598
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy, Cost-Effectiveness, and Safety of Selected Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Neck and Low-Back Pain

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background. Back pain is a common problem and a major cause of disability and health care utilization. Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy, harms, and costs of the most common CAM treatments (acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, and mobilization) for neck/low-back pain. Data Sources. Records without language restriction from various databases up to February 2010. Data Extraction. The efficacy outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Data Synthesis. Reports of 147 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies were included. CAM treatments were more effective in reducing pain and disability compared to no treatment, physical therapy (exercise and/or electrotherapy) or usual care immediately or at short-term follow-up. Trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended towards statistically nonsignificant results. In several studies, acupuncture caused bleeding on the site of application, and manipulation and massage caused pain episodes of mild and transient nature. Conclusions. CAM treatments were significantly more efficacious than no treatment, placebo, physical therapy, or usual care in reducing pain immediately or at short-term after treatment. CAM therapies did not significantly reduce disability compared to sham. None of the CAM treatments was shown systematically as superior to one another. More efforts are needed to improve the conduct and reporting of studies of CAM treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 225

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce.

          Common pain conditions appear to have an adverse effect on work, but no comprehensive estimates exist on the amount of productive time lost in the US workforce due to pain. To measure lost productive time (absence and reduced performance due to common pain conditions) during a 2-week period. Cross-sectional study using survey data from the American Productivity Audit (a telephone survey that uses the Work and Health Interview) of working adults between August 1, 2001, and July 30, 2002. Random sample of 28 902 working adults in the United States. Lost productive time due to common pain conditions (arthritis, back, headache, and other musculoskeletal) expressed in hours per worker per week and calculated in US dollars. Thirteen percent of the total workforce experienced a loss in productive time during a 2-week period due to a common pain condition. Headache was the most common (5.4%) pain condition resulting in lost productive time. It was followed by back pain (3.2%), arthritis pain (2.0%), and other musculoskeletal pain (2.0%). Workers who experienced lost productive time from a pain condition lost a mean (SE) of 4.6 (0.09) h/wk. Workers who had a headache had a mean (SE) loss in productive time of 3.5 (0.1) h/wk. Workers who reported arthritis or back pain had mean (SE) lost productive times of 5.2 (0.25) h/wk. Other common pain conditions resulted in a mean (SE) loss in productive time of 5.5 (0.22) h/wk. Lost productive time from common pain conditions among active workers costs an estimated 61.2 billion dollars per year. The majority (76.6%) of the lost productive time was explained by reduced performance while at work and not work absence. Pain is an inordinately common and disabling condition in the US workforce. Most of the pain-related lost productive time occurs while employees are at work and is in the form of reduced performance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

              The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                ECAM
                Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1741-427X
                1741-4288
                2012
                24 November 2011
                24 November 2011
                : 2012
                Affiliations
                Clinical Epidemiology Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa Evidence-Based Practice Center, Box 208, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 8L6
                Author notes
                *Alexander Tsertsvadze: atsertsvadze@ 123456ohri.ca

                Academic Editor: Angelo Antonio Izzo

                Article
                10.1155/2012/953139
                3236015
                22203884
                63475170-10fd-4b2c-a83a-14ee61830b1c
                Copyright © 2012 Andrea D. Furlan et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Review Article

                Complementary & Alternative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article