Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40200237›Full record

Trial reportBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025

Comparative effectiveness of Tuina therapy versus manual physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

Peihong Ma, Luping Liu, Sina Li, Meiling Cai, Siyu Han, Zhiwen Weng, Qianji Chen, Yixuan Gao, Lingyun Zhang, Guiyun Wu and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03966248 (Chinese Tuina), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03966248 nacompletednot on this map

Chinese Tuina (Chinese Massage and Manipulation Therapy) for KOA: A Randomized, Parallel, Physical Therapies Active Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeijing University of Chinese MedicineRan2019 to 2021Enrolled140ConditionsOsteoarthritis, KneeArmsChinese Tuina therapy, Physical Manual therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Peihong Ma *Acupuncture and Moxibustion Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Luping Liu *Tuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Sina LiPediatrics Department, Inner Mongolia Xing'an Meng People's Hospital, Wulanhaote, China.
Meiling CaiAcupuncture and Moxibustion Department, Langfang TCM Hospital, Langfang, China.
Siyu HanTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Zhiwen WengTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Qianji ChenAcupuncture and Moxibustion Department, Luohu District Chinese Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yixuan GaoTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Lingyun ZhangTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Guiyun WuMedical Insurance Payment Department, Beijing Municipal Bureau of Medical Insurance, Beijing, China.
Xiaoming YangTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yang ZhangTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Duoduo LiTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Changxin LiuTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ya'nan SunTraditional Chinese Medicine Department, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shiyan YanAcupuncture and Moxibustion Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. yanshiyan@bucm.edu.cn.
Xiyou WangTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. dzmyywxy@163.com.
Changhe YuTuina and Pain Management Department, Dongzhimen Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. yakno2@163.com.

Funding

Beijing University of Chinese Medicine and Capital Clinical Characteristic Application Research No. Z181100001718165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTuina therapy (Tuina) is commonly utilized for managing knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet the available evidence is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Tuina compared to widely accepted manual physical therapy (mPT) for patients with KOA.

methodsBetween Oct 2019 and Oct 2021, patients with KOA (Kellgren-Lawrence score II or III) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive Tuina or mPT, with eight 20-min sessions over 3 weeks. Assessments were performed at baseline, week 4, 8, and 16. The primary outcome was the change of total Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from baseline to week 4. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC subscales, knee pain measures, performance-based tests, quality-of-life measures, and safety assessments. Patients, evaluators, and statisticians were blinded to treatment group assignment. All main analyses were by intention-to-treat.

resultsOf the 140 patients allocated to Tuina or mPT, 127 completed the treatment. There was significant intervention × time interaction observed in the WOMAC-total (F(2, 266) = 3.87, P = 0.02), there was no statistically significant between groups at week 4 (between-group difference: -1.00, 95%CI: -5.33 to 3.33, P = 0.79, Bonferroni correction). By week 8, Tuina showed significantly consistent improvement compared to mPT (between-group difference: -4.33, 95%CI: -8.34 to -0.31, P = 0.03, Bonferroni correction), whereas there were no statistically significant differences between groups at week 16 (between-group difference: 0.74, 95%CI: -3.67 to 5.15, P = 0.37, Bonferroni correction). Most secondary outcomes showed no significant between-group differences, except for the Timed Up and Go Test Time favoring mPT (0.94, 95%CI: 0.03 to 1.85, P = 0.04). No serious adverse events occurred. One patient in the mPT group took the medication and no patients received other therapies for KOA.

conclusionsTuina produced beneficial effectiveness similar to mPT in treating KOA.

trial registrationNCT03966248, Registered on 29/05/2019, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal ManipulationsOsteoarthritis, KneePhysical Therapy ModalitiesAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeKnee osteoarthritisPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialTuina therapy

Identifiers

PMID40200237
PMCPMC11980076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.