Academic Journal
Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture VS neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of chronic low back pain in active-duty personals: A single-center, randomized control study
| العنوان: | Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture VS neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of chronic low back pain in active-duty personals: A single-center, randomized control study |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Meng, Xiao-yan, Bu, Lan, Chen, Jia-ying, Liu, Qiu-jia, Sun, Li, Li, Xiao-long, Wu, Fei-xiang |
| المساهمون: | National Natural Science Foundation of China |
| المصدر: | Frontiers in Neurology ; volume 13 ; ISSN 1664-2295 |
| بيانات النشر: | Frontiers Media SA |
| سنة النشر: | 2022 |
| المجموعة: | Frontiers (Publisher - via CrossRef) |
| الوصف: | Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent form of chronic pain in active-duty military personnel worldwide. Electroacupuncture (EA) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) are the two most widely used treatment methods in the military, while evidence for their benefits is lacking. The aim of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the effectiveness of EA vs. NMES in reducing pain intensity among active-duty navy personals with chronic LBP. Methods The study is designed as a single-center, randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome is a positive categorical response for treatment success in the first-time follow-up, which is predesignated as a two-point or greater decrease in the NRS score and combined with a score > 3 on the treatment satisfaction scale. The secondary outcomes include pain intensity, rate of treatment success, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) score along with muscular performance. The first follow-up starts on the first day after completing the last treatment session, and then the 4-weeks and 12-weeks follow-up are applied via telephone visit. Results Eighty-five subjects complete the treatment diagram and are included in the analysis. For the primary outcome, no difference has been found between EA and NMES, with 65.1% (28 in 43) individuals reporting a positive response to EA treatment, while 53.5% (23 in 43) in NMES. However, for longer follow-ups, superiority in positive response of EA has been found in 4-weeks (26 in 39, 66.7% vs. 16 in 40, 40%; P = 0.018) and 12-weeks (24 in 36, 66.7% vs. 12 in 36, 33.3%; P = 0.005) follow-up. In the regression analysis, baseline pain intensity and FABQ score are identified to be highly associated with positive treatment outcomes. Finally, the subgroup analysis suggests that EA treatment is associated with better long-term outcomes in patients with LBP with a severe pain score (NRS score >4, Figure 4B) and stronger fear-avoidance beliefs. Conclusion Both the EA ... |
| نوع الوثيقة: | article in journal/newspaper |
| اللغة: | unknown |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fneur.2022.945210 |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fneur.2022.945210/full |
| الاتاحة: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.945210 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2022.945210/full |
| Rights: | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| رقم الانضمام: | edsbas.716E30A5 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | BASE |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fneur.2022.945210 |
|---|