Dataset Information

The effectiveness of Tuina in managing chronic non-specific low back pain: A protocol of a multicenter international randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) is a common complaint about medical care and carries a heavy social burden. The efficacy of Tuina (TN) or physiotherapy (PT) for CNLBP has been evaluated in previous systematic reviews. However, there is no high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of Tuina. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a large-scale, multicenter, high-quality clinical trial to provide evidence for Tuina to treat CNLBP.

Methods

This is a multicenter, assessor-, and analyst-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 3 parallel arms: TN, PT, and TN combined with PT (Tuina combined with physiotherapy) group. Six hundred twelve eligible CNLBP patients will be randomly assigned to the groups in a 1:1:1 ratio in 3 centers. The TN intervention includes 9-step routine techniques, while the PT intervention includes a physiotherapy treatment plan based on a patient's symptoms. The interventions for both groups will last for 30 minutes and will be carried out for 6 sessions in 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the visual analog scale pain score. And the secondary outcomes will include the Oswestry Disability Index, spinal range of motion, 36-item short-form health survey. Safety evaluation will be recorded during the whole study. All data in this randomized controlled trial will be analyzed by SAS 9.4.

Discussion

The results of this trial will provide evidence to evaluate the efficacy of Tuina's value as a treatment for CNLBP.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000040288, November 27, 2020).

SUBMITTER: Zhou X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9281981 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effectiveness of Tuina in managing chronic non-specific low back pain: A protocol of a multicenter international randomized controlled trial.

Zhou Xuan X Yang Juan J Ma Qing-Yu QY Guo Yu Y He Ke-Jie KJ Shen Long-Bin LB Fan Qiao Q Philip Cheong Kwok Chee CKC Keng Tay Boon TB Celia Tan Ia Choo TIC Bauer Brent A BA Chen Jia-Xu JX

Medicine 20220201 7

<h4>Background</h4>Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) is a common complaint about medical care and carries a heavy social burden. The efficacy of Tuina (TN) or physiotherapy (PT) for CNLBP has been evaluated in previous systematic reviews. However, there is no high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of Tuina. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a large-scale, multicenter, high-quality clinical trial to provide evidence for Tuina to treat CNLBP.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a multicente ...[more]

PMID: 35363203

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and the combination of physiotherapy and chiropractic care compared with information and advice for the treatment of patients with nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) in Sweden.DesignA multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial.SettingTen primary care rehabilitation units in Sweden.ParticipantsEighty-eight participants with nonspecific CLBP.InterventionsThe participants were randomly assigned to receive physiotherapy, chiropractic care, combination treatment, or information and advice.Main outcome measuresThis study measured the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), working status, and costs.ResultsThe study revealed no statistically significant differences in any of the outcome measures when physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and combination treatment with information and advice were compared (p > 0.05). The ODI changes between baseline and the 6-month follow-up ranged from 6.13 to 12.56 across the treatment groups, indicating reduced disability in all groups. Compared with the other treatment options, the combination treatment resulted in the greatest QALY gain (0.418) and lowest cost (SEK 3,081).ConclusionCompared with alternative standalone treatment options, the combination treatment strategy resulted in greater QALY gain and lower costs from a heath care perspective. Although the study did not detect statistically significant differences in outcomes or costs among the treatment options, the combination treatment showed promising potential for cost-effectiveness. Given the small sample size and low statistical power of the study, further clinical trials with fewer treatment arms and a focus on the combination group are warranted to confirm these findings. The insights gained from this study are important for informing the design and conduct of future clinical studies investigating the effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP.Trial registrationThe study is registered in the ISRCTN registry (2017-02-20: ISRCTN15830360).

Project description:BackgroundChronic persistent low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis is common and disabling. Lumbar surgical interventions with decompression or fusion are most commonly performed to manage severe spinal stenosis. However, epidural injections are also frequently performed in managing central spinal stenosis. After failure of epidural steroid injections, the next sequential step is percutaneous adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis with a targeted delivery. The literature on the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central spinal stenosis after failure of epidural injections has not been widely studied.Study designA prospective evaluation.SettingAn interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain with lumbar central spinal stenosis.MethodsSeventy patients were recruited. The initial phase of the study was randomized, double-blind with a comparison of percutaneous adhesiolysis with caudal epidural injections. The 25 patients from the adhesiolysis group continued with follow-up, along with 45 additional patients, leading to a total of 70 patients. All patients received percutaneous adhesiolysis and appropriate placement of the Racz catheter, followed by an injection of 5 mL of 2% preservative-free lidocaine with subsequent monitoring in the recovery room. In the recovery room, each patient also received 6 mL of 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution, and 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone, followed by an injection of 1 mL of sodium chloride solution and removal of the catheter.Outcomes assessmentMultiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was 50% or more improvement in pain scores and ODI scores.ResultsOverall, a primary outcome or significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more was seen in 71% of patients at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures over a period of 2 years were 5.7 ± 2.73.LimitationsThe lack of a control group and a prospective design.ConclusionsSignificant relief and functional status improvement as seen in 71% of the 70 patients with percutaneous adhesiolysis utilizing local anesthetic steroids and hypertonic sodium chloride solution may be an effective management strategy in patients with chronic function limiting low back and lower extremity pain with central spinal stenosis after failure of conservatie management and fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough results of case series support the use of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant low back pain, no confirmatory randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in this patient group to date. PROMISE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management with optimal medical management alone in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and predominant low back pain.Method/designPatients will be recruited in approximately 30 centers across Canada, Europe, and the United States. Eligible patients with low back pain exceeding leg pain and an average Numeric Pain Rating Scale score ≥5 for low back pain will be randomized 1:1 to spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management or to optimal medical management alone. The investigators will tailor individual optimal medical management treatment plans to their patients. Excluded from study treatments are intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation, back surgery related to the original back pain complaint, and experimental therapies. Patients randomized to the spinal cord stimulation group will undergo trial stimulation, and if they achieve adequate low back pain relief a neurostimulation system using the Specify® 5-6-5 multi-column lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) will be implanted to capture low back pain preferentially in these patients. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. After the 6-month visit, patients can change treatment to that received by the other randomized group. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in low back pain at the 6-month visit. Additional outcomes include changes in low back and leg pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life, return to work, healthcare utilization including medication usage, and patient satisfaction. Data on adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Healthcare use data will be used to assess costs and long-term cost-effectiveness.DiscussionRecruitment began in January 2013 and will continue until 2016.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01697358 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Project description:IntroductionNon-pharmacological interventions play a crucial role in the management of non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). One prime example is Tuina, a traditional Chinese manual therapy that incorporates pressing, kneading and rubbing techniques to alleviate physical discomfort and enhance overall well-being. It serves as a widely used technique in China and other East Asian countries. However, the effectiveness and safety of Tuina for managing NSCLBP have not been substantiated through rigorous clinical research. We sought to carry out a randomised controlled trial with an open-label design, blinded assessors and parallel arms to assess the effectiveness and safety of Tuina as a treatment for NSCLBP. The trial aims to provide high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of Tuina in improving outcomes for patients with NSCLBP.Methods and analysisA total of 150 patients aged 18-60 years with NSCLBP will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Both groups will receive standard health education. In addition, the treatment group will receive Tuina therapy, while the control group will participate in core stability exercises. Each group will undergo a total of 18 interventions over 6 weeks, with the interventions administered three times per week. The primary outcome measure is the patient's pain intensity, assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale, at week 6 following randomisation. Secondary outcomes encompass disability (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality of life (assessed using the EuroQoL-5 dimensions questionnaire), adverse emotions (evaluated with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale), biomechanical outcomes, socioeconomic indicators (medication use, healthcare utilisation and absenteeism), patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and other relevant factors.The statistical analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance will be used to compare the clinical data across different time points within both groups.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has received approval from the Ethics Committee of Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2023-1366-133-01). All study participants will be required to give written informed consent. The findings of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and presented at scientific conferences. Additionally, the participants will receive copies of the results.Trial registration numberChiCTR2300076257.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness of Tuina in managing chronic non-specific low back pain: A protocol of a multicenter international randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

The effectiveness of Tuina in managing chronic non-specific low back pain: A protocol of a multicenter international randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets