Lin 2010.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Three‐arm RCT Number analyzed/randomized: 100/100 Statistical analysis: did not mention ITT analysis; ANOVA, power analysis not conducted Funding source: NR Ethical approval and informed consents: NR |
|
| Participants |
Participant recruitment: NR Setting: NR Inclusion criteria: chronic LBP for more than 6 months, with or without radiation pain Exclusion criteria: congenital deformities, tumors, infection, etc. Mean age: NR Gender (female): 69% Pain duration (mean): NR Pain intensity (mean): 5.5 (VAS, 0 to 10) |
|
| Interventions |
1) GROUP 1: electroacupuncture (EA, standardized) Acupuncture points: BL23, BL25, BL40, and SP6 Depth: NR (study only reported 0.3 mm diameter and 40 mm disposable needles used) De Qi: elicited by manual stimulation first; needles connected to the EA machine with a low pulse frequency 15 Hz stimulation for 30 min Sessions: 12 sessions (30 min, 3/week for 4 weeks) Acupuncturist experience: NR 2) GROUP 2: pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) therapy "Under local anaesthesia, 10 cm electrode needle (22 gauge, 5 mm active tip; SMK‐10, Radionics) was inserted into the skin of the lumbar transverse process tip and went on by 45 degrees until the dorsal cranial quadrant of the intervertebral foramen, and introduced with its tip between one‐third and about halfway the mid‐facetal column". The stylet of the cannula was replaced by a PRF probe connected to a PRF machine. When all tests were finished, the PRF lesion mode was started at 42 degrees centigrade for a duration of 120 seconds. Treatment schedule was not reported. 3) GROUP 3: conservation treatment; participants only used medicine 4) Co‐intervention: NR Duration of treatment: 4 weeks Duration of follow‐up: 1 month after treatment |
|
| Outcomes |
1) Pain intensity: VAS (0 to 10) 2) Back‐specific function status: ODI (0 to 50) 3) Quality of life: SF‐36 Assessment times: 1 month after treatment Costs: NR Adverse effects: NR |
|
| Notes |
Conclusion: “Acupuncture was highly accepted and had positive effects in people with chronic LBP.” Language: English For results, see comparison 3 and 4. |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Randomisation method not reported |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | It seems impossible |
| Blinding of personnel /care providers (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | The study claimed the assessors were blinded, but subjective outcomes were reported by participants who seemed not be blinded. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Intention‐to‐treat‐analysis (attrition bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes were reported. |
| Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) | High risk | The similarities of age and sex were not tested. |
| Co‐interventions (performance bias) | Low risk | No co‐interventions |
| Compliance bias (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias) | Low risk | Same |
| Other bias | Low risk | Not identified |