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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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