Cargando…

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)

BACKGROUND: While Chuna manual therapy is a Korean manual therapy widely used primarily for low back pain (LBP)-related disorders in Korea, well-designed studies on the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy are scarce. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a three-armed, multice...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shin, Byung-Cheul, Kim, Me-riong, Cho, Jae-Heung, Jung, Jae-Young, Kim, Koh-Woon, Lee, Jun-Hwan, Nam, Kibong, Lee, Min ho, Hwang, Eui-Hyoung, Heo, Kwang-Ho, Kim, Namkwen, Ha, In-Hyuk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28095892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1756-8
_version_ 1782496068143939584
author Shin, Byung-Cheul
Kim, Me-riong
Cho, Jae-Heung
Jung, Jae-Young
Kim, Koh-Woon
Lee, Jun-Hwan
Nam, Kibong
Lee, Min ho
Hwang, Eui-Hyoung
Heo, Kwang-Ho
Kim, Namkwen
Ha, In-Hyuk
author_facet Shin, Byung-Cheul
Kim, Me-riong
Cho, Jae-Heung
Jung, Jae-Young
Kim, Koh-Woon
Lee, Jun-Hwan
Nam, Kibong
Lee, Min ho
Hwang, Eui-Hyoung
Heo, Kwang-Ho
Kim, Namkwen
Ha, In-Hyuk
author_sort Shin, Byung-Cheul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While Chuna manual therapy is a Korean manual therapy widely used primarily for low back pain (LBP)-related disorders in Korea, well-designed studies on the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy are scarce. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a three-armed, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled pilot trial. Sixty severe nonacute LBP patients (pain duration of at least 3 weeks, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥5) will be recruited at four Korean medicine hospitals. Participants will be randomly allocated to the Chuna group (n = 20), usual care group (n = 20), or Chuna plus usual care group (n = 20) for 6 weeks of treatment. Usual care will consist of orally administered conventional medicine, physical therapy, and back pain care education. The trial will be conducted with outcome assessor and statistician blinding. The primary endpoint will be NRS of LBP at week 7 post randomization. Secondary outcomes include NRS of leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire, lumbar range of motion (ROM), the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) health survey, the Health Utility Index III (HUI-III), and economic evaluation and safety data. Post-treatment follow-ups will be conducted at 1, 4, and 10 weeks after conclusion of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy compared to conventional usual care. Costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be analyzed for exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. If this pilot study does not reach a definite conclusion due to its small sample size, these results will be used as preliminary results to calculate sample size for future large-scale clinical trials and contribute in the assessment of feasibility of a full-scale multicenter trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 17 March 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1756-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5240424
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52404242017-01-23 Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study) Shin, Byung-Cheul Kim, Me-riong Cho, Jae-Heung Jung, Jae-Young Kim, Koh-Woon Lee, Jun-Hwan Nam, Kibong Lee, Min ho Hwang, Eui-Hyoung Heo, Kwang-Ho Kim, Namkwen Ha, In-Hyuk Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: While Chuna manual therapy is a Korean manual therapy widely used primarily for low back pain (LBP)-related disorders in Korea, well-designed studies on the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy are scarce. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a three-armed, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled pilot trial. Sixty severe nonacute LBP patients (pain duration of at least 3 weeks, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥5) will be recruited at four Korean medicine hospitals. Participants will be randomly allocated to the Chuna group (n = 20), usual care group (n = 20), or Chuna plus usual care group (n = 20) for 6 weeks of treatment. Usual care will consist of orally administered conventional medicine, physical therapy, and back pain care education. The trial will be conducted with outcome assessor and statistician blinding. The primary endpoint will be NRS of LBP at week 7 post randomization. Secondary outcomes include NRS of leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire, lumbar range of motion (ROM), the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) health survey, the Health Utility Index III (HUI-III), and economic evaluation and safety data. Post-treatment follow-ups will be conducted at 1, 4, and 10 weeks after conclusion of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy compared to conventional usual care. Costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be analyzed for exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. If this pilot study does not reach a definite conclusion due to its small sample size, these results will be used as preliminary results to calculate sample size for future large-scale clinical trials and contribute in the assessment of feasibility of a full-scale multicenter trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 17 March 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1756-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5240424/ /pubmed/28095892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1756-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Shin, Byung-Cheul
Kim, Me-riong
Cho, Jae-Heung
Jung, Jae-Young
Kim, Koh-Woon
Lee, Jun-Hwan
Nam, Kibong
Lee, Min ho
Hwang, Eui-Hyoung
Heo, Kwang-Ho
Kim, Namkwen
Ha, In-Hyuk
Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)
title Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)
title_full Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)
title_fullStr Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)
title_full_unstemmed Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)
title_short Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study)
title_sort comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pcrn study)
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28095892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1756-8
work_keys_str_mv AT shinbyungcheul comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT kimmeriong comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT chojaeheung comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT jungjaeyoung comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT kimkohwoon comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT leejunhwan comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT namkibong comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT leeminho comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT hwangeuihyoung comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT heokwangho comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT kimnamkwen comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy
AT hainhyuk comparativeeffectivenessandcosteffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainstudyprotocolforapilotmulticenterpragmaticrandomizedcontrolledtrialpcrnstudy