Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Mar 15;36(6):419-27. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d51fca.
Randomized controlled trial.
To evaluate whether qigong is more effective than no treatment and not inferior to exercise therapy.
Lifetime prevalence of chronic neck pain is close to 50%. Qigong is often used by patients, although, the evidence is still unclear.
Patients (aged 20-60 years) with chronic neck pain (visual analog scale, VAS ≥ 40 mm) were randomized to 1) qigong or 2) exercise therapy (18 sessions over 6 months) or 3) waiting list (no treatment). At baseline and after 3 and 6 months, patients completed standardized questionnaires assessing neck pain (VAS), neck pain and disability, and quality of life (Short Form SF-36 questionnaire, SF-36). The primary endpoint was average pain in the last 7 days on VAS at 6-month follow-up. Statistical analysis included generalized estimation equation models adjusted for baseline values and patient expectation.
A total of 123 patients (aged 46 ± 11 years, 88% women) suffering from chronic neck pain for 3.2 (SD ± 1.6) years were included. After 6 months, a significant difference was seen between the qigong and waiting list control groups (VAS mean difference: -14 mm [95%CI = -23.1 to -5.4], P = 0.002). Mean improvements in the exercise group were comparable to those in the qigong group (difference between groups -0.7 mm [CI = -9.1 to 7.7]) but failed to show statistical significance (P = 0.092). Neck pain and disability, and SF-36 results also yielded superiority of qigong over no treatment and similar results in the qigong and exercise therapy groups.
Qigong was more effective than no treatment in patients with chronic neck pain. Further studies could be designed without waiting list control and should use a larger sample to clarify the value of qigong compared to exercise therapy.
随机对照试验。
评估气功是否比不治疗更有效，且不劣于运动疗法。
慢性颈痛的终身患病率接近 50%。尽管气功常被患者使用，但证据仍不清楚。
患有慢性颈痛（视觉模拟评分，VAS≥40mm）的患者（年龄 20-60 岁）被随机分为 1）气功组，2）运动疗法组（6 个月内 18 次）或 3）等候名单组（不治疗）。在基线时和 3 个月及 6 个月后，患者使用标准化问卷评估颈痛（VAS）、颈痛和残疾以及生活质量（简短表格 SF-36 问卷，SF-36）。主要终点是 6 个月随访时 VAS 上过去 7 天的平均疼痛。统计分析包括调整基线值和患者预期的广义估计方程模型。
共纳入 123 名患有慢性颈痛 3.2（SD±1.6）年的患者（年龄 46±11 岁，88%为女性）。6 个月后，气功组与等候名单对照组之间出现显著差异（VAS 平均差值：-14mm[95%CI=-23.1 至-5.4]，P=0.002）。运动组的平均改善情况与气功组相似（组间差值：-0.7mm[CI=-9.1 至 7.7]），但未显示统计学意义（P=0.092）。颈痛和残疾以及 SF-36 结果也表明气功优于不治疗，且气功和运动疗法组的结果相似。
气功治疗慢性颈痛患者比不治疗更有效。进一步的研究可以设计为不设等候名单对照组，并应使用更大的样本量来明确气功与运动疗法相比的价值。
