ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
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.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 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%; Conclusion: Both the EA and NMES are associated with a positive response in treating military LBP, and the former offers lasting benefits in the later follow-ups. Thus, electroacupuncture is a more recommended treatment for military LBP. A lot of research is needed to verify an efficient and standardized treatment session, with more information and evidence about indications for these treatments. Trial registration: ChiCTR, (ChiCTR2100043726); registered February 27, 2021.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.