OBJECTIVE: the primary aim was to determine if laser acupuncture (LA) is more effective than sham laser in reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: the design was a double blind, two-group parallel randomised controlled trial. The active intervention was an 830 nm (infrared), 10 mW, Ga-Al-As laser diode laser for acupuncture and a sham control. The primary outcome measures were changes in pain (visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) at the end of 5-10 treatment sessions. Secondary outcomes were patient global assessment, psychological distress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale) and subjective wellbeing (Personal Wellbeing Index). Follow up was performed at 6 weeks and 6 months after completion of treatment. RESULTS:100 participants were enrolled and treated in a general practice setting. Per protocol analysis of the primary outcome measures using ANOVA suggested that although there was a significant overall improvement in pain and disability after the course of treatments (p<0.01), there was no significant difference between the intervention and control group in both the primary and most secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: this study did not show a specific effect for LA using infrared laser at 0.2 Joules per point for chronic low back pain. The overall intervention appeared effective because of placebo and other factors. As there was some concern about baseline inequality between the groups further research using tighter inclusion criteria should attempt to replicate the result and examine if a dose response may exist.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: the primary aim was to determine if laser acupuncture (LA) is more effective than sham laser in reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: the design was a double blind, two-group parallel randomised controlled trial. The active intervention was an 830 nm (infrared), 10 mW, Ga-Al-As laser diode laser for acupuncture and a sham control. The primary outcome measures were changes in pain (visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) at the end of 5-10 treatment sessions. Secondary outcomes were patient global assessment, psychological distress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale) and subjective wellbeing (Personal Wellbeing Index). Follow up was performed at 6 weeks and 6 months after completion of treatment. RESULTS: 100 participants were enrolled and treated in a general practice setting. Per protocol analysis of the primary outcome measures using ANOVA suggested that although there was a significant overall improvement in pain and disability after the course of treatments (p<0.01), there was no significant difference between the intervention and control group in both the primary and most secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: this study did not show a specific effect for LA using infrared laser at 0.2 Joules per point for chronic low back pain. The overall intervention appeared effective because of placebo and other factors. As there was some concern about baseline inequality between the groups further research using tighter inclusion criteria should attempt to replicate the result and examine if a dose response may exist.