Kasernenstr. 1b, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Eur J Med Res. 2011 Mar 28;16(3):133-8. doi: 10.1186/2047-783x-16-3-133.
Acupuncture is a promising treatment approach in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) but little is known about the quality of acupuncture in randomized controlled trials (RCT) of acupuncture cLBP. -
To determine how international experts (IES) rate the quality of acupuncture in RCTs of cLBP; independent international validation of the Low Back Pain Acupuncture Score (LBPAS).
Fifteen experts from 9 different countries outside China were surveyed (IES). They were asked to read anonymized excerpts of 24 RCTs of cLBP and answer a three-item questionnaire on how the method of acupuncture conformed to 1) Chinese textbook standards, 2) the expert?s personally preferred style, and 3) how acupuncture is performed in the expert?s country. Likert scale rating, calculation of the mode for each answer, and Spearman?s rank correlation coefficient between all three answers and the LBPAS were calculated.
On comparison with Chinese textbook standards (question 1), 6 RCTs received a good rating, 8 trials a fair and 10 trials a poor or very poor rating. 5 of the 6 trials rated good, received at least a good rating also in question 2 or 3. We found a high correlation of 0.85 (p<0.0001) between the IES and LBPAS ratings for question 1 and question 2, and a correlation of 0.66 (p<0.0001) for question 3.
The international expert survey (IES) revealed that only 6 out of 24 (25%) RCTs of acupuncture for cLBP were rated "good" in respect to Chinese textbook acupuncture standards. There were only small differences in how the acupuncture quality was rated in comparison to Chinese textbook acupuncture, personally preferred and local styles of acupuncture. The rating showed a high correlation with the Low Back Pain Acupuncture Score LBPAS.
针灸是治疗慢性腰痛(cLBP)患者的一种很有前途的治疗方法,但对于针灸治疗 cLBP 的随机对照试验(RCT)的质量知之甚少。
确定国际专家(IES)如何评价 cLBP 的 RCT 中针灸的质量;对腰痛针灸评分(LBPAS)进行独立的国际验证。
对来自中国以外的 9 个不同国家的 15 名专家进行了调查(IES)。他们被要求阅读 24 篇 cLBP RCT 的匿名摘录,并回答一个三项目的问卷,内容是针灸方法如何符合 1)中国教科书标准、2)专家个人偏爱的风格,以及 3)专家所在国家的针灸方式。采用 Likert 量表评分、每种答案的模式计算以及所有三个答案与 LBPAS 之间的 Spearman 秩相关系数进行计算。
与中国教科书标准(问题 1)相比,6 项 RCT 获得了良好评价,8 项试验获得了一般评价,10 项试验获得了较差或非常差的评价。在问题 1 中获得良好评价的 6 项试验中,有 5 项在问题 2 或问题 3中也获得了良好评价。我们发现 IES 与 LBPAS 对问题 1 和问题 2 的评分之间存在高度相关性,为 0.85(p<0.0001),而问题 3 之间的相关性为 0.66(p<0.0001)。
国际专家调查(IES)显示,仅有 24 项 cLBP 针灸 RCT 中的 6 项(25%)在符合中国教科书针灸标准方面被评为“良好”。与中国教科书针灸、个人偏爱的和当地针灸风格相比,针灸质量的评价差异很小。该评分与腰痛针灸评分(LBPAS)具有高度相关性。