No abstract

Background. Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine). Method. PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy. Results. Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound (P < 0:05). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion (P < 0:05) but not with acupotomy surgery (P = 0:24). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction (P < 0:05) but not in functional improvement (P = 0:89). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement (P < 0:05) but not in pain reduction (P = 0:26). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction (P = 0:21) and functional improvement (P = 0:45). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies. Conclusions. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.

BackgroundPain prevalence has been investigation in many developed countries, but integrated information about pain prevalence in Chinese hospitals is lacking. To achieve better pain treatment of hospitalized patients, pain management needs to be investigated. The present descriptive and cross-sectional study was performed to demonstrate the prevalence of pain by comparison with the 4 traditional vital signs, and to investigate pain management in a Chinese teaching hospital.Material/MethodsStructured and systematic interviews were undertaken by independent researchers. During a patient’s hospitalization, the prevalence of pain and the 4 vital signs were recorded. Then, the catalog, severity, causes, duration of pain, and pain management were assessed.ResultsWe found: (1) 63.36% of patients (3248 in total) suffered from pain while in hospital, which was 1.8~2.8 times higher than the prevalence of abnormality of the 4 vital signs. (2) 76% of patients had moderate pain and 21.98% had severe pain. (3) Pain intensity differed among patients with different diseases, but did not differ by demographic factors. (4) Acute and chronic pain were present in 68% and 26% of patients, respectively. In addition, 16% of the patients had neuropathic pain. (5) More than half of the patients with pain refused to receive pain-relief medication because they worried about addiction to opioids and the adverse effects of analgesics. (6) Most medical staff properly understood the 3 ladder analgesics.ConclusionsThe prevalence of pain is higher than the abnormality of the 4 traditional vital signs in a Chinese hospital. Although pain management has broadly improved, more patient education is necessary.

In the Appendix (available online, in supplemental materials for this article), we present the West China Hospital set of measures in Chinese to evaluate back pain treatment.

Although multiple studies substantiate biologic mechanisms of acupuncture, there is not necessarily a fixed relationship between those mechanisms and people's experience of them. Rather, sociocultural context may interact with biologic mechanisms and mediate this experience. The theory proposed here explains why outcomes of acupuncture for back pain will potentially be more pronounced in the sociocultural context of China than in the West.