Search

The value of qigong in the treatment of chronic low back pain is unclear. In a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated whether qigong is non-inferior to exercise therapy in patients with chronic low back pain.German outpatients (aged 46.7 ± 10.4) with chronic low back pain [mean visual analogue scale (VAS), 53.9 ± 12.5 mm] were enrolled and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either qigong (64 patients, 12 sessions with 1 × 90 min/week over 3 months) or exercise therapy (63 patients, 12 sessions 1 × 60 min/week). The primary outcome measure was the average pain intensity over the last 7 days on a VAS (0-100 mm, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain, non-inferiority margin = 5 mm) after 3 months. Follow-up was measured after 6 and 12 months.The mean adjusted low back pain intensity after 3 months was 34.8 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.5; 40.2] in the qigong group and 33.1 mm (95% CI 27.7; 38.4) in the exercise group. Non-inferiority of the qigong group compared with the exercise group failed to show statistical significance (p = 0.204). In both groups, 10 patients reported suspected adverse reactions (e.g., muscle soreness, dizziness, pain) the total number was comparable in both groups (qigong n = 40, exercise n = 44).Qigong was not proven to be non-inferior to exercise therapy in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Its role in the prevention of chronic low back pain might be addressed in further studies.

Patients' expectations of acupuncture treatment have widely been investigated; however, little focus has been on the physicians' expectations. We aimed to investigate (1) which patient characteristics lead to different expectations of physicians, and (2) whether physicians' expectations predict pain reduction and physical functioning in acupuncture and usual care treatment for chronic pain.In four large multi-centre, randomized trials patients with chronic pain were randomized to receive usual care alone or 10 additional acupuncture treatments. Data were pooled. Baseline characteristics of the three expectation groups were compared, and the physicians' expectation and its interaction with the treatment group were included in two linear regression models predicting pain reduction and change in physical functioning. Other patient characteristics were included for adjustment.9900 patients treated by 2781 physicians were analysed. Age, education and disease-related variables differed in the expectation groups. There was no interaction between treatment group and expectation. Patients, for whom the physicians had expected substantial improvement, showed more pain reduction (p0.001) and better physical functioning (p0.001) than patients for whom moderate improvement was expected. No significant differences were found between expected moderate and expected lack of success. However, the proportion of explained variance that was due to physicians' expectations was small considering total explained variance.Physicians' high expectations at baseline predict better outcome, independent of the treatment. Since we adjusted for several patient variables including duration and severity of disease, this cannot be explained by prognostic factors only. Other explanations are discussed and recommended for future research.

To investigate the effects of stimulated and non-stimulated manual acupuncture at ST36 and PC6 on gastric myoelectrical activity and autonomic function.A total of 65 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to a 1: 1: 2 ratio to receive either 15 min of verum acupuncture (VA) with stimulation followed by 15 min of VA without stimulation (nsVA), or 15 min of nsVA followed by 15 min of VA with stimulation (sVA), or 30 min of sham acupuncture (SA). Measures of autonomic function included electrogastrogram, electrocardiogram, impedance cardiography and assessment of blood pressure, breathing frequency, and electrodermal activity. Outcome parameters were compared between VA and SA, and between sVA and nsVA. The percentage of regular gastric slow waves (normogastria) was defined as the primary outcome.The percentage of normogastria was not significantly different between VA and SA. Differences in secondary outcomes such as power spectrum of gastric slow waves and heart rate variability parameters were pronounced in the comparison of sVA and nsVA. During sVA, the percentage of normogastria was lower (P = 0.005), the percentage of bradygastria was higher (P = 0.003) and power ratio was higher (P0.001), systolic blood pressure was lower (P = 0.039) and RMSSD was higher (P0.001) as compared with nsVA.Our study suggests that manual stimulation of acupuncture needles at ST36 and PC6 affects gastric myoelectrical as well as cardiac activities in healthy volunteers. The effect of stimulation in acupuncture deserves further investigation.

To compare anthroposophic treatment (eurythmy, rhythmical massage or art therapy; counselling, anthroposophic medication) and conventional treatment for low back pain (LBP) under routine conditions.62 consecutive outpatients from 38 medical practices in Germany, consulting an anthroposophic (A-) or conventional (C-) physician with LBP ofor= 6 weeks duration participated in a prospective non-randomised comparative study. Main outcomes were Hanover Functional Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ), LBP Rating Scale Pain Score (LBPRS), Symptom Score, and SF-36 after 6 and 12 months.At baseline, LBP duration was6 months in 85% (29/34) of A-patients and 54% (15/28) of C-patients (p = 0.004). Unadjusted analysis showed significant improvements in both groups of HFAQ, LBPRS, Symptom Score, SF-36 Physical Component Summary, and three SF-36 scales (Physical Function, Pain, Vitality), and improvements in A-patients of three further SF-36 scales (Role Physical, General Health, Mental Health). After adjustment for age, gender, LBP duration, and education, improvements were still significant in both groups for Symptom Score (p = 0.030), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (p = 0.004), and three SF-36-scales (Physical Function, p = 0.025; Role Physical, p = 0.014; Pain, p = 0.003), and in A-patients for SF-36-Vitality (p = 0.032). Compared to C-patients, A-patients had significantly more pronounced improvements of three SF-36 scales (Mental Health: p = 0.045; General Health: p = 0.006; Vitality: p = 0.005); other improvements did not differ significantly between the two groups.Compared to conventional therapy, anthroposophic therapy for chronic LBP was associated with at least comparable improvements.