Cargando…
Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynami...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30987662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3302-y |
_version_ | 1783411158239150080 |
---|---|
author | Lim, Kyeong-Tae Hwang, Eui-Hyoung Cho, Jae-Heung Jung, Jae-Young Kim, Koh-Woon Ha, In-Hyuk Kim, Me-riong Nam, Kibong Lee A, Min ho Lee, Jun-Hwan Kim, Namkwen Shin, Byung-Cheul |
author_facet | Lim, Kyeong-Tae Hwang, Eui-Hyoung Cho, Jae-Heung Jung, Jae-Young Kim, Koh-Woon Ha, In-Hyuk Kim, Me-riong Nam, Kibong Lee A, Min ho Lee, Jun-Hwan Kim, Namkwen Shin, Byung-Cheul |
author_sort | Lim, Kyeong-Tae |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynamics. This study aimed to test the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT for non-acute LBP. METHODS: A three-arm, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted from 28 March 2016 to 19 September 2016, at four medical institutions. A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to the CMT group (n = 20), usual care (UC) group (n = 20), or combined treatment (CMT + UC) group (n = 20), and received the relevant treatments for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) representation of LBP intensity, while secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), lumbar range of motion, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 55 patients (CMT, 18; UC, 18; CMT + UC, 19) were included in the per-protocol analysis (drop-out rate 5.3%). Over the treatment period there were significant differences in the NRS score for LBP (CMT mean − 3.28 (95% CI − 4.08, − 2.47); UC − 1.95 (− 2.82, − 1.08); CMT + UC − 1.75 (− 2.70, − 0.80), P < 0.01) and the ODI scores in each group (CMT − 12.29 (− 16.86, − 7.72); UC − 10.34 (− 14.63, − 6.06); CMT + UC − 9.27 (− 14.28, − 4.26), P < 0.01). The changes in other secondary outcomes did not significantly differ among the three groups. Sixteen minor-to-moderate safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CMT has comparative efficacy for non-acute LBP and is generally safe. As this was a preliminary study, a well-powered (over 192 participants) two-arm (CMT versus UC) verification trial will be performed to assess the generalizability of these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 12 March 2016. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6466698 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64666982019-04-22 Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial Lim, Kyeong-Tae Hwang, Eui-Hyoung Cho, Jae-Heung Jung, Jae-Young Kim, Koh-Woon Ha, In-Hyuk Kim, Me-riong Nam, Kibong Lee A, Min ho Lee, Jun-Hwan Kim, Namkwen Shin, Byung-Cheul Trials Research BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynamics. This study aimed to test the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT for non-acute LBP. METHODS: A three-arm, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted from 28 March 2016 to 19 September 2016, at four medical institutions. A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to the CMT group (n = 20), usual care (UC) group (n = 20), or combined treatment (CMT + UC) group (n = 20), and received the relevant treatments for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) representation of LBP intensity, while secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), lumbar range of motion, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 55 patients (CMT, 18; UC, 18; CMT + UC, 19) were included in the per-protocol analysis (drop-out rate 5.3%). Over the treatment period there were significant differences in the NRS score for LBP (CMT mean − 3.28 (95% CI − 4.08, − 2.47); UC − 1.95 (− 2.82, − 1.08); CMT + UC − 1.75 (− 2.70, − 0.80), P < 0.01) and the ODI scores in each group (CMT − 12.29 (− 16.86, − 7.72); UC − 10.34 (− 14.63, − 6.06); CMT + UC − 9.27 (− 14.28, − 4.26), P < 0.01). The changes in other secondary outcomes did not significantly differ among the three groups. Sixteen minor-to-moderate safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CMT has comparative efficacy for non-acute LBP and is generally safe. As this was a preliminary study, a well-powered (over 192 participants) two-arm (CMT versus UC) verification trial will be performed to assess the generalizability of these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 12 March 2016. BioMed Central 2019-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6466698/ /pubmed/30987662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3302-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 | Research Lim, Kyeong-Tae Hwang, Eui-Hyoung Cho, Jae-Heung Jung, Jae-Young Kim, Koh-Woon Ha, In-Hyuk Kim, Me-riong Nam, Kibong Lee A, Min ho Lee, Jun-Hwan Kim, Namkwen Shin, Byung-Cheul Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title | Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | comparative effectiveness of chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30987662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3302-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT limkyeongtae comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT hwangeuihyoung comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT chojaeheung comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jungjaeyoung comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kimkohwoon comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT hainhyuk comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kimmeriong comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT namkibong comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leeaminho comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leejunhwan comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kimnamkwen comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT shinbyungcheul comparativeeffectivenessofchunamanualtherapyversusconventionalusualcarefornonacutelowbackpainapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial |