Feng-Qin Chen1, Jian-Feng Ge2, Yu-Fei Leng1, Cheng Li1, Bin Chen1, Zhi-Ling Sun3. 1. School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210000, China. 2. The First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210000, China. 3. School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210000, China. Electronic address: szl@njucm.edu.cn.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of moxibustion in treating patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, CBM, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP (until November, 2019) was used to identify studies reporting pain intensity (VAS or NRS), disability (ODI or RMDQ), JOA score, and quality of life (SF-36) in patients with CLBP. Study selection, data extraction was performed critically and independently by two reviewers. Cochrane criteria for risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Methodology (GRADE) was applied to test the quality of evidence from the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Ten RCTs, including 987 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Moxibustion had a superior effect on VAS score when compared with western medicine [RR = -1.69, 95%CI(-2.40, -0.98), p < 0.00001] and acupuncture [RR = -0.47, 95%CI(-0.92, -0.02), p=0.04], but it failed to do so when compared with core stability training [RR = -0.41, 95%CI(-0.87, 0.05), p=0.08]. The result showed that moxibustion plus other active treatments (including western medicine, massage, acupuncture and core stability training) had better effects on low back pain relief compared with active treatments alone. Moxibustion showed favourable effects on disability [SMD = -3.80, 95%CI (-5.49, -2.11), p < 0.0001], JOA score [MD = 4.10, 95%CI(2.30, 5.90), p < 0.00001], and SF-36 score [MD = 13.41, 95%CI(9.68, 17.14), p < 0.00001]. The evidence level of the results from the ten studies was determined to be very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw firm conclusions that moxibustion is an effective intervention for treating CLBP due to the small sample size of eligible trails and the high risk of bias among the available articles. Rigorously designed large-scale RCTs are required to further confirm the results in this review.
INTRODUCTION: To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of moxibustion in treating patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, CBM, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP (until November, 2019) was used to identify studies reporting pain intensity (VAS or NRS), disability (ODI or RMDQ), JOA score, and quality of life (SF-36) in patients with CLBP. Study selection, data extraction was performed critically and independently by two reviewers. Cochrane criteria for risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Methodology (GRADE) was applied to test the quality of evidence from the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Ten RCTs, including 987 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Moxibustion had a superior effect on VAS score when compared with western medicine [RR = -1.69, 95%CI(-2.40, -0.98), p < 0.00001] and acupuncture [RR = -0.47, 95%CI(-0.92, -0.02), p=0.04], but it failed to do so when compared with core stability training [RR = -0.41, 95%CI(-0.87, 0.05), p=0.08]. The result showed that moxibustion plus other active treatments (including western medicine, massage, acupuncture and core stability training) had better effects on low back pain relief compared with active treatments alone. Moxibustion showed favourable effects on disability [SMD = -3.80, 95%CI (-5.49, -2.11), p < 0.0001], JOA score [MD = 4.10, 95%CI(2.30, 5.90), p < 0.00001], and SF-36 score [MD = 13.41, 95%CI(9.68, 17.14), p < 0.00001]. The evidence level of the results from the ten studies was determined to be very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw firm conclusions that moxibustion is an effective intervention for treating CLBP due to the small sample size of eligible trails and the high risk of bias among the available articles. Rigorously designed large-scale RCTs are required to further confirm the results in this review.