Different frequencies of acupuncture treatment for chronic low back pain: an assessor-blinded pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility of a main RCT to compare the effectiveness of two frequencies (2 versus 5 times/week) of acupuncture treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Participants (n=30) with chronic LBP were randomised into two groups to receive 10 acupuncture treatments: Low Frequency Group, 2 times/week for five weeks (n=15); High Frequency Group, 5 times/week for two weeks (n=15). The following outcomes were measured blindly at baseline, 2 weeks, 5 weeks, 3 months and 1 year: pain on a VAS, functional disability using the RMDQ, quality of life using the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP-2), psychological impact with the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) and Pain Locus of Control (PLC) questionnaire. Two objective outcomes, the Shuttle Walk Test (SWT) and Lateral Trunk Flexibility (LTF), were also measured. RESULTS: The compliance rate was 100% for each group. Some of the measurements were shown to be sensitive (VAS, RMDQ, MYMOP-2 Wellbeing). 66-330 participants would be required for a fully powered non-inferiority trial. The groups were balanced at baseline for LBP and demographic characteristics. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of any of the outcomes, at each follow-up time point. It was notable however that the clinically important improvement in terms of pain, functional disability, quality of life, and SWT in both groups was achieved within the first two weeks, which was maintained at one year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a main RCT, to compare different frequencies of acupuncture for LBP, using sensitive measurements. Also the trend for early clinically important improvement within a minimum of four measurements is worthy of further study.

Effectiveness of acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture for nonspecific low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Since the most recent systematic reviews on RCTs on acupuncture for LBP, 6 RCTs have been published, which may impact on the previous conclusions. METHODS: Searches were completed for RCTs on all types of acupuncture for patients with nonspecific LBP published in English. Methodologic quality was scored using the Van Tulder scale. Trials were deemed to be high quality if they scored more than 6/11 on the Van Tulder scale, carried out appropriate statistical analysis, with at least 40 patients per group, and did not exceed 20% and 30% dropouts at short/intermediate and long-term follow-up, respectively. High quality trials were given more weight when conducting the best evidence synthesis. Studies were grouped according to the control interventions, i.e., no treatment, sham intervention, conventional therapy, acupuncture in addition to conventional therapy. Treatment effect size and clinical significance were also determined. The adequacy of acupuncture treatment was judged by comparison of recommendations made in textbooks, surveys, and reviews. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (n = 6359) were included and classified into 5 types of comparisons, 6 of which were of high quality. There is moderate evidence that acupuncture is more effective than no treatment, and strong evidence of no significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture, for short-term pain relief. There is strong evidence that acupuncture can be a useful supplement to other forms of conventional therapy for nonspecific LBP, but the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with other forms of conventional therapies still requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture versus no treatment, and as an adjunct to conventional care, should be advocated in the European Guidelines for the treatment of chronic LBP.