Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 19;2018(12):CD012622. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012622.pub2

Castro‐Sanchez 2012.

Methods
  • Randomised controlled trial

  • Study conducted in Spain

  • Randomisation through computer generation

  • Allocation concealment not described

Participants Population source: participants were recruited from MS Association of Almeria in Spain.
Numbers: randomised 73, Ai Chi 36, control 37
Inclusion criteria: MS diagnosis, age between 18 and 75 years, VAS pain score > 4 for at least two months, EDSS ≤ 7.5
Exclusion criteria: treatment with another complementary and alternative medicine (either current or within the previous 3 month, relapse requiring hospitalisation or steroid treatment within the past 2 months
Age: experimental group (mean age 46 years, range 25‐75), control group (mean age 50 years, range 29‐75)
Gender: experimental group(26 women,10 men), control group (24 women,13 men)
Type of MS: experimental group (6 primary progressive,9 secondary progressive, 21 unknown), control group (9 primary progressive, 12 secondary progressive, 16 unknown)
Pain type: musculoskeletal pain (back, cervical, legs, feet, arms, shoulder)
Interventions Treatment: Ai Chi exercises
Control: relaxation
Duration: 20 weeks (twice a week), 4 sessions
Outcomes Primary
  • VAS

  • MPQ

  • RMDQ


Secondary
  • Spasm VAS

  • MSIS29

  • MFIS

  • FSS

Notes Funding: not described
Conflicts of interest: not described
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐generated randomised list
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Allocation concealment not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Study could not guarantee that participants were blinded to the nature of their group because they were all members of the same association
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Researcher blinded to group allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk None lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk No other bias detected