| Literature DB >> 25152757 |
Rixin Chen1, Mingren Chen1, Tongsheng Su2, Meiqi Zhou3, Jianhua Sun4, Jun Xiong1, Zhenhai Chi1, Dingyi Xie1, Bo Zhang1.
Abstract
Systematic reviews of moxibustion for LDH have identified ponderable evidence, especially for heat-sensitive moxibustion (HSM). Therefore, we designed and carried out the large sample trial to evaluate it. 456 patients were recruited from 4 centers in China and were randomly divided into three groups by the ratio of 1 : 1 : 1 to HSM (152) group, conventional moxibustion (152) group, and conventional drug plus acupuncture (152) group. Compared with usual care, there was a statistically significant reduction in mean M-JOA score at 2 weeks and 6 months for HSM (3.8 ± 2.6 versus 8.5 ± 2.9; 3.7 ± 2.2 versus 10.1 ± 2.9) and conventional moxibustion (7.9 ± 3.0 versus 8.5 ± 2.9; 8.9 ± 3.1 versus 10.1 ± 2.9). Compared with conventional moxibustion group, HSM group showed greater improvement in all the outcomes. The mean dose of moxibustion was 41.13 ± 5.26 (range 21-60) minutes in the HSM group. We found that HSM was more effective in treating patients with LDH, compared with conventional moxibustion and conventional drug plus acupuncture. This finding indicated that the application of moxibustion on the heat-sensitive points is a good moxibustion technique in treating disease.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25152757 PMCID: PMC4131491 DOI: 10.1155/2014/154941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1A flowchart of the study process.
Baseline characteristics of participants.
| Items | Heat-sensitive moxibustion | Conventional moxibustion | Conventional drug plus acupuncture |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | group | group | |
| Age, mean (SD), years | 45.5 (10.6) | 47.3 (11.2) | 46.6 (10.5) |
| Age, min~max, years | 18~59 | 20~58 | 18~59 |
| Age, >60 y, | 9 (5.92) | 10 (6.6) | 9 (5.92) |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 78 (51.3) | 80 (52.6) | 81 (53.3) |
| Male | 74 (48.7) | 72 (47.4) | 71 (46.7) |
| Duration of pain | |||
| <1 m | 32 (21.1) | 30 (19.7) | 30 (19.7) |
| 2~6 m | 40 (26.3) | 42 (27.6) | 43 (28.2) |
| 7~12 m | 40 (26.3) | 33 (21.7) | 31 (20.3) |
| 1~5 y | 33 (21.7) | 38 (25.1) | 40 (26.3) |
| >5 y | 7 (4.6) | 9 (5.9) | 8 (5.2) |
| BMI, mean (SD), kg/m′ | 22.2 (3.3) | 22.4 (3.1) | 21.1 (4.0) |
| BMI, min~max, kg/m′ | 14.3~30.1 | 16.2~29.2 | 13.1~28.9 |
| M-JOA score | |||
| Severe | 115 (75.6) | 113 (73.4) | 119 (78.3) |
| Moderate | 37 (24.4) | 39 (25.6) | 33 (21.7) |
| M-JOA score, mean (SD) | 18.6 (3.8) | 17.5 (3.3) | 17.2 (4.4) |
BMI, Body Mass Index; M-JOA, Improvement Japanese Orthopedic Association (M-JOA) Lumbago Score Scale; SD, standard deviation; LDH, lumbar disc herniation.
Comparison of M-JOA scores.
| Variable | Week 2 | Month 6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | 95% CI | Mean (SD) | 95% CI | |||
| Group A | 3.8 (2.6) | 3.4~4.2 | 3.7 (2.2) | 3.3~4.1 | ||
| Group B | 7.9 (3.0) | 7.4~8.4 | 8.9 (3.1) | 8.4~9.4 | ||
| Group C | 8.5 (2.9) | 8.0~9.0 | 10.1 (2.9) | 9.5~10.6 | ||
| Comparison between the three groups | ||||||
|
| 3.8 | 5.2 | ||||
|
| 0.016 | 0.008 | ||||
| Group A versus Group B | ||||||
|
| 4.1 | 5.9 | ||||
|
| 0.022 | 0.013 | ||||
| Group A versus Group C | ||||||
|
| 5.1 | 6.7 | ||||
|
| 0.017 | 0.002 | ||||
| Group C versus Group B | ||||||
|
| 2.0 | 3.2 | ||||
|
| 0.146 | 0.041 | ||||
Comparison between the three groups by ANOVA test. Pairwise comparison for the two groups by Student-Newman-Keuls (q-test). All data are intended to treat. Each group n = 152. SD: standard deviation; M-JOA: Improvement Japanese Orthopedic Association (M-JOA) Lumbago Score Scale; SD: standard deviation; LDH: lumbar disc herniation; Group A: Heat-sensitive moxibustion group; Group B: Conventional moxibustion group; Group C: Conventional drug plus acupuncture group.