| Literature DB >> 23956778 |
Rixin Chen1, Mingren Chen, Jun Xiong, Tongsheng Su, Meiqi Zhou, Jianhua Sun, Zhenhai Chi, Bo Zhang, Dingyi Xie.
Abstract
Moxibustion stimulates the Deqi (Qi arrival) phenomenon. Many clinical observations have documented that the character of the Deqi was a composite heat-sensitive moxibustion sensation. In this prospective multicentre comparative observational nonrandomized study, 92 patients with moderate to severe LDH were included. This study consisted of two parallel arms (A: heat-sensitive moxibustion sensation group; B: nonheat-sensitive moxibustion sensation group). Moxibustion was applied in the following three acupuncture points simultaneously: Da Changshu (BL25), Wei Zhong (BL40), and A-Shi acupuncture point (tenderness). The adjusted mean total Modified-JOA score showed significant differences between the groups in the first week (10.32 ± 4.27 95% CI [9.23 ~ 11.40] versus control group 12.42 ± 5.02 [11.62 ~ 13.69], P = 0.03). The outcome in the second week also presented significant differences in both groups (7.62 ± 4.80 [6.46 ~ 8.77] versus 10.56 ± 4.75 [9.35 ~ 11.76], P = 0.005). Significant differences were also manifested in the follow-up period (P = 0.007). It can be inferred that the existence of the Deqi (heat-sensitive moxibustion sensation) phenomenon in the process of suspended moxibustion is closely related to the curative effect, and arrival of heat-sensitive moxibustion sensation could improve the clinical curative effect of moxibustion.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23956778 PMCID: PMC3730173 DOI: 10.1155/2013/718593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Baseline characteristics of LDH patients.
| Items | Trial group | Control group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD), years | 45.65 (10.58) | 44.51 (11.46) | 0.62 |
| Age > 60 year | 12 (26.67%) | 14 (31.11%) | 0.64 |
| Sex | 0.0001 | ||
| Male | 11 (24.44%) | 30 (66.67%) | |
| Female | 34 (75.56%) | 15 (33.33%) | |
| Duration of low back pain | 0.0001 | ||
| <1 months | 5 (11.11%) | 10 (22.22%) | |
| 2–6 months | 13 (28.89%) | 12 (26.67%) | |
| 7–12 months | 6 (27.67%) | 12 (26.67%) | |
| 1–5 years | 19 (42.22%) | 5 (11.11%) | |
| >5 years | 2 (4.44%) | 6 (13.33%) | |
| BMI, mean (SD), kg/m′ | 25.23 (3.12) | 23.24 (3.23) | 0.003 |
| Modified-JOA grade | 0.21 | ||
| Severe | 30 (66.67%) | 24 (53.33%) | |
| Moderate | 15 (33.33%) | 21 (46.67%) | |
| Modified-JOA score at baseline | |||
| Total score mean (SD) | 15.23 (4.41) | 17.54 (4.57) | 0.006 |
BMI: body mass index; Modified-JOA score: modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score; SD: standard deviation; LDH: lumbar disc herniation.
Comparison of modified-JOA scores.
| Variable | Week 1 | Week 2 | Month 6 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | |
| Trial group | 10.32 | 9.23~11.40 | 7.62 | 6.46~8.77 | 6.45 | 5.62~7.27 |
| Control group | 12.42 | 11.62~13.69 | 10.56 | 9.35~11.76 | 8.36 | 7.49~9.22 |
|
| 0.03 | 0.005 | 0.007 | |||
*Adjusted means or proportions and confidence intervals (CI) from multilevel models (ANCOVA or GEE) with fixed effects. All data are intended to treat. In both of the groups, n = 46. Modified-JOA score: modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score; SD: standard deviation; LDH: lumbar disc herniation.