Weiming Wang1, Yan Liu2, Ruimin Jiao1, Sixing Liu3, Jie Zhao1, Zhishun Liu1. 1. Department of Acupuncture, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. 3. Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Plantar heel pain syndrome (PHPS), also known as plantar fasciitis, affects millions of people worldwide. Electroacupuncture (EA) and manual acupuncture (MA) are the two acupuncture modalities frequently used for PHPS in the clinical setting. However, which modality is more effective has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether EA is more effective than MA with regards to pain relief for patients with PHPS. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 12 treatment sessions of EA or MA over 4 weeks with 24 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as patients with at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the worst pain intensity experienced during the first steps in the morning after a 4-week treatment, measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100; higher scores signify worse pain). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS:Ninety-two patients with a clinical diagnosis of PHPS were enrolled from 29 July 2018 through 28 June 2019. Of the patients, 78 (85%) completed the treatment and follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 54.8% (23/42) of the EA group compared to 50.0% (21/42) of the MA group after the 4-week treatment (difference -4.76, 95% confidence interval, -26.10 to 16.57, P = 0.662). There were no significant between-group differences for any secondary outcomes after 4 weeks of treatment and at 16 weeks and 28 weeks of follow-up. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events in either group. CONCLUSION: Among patients with PHPS, EA did not have a better effect with respect to relieving pain intensity than MA at week 4, although both EA and MA appeared to have positive temporal effects, with decreased heel pain and improved plantar function. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1800016531 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Plantar heel pain syndrome (PHPS), also known as plantar fasciitis, affects millions of people worldwide. Electroacupuncture (EA) and manual acupuncture (MA) are the two acupuncture modalities frequently used for PHPS in the clinical setting. However, which modality is more effective has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether EA is more effective than MA with regards to pain relief for patients with PHPS. METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 12 treatment sessions of EA or MA over 4 weeks with 24 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as patients with at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the worst pain intensity experienced during the first steps in the morning after a 4-week treatment, measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100; higher scores signify worse pain). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients with a clinical diagnosis of PHPS were enrolled from 29 July 2018 through 28 June 2019. Of the patients, 78 (85%) completed the treatment and follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 54.8% (23/42) of the EA group compared to 50.0% (21/42) of the MA group after the 4-week treatment (difference -4.76, 95% confidence interval, -26.10 to 16.57, P = 0.662). There were no significant between-group differences for any secondary outcomes after 4 weeks of treatment and at 16 weeks and 28 weeks of follow-up. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events in either group. CONCLUSION: Among patients with PHPS, EA did not have a better effect with respect to relieving pain intensity than MA at week 4, although both EA and MA appeared to have positive temporal effects, with decreased heel pain and improved plantar function. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1800016531 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry).