Suppr超能文献

埋线疗法与耳针疗法联合使用而非单独用于治疗非特异性慢性下腰痛是否更有效?一项双盲、随机、假对照试验。

Should thread-embedding and auricular acupuncture be combined rather than used individually for non-specific chronic low back pain?: A double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

作者信息

Pham Thuy-Tu Long, Le Nam Trung, Nguyen Tin Trong, Chu Haoran

机构信息

School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, Anhui, PR China.

Faculty of Traditional Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.

出版信息

Integr Med Res. 2025 Sep;14(3):101180. doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2025.101180. Epub 2025 Jun 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP), the most common type, is a leading cause of global disability. The combined effect of thread-embedding acupuncture (TEA) and auricular acupuncture (AA) remains unclear. This study evaluates whether combining TEA and AA improves NCLBP management compared to either alone.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 168 NCLBP patients were randomized into four groups ( = 42): TEA+AA, TEA+sham AA, AA+sham TEA, or sham both, alongside conventional treatment. The intervention lasted 4 weeks with a 4-week follow-up. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); secondary outcomes included pain score, paracetamol use, quality of life, global improvement, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the acupuncture groups showed significantly lower ODI percentage scores compared to the sham group ( < 0.0001). Both the TEA+AA and TEA+sham AA groups outperformed the AA+sham TEA group (mean differences [MD]:9.1 and -7.5, respectively; < 0.0001) at week 4 and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) during follow-up. The TEA+AA group showed greater improvement than the TEA+sham AA group at weeks 2 and 6; however, these differences did not reach the MCID. Secondary effectiveness outcomes followed a similar trend. The results were consistent with the per-protocol analysis. AEs were mild and self-limiting.

CONCLUSION

TEA and AA are safe and effective adjuncts for managing NCLBP, with TEA showing more sustained benefits. Adding AA into TEA may accelerate response, though clinical relevance remains uncertain. Further multicenter studies with longer follow-up and syndrome-based approaches are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06682273).

摘要

背景

非特异性慢性下腰痛(NCLBP)是最常见的类型,是全球残疾的主要原因。埋线针灸(TEA)和耳针(AA)的联合效果尚不清楚。本研究评估与单独使用相比,联合TEA和AA是否能改善NCLBP的管理。

方法

在这项双盲随机对照试验中,168例NCLBP患者被随机分为四组(每组n = 42):TEA+AA组、TEA+假AA组、AA+假TEA组或双假组,同时进行常规治疗。干预持续4周,随访4周。主要结局是Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI);次要结局包括疼痛评分、对乙酰氨基酚使用情况、生活质量、整体改善情况和不良事件(AE)。

结果

在意向性分析中,与假手术组相比,针灸组的ODI百分比得分显著更低(P < 0.0001)。在第4周时,TEA+AA组和TEA+假AA组均优于AA+假TEA组(平均差值[MD]分别为9.1和 -7.5;P < 0.0001),并在随访期间达到了最小临床重要差异(MCID)。在第2周和第6周时,TEA+AA组比TEA+假AA组显示出更大的改善;然而,这些差异未达到MCID。次要有效性结局呈现相似趋势。结果与符合方案分析一致。AE为轻度且自限性。

结论

TEA和AA是管理NCLBP的安全有效辅助方法,TEA显示出更持久的益处。在TEA中加入AA可能会加速反应,尽管临床相关性仍不确定。有必要进行进一步的多中心研究,进行更长时间的随访并采用基于综合征的方法。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT06682273)

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e670/12271432/bb678f6a0200/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验