ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2024
A comparative effectiveness study of usual care, simple Chuna manual therapy, and complex Chuna manual therapy for the treatment of pelvic biomechanical lesions in patients with non-acute low back pain: a protocol for multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChuna manual therapy (CMT), a Korean manual therapy technique predominantly used for treating low back pain (LBP) and related disorders, lacks well-conceived research focusing on its comparative effectiveness, safety, and economic evaluation, particularly with respect to complex CMT with established CMT diagnostic algorithms. This study aims to illustrate a protocol for a randomized clinical study for comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of complex CMT with simple CMT and usual care.
methodsThis is a protocol for a three-armed, multicenter, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial study. A total of 81 patients suffering from non-acute LBP with pelvic biomechanical lesions (PBL), characterized by a pain duration of at least two weeks and a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of 5 or higher, will be recruited from two Korean medicine hospitals. These participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: complex CMT plus usual care (UC; n = 27), simple CMT plus UC (n = 27), or UC groups (n = 27). They will undergo treatment for 4 weeks, and follow-up assessments will be performed 8 weeks after treatment completion. The primary outcome will be the NRS score of LBP, and secondary outcomes will include the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient Global Impression of Change, credibility and expectancy questionnaire, three-dimensional posture analysis indicators, quality of life assessment, economic evaluation, and safety assessments. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to assess the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of complex CMT compared to UC and simple/complex CMT in patients with LBP and PBL. We will also analyze useful diagnostic methods to help in clinical practice for CMT diagnosis.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0009210. Registered on February 28, 2024.
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.