ABSTRACT
Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of moxibustion in treating knee osteoarthritis (KO) and analyze its cost-effectiveness.Method Fifty-eight KO patients were randomized into a moxibustion group and an electroacupuncture (EA) group, 29 cases in each group. The two groups were treated 3 times a week, for successive 4 weeks. The knee joint function and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for knee joint pain were scored before and after the treatment, and the two groups were analyzed by using health economic methods.Result The knee joint function scores were significantly changed after the treatment in the two groups (P<0.05); the excellent rate was 96.6％ in EA group versus 75.9％ in moxibustion group, and the general excellent rate in EA group was markedly higher than that in moxibustion group (P<0.05); the total effective rate for pain was 93.1％ in moxibustion group versus 96.6％ in EA group, and the between-group difference was statistically insignificant (P>0.05). The cost-effectiveness ratio was 6.42 in moxibustion group versus 16.86 in EA group; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 298.55 in EA group. Conclusion Moxibustion and EA both can effectively improve knee joint function and mitigate knee joint pain, while compared with EA, moxibustion has a higher health economic value.
ABSTRACT
Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of moxibustion in treating knee osteoarthritis (KO) and analyze its cost-effectiveness.Method Fifty-eight KO patients were randomized into a moxibustion group and an electroacupuncture (EA) group, 29 cases in each group. The two groups were treated 3 times a week, for successive 4 weeks. The knee joint function and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for knee joint pain were scored before and after the treatment, and the two groups were analyzed by using health economic methods.Result The knee joint function scores were significantly changed after the treatment in the two groups (P<0.05); the excellent rate was 96.6％ in EA group versus 75.9％ in moxibustion group, and the general excellent rate in EA group was markedly higher than that in moxibustion group (P<0.05); the total effective rate for pain was 93.1％ in moxibustion group versus 96.6％ in EA group, and the between-group difference was statistically insignificant (P>0.05). The cost-effectiveness ratio was 6.42 in moxibustion group versus 16.86 in EA group; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 298.55 in EA group. Conclusion Moxibustion and EA both can effectively improve knee joint function and mitigate knee joint pain, while compared with EA, moxibustion has a higher health economic value.