = 0.002). For back function and quality of life minimal cupping group was not statistically different to control after 4 and 12 weeks. Paracetamol intake did not differ between the groups (cupping vs. control (7.3 (- 0.4;15.0); p = 0.063); minimal cupping vs. control (6.3 (- 2.0;14.5); p = 0.133).ConclusionsBoth forms of cupping were effective in cLBP without showing significant differences in direct comparison after four weeks, only pulsatile cupping showed effects compared to control after 12 weeks.Trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02090686 ).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The Pain Toolkit is a self-management tool for people with persistent pain. It is available for use worldwide in multiple formats. To date, no studies have investigated the effectiveness of this intervention. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the Pain Toolkit in comparison with a simple education control for people with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Participants who have been discharged from the North of England Regional Back Pain Pathway will be randomised using sealed, consecutively numbered opaque envelopes to receive either the Pain Toolkit and the Back Book (intervention group) or the Back Book only (control group). Both the therapist and the participant will be blind to group allocation. The primary outcome measure will be disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)). Secondary outcome measures will be pain (0-10 numerical scale), healthcare use (number of healthcare professional visits) and quality of life (EuroQol-5D). Outcome measures will be completed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Data will be analysed using analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline values. A change of 10 points in the ODI will be considered a clinically important change. Additionally, a subsample of participants from the intervention group will undergo semistructured interviews to explore individuals' experience of the Pain Toolkit. Participants will be asked questions about the ease of use and acceptability of the Pain Toolkit and also for how long they used the Toolkit. The qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Approval for the study was given by the Health Research Authority and the North East Newcastle, North Tyneside 2 Regional Ethics Committee (reference 18/NE/0144) and Teesside University (reference 176/17). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant patient groups, and local, national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03791164; Pre -results.

Project description:IntroductionChronic pain is a debilitating medical problem that is difficult to treat. Neuroinflammatory pathways have emerged as a potential therapeutic target, as preclinical studies have demonstrated that glial cells and neuroglial interactions play a role in the establishment and maintenance of pain. Recently, we used positron emission tomography (PET) to demonstrate increased levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) binding, a marker of glial activation, in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Cannabidiol (CBD) is a glial inhibitor in animal models, but studies have not assessed whether CBD reduces neuroinflammation in humans. The principal aim of this trial is to evaluate whether CBD, compared with placebo, affects neuroinflammation, as measured by TSPO levels.Methods and analysisThis is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial. Eighty adults (aged 18-75) with cLBP for >6 months will be randomised to either an FDA-approved CBD medication (Epidiolex) or matching placebo for 4 weeks using a dose-escalation design. All participants will undergo integrated PET/MRI at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment to evaluate neuroinflammation using [11C]PBR28, a second-generation radioligand for TSPO. Our primary hypothesis is that participants randomised to CBD will demonstrate larger reductions in thalamic [11C]PBR28 signal compared with those receiving placebo. We will also assess the effect of CBD on (1) [11C]PBR28 signal from limbic regions, which our prior work has linked to depressive symptoms and (2) striatal activation in response to a reward task. Additionally, we will evaluate self-report measures of cLBP intensity and bothersomeness, depression and quality of life at baseline and 4 weeks.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol is approved by the Massachusetts General Brigham Human Research Committee (protocol number: 2021P002617) and FDA (IND number: 143861) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05066308; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy of three months of antibiotic treatment compared with placebo in patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and vertebral endplate changes (Modic changes). DESIGN:Double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, multicentre trial. SETTING:Hospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway. PARTICIPANTS:180 patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and type 1 (n=118) or type 2 (n=62) Modic changes enrolled from June 2015 to September 2017. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomised to three months of oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily. The allocation sequence was concealed by using a computer generated number on the prescription. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (range 0-24) at one year follow-up in the intention to treat population. The minimal clinically important between group difference in mean RMDQ score was predefined as 4. RESULTS:In the primary analysis of the total cohort at one year, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the amoxicillin group and the placebo group was -1.6 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.0, P=0.04). In the secondary analysis, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the groups was -2.3 (-4.2 to-0.4, P=0.02) for patients with type 1 Modic changes and -0.1 (-2.7 to 2.6, P=0.95) for patients with type 2 Modic changes. Fifty patients (56%) in the amoxicillin group experienced at least one drug related adverse event compared with 31 (34%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS:In this study on patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes at the level of a previous disc herniation, three months of treatment with amoxicillin did not provide a clinically important benefit compared with placebo. Secondary analyses and sensitivity analyses supported this finding. Therefore, our results do not support the use of antibiotic treatment for chronic low back pain and Modic changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.

Project description:IntroductionSepsis is a major cause of death among hospitalised patients. Accumulating evidence suggests that immune response during sepsis cascade lies within a spectrum of dysregulated host responses. On the one side of the spectrum there are patients whose response is characterised by fulminant hyperinflammation or macrophage activation-like syndrome (MALS), and on the other side patients whose immune response is characterised by immunoparalysis. A sizeable group of patients are situated between the two extremes. Recognising immune endotype is very important in order to choose the appropriate immunotherapeutic approach for each patient resulting in the best chance to improve the outcome.Methods and analysisImmunoSep is a randomised placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial with a double-dummy design in which the effect of precision immunotherapy on sepsis phenotypes with MALS and immunoparalysis is studied. Patients are stratified using biomarkers. Specifically, 280 patients will be 1:1 randomly assigned to placebo or active immunotherapy as adjunct to standard-of-care treatment. In the active immunotherapy arm, patients with MALS will receive anakinra (recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) intravenously, and patients with immunoparalysis will receive subcutaneous recombinant human interferon-gamma. Τhe primary endpoint is the comparative decrease of the mean total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by at least 1.4 points by day 9 from randomisation.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol is approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices; the National Ethics Committee of Greece and by the National Organization for Medicines of Greece; the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects and METC Oost Netherland for the Netherlands; the National Agency for Medicine and Medical Products of Romania; and the Commission Cantonale d'éthique de la recherche sur l'être human of Switzerland. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04990232.

Dataset Information

Dry cupping in the treatment of individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a protocol for a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study.

Publications

Dry cupping in the treatment of individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a protocol for a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets