Cochrane · systematic review · CD013814
Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain
Mu, J, Furlan, AD, Lam, WY, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Back and NeckAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 7.1%Low 7 · 50%Moderate 4 · 28.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Acupuncture compared to sham intervention for chronic nonspecific low back pain
Population: chronic nonspecific low back pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity VAS (0 to 100; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) Acupuncture vs sham intervention | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 1403 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Back‐specific functional status HFAQ (0 to 100; 0 = disabled, 100 = full function) Acupuncture vs sham intervention | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1481 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Quality of life (QoL) SF‐12 (0 to 100; 0 = poor QoL, 100 = high QoL) Acupuncture vs sham intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1068 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Mental health Acupuncture vs sham intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1068 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Adverse events Self‐reported Acupuncture vs sham intervention | RR 0.68 [0.46, 1.01] | 4 studies · 465 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Acupuncture compared to no treatment for chronic nonspecific low back pain
Population: chronic nonspecific low back pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity VAS (0 to 100; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) Acupuncture vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 366 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Back‐specific functional status HFAQ (0 to 100; 0 = disabled, 100 = full function) Acupuncture vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 2960 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life (QoL) physical health, mental health Acupuncture vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Self‐reported Acupuncture vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Acupuncture compared to usual care for chronic nonspecific low back pain
Population: chronic nonspecific low back pain
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity VAS (0 to 100; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) Acupuncture vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1054 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Back‐specific functional status HFAQ (0 to 100; 0 = disabled, 100 = full function) Acupuncture vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1381 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Quality of life (QoL) – physical health SF‐12 (0 to 100; 0 = poor QoL, 100 = high QoL) Acupuncture vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 731 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
QoL: mental health SF‐12 (0 to 100; 0 = poor QoL, 100 = high QoL) Acupuncture vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 731 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Self‐reported Acupuncture vs usual care | RR 3.34 [0.36, 30.68] | 1 study · 74 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |