Purpose. This trial was performed to investigate the efficacy of laser acupuncture for the alleviation of lower back pain. Methods. This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Fifty-six participants were randomly assigned to either the laser acupuncture group (n = 28) or the sham laser acupuncture group (n = 28). Participants in both groups received three treatment sessions over the course of one week. Thirteen acupuncture points were selected. The visual analogue scale for pain, pressure pain threshold, Patient Global Impression of Change, and Euro-Quality-of-Life Five Dimensions questionnaire (Korean version) were used to evaluate the effect of laser acupuncture treatment on lower back pain. Results. There were no significant differences in any outcome between the two groups, although the participants in both groups showed a significant improvement in each assessed parameter relative to the baseline values. Conclusion. Although there was no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups, the results suggest that laser acupuncture can provide effective pain alleviation and can be considered an option for relief from lower back pain. Further studies using long-term intervention, a larger sample size, and rigorous methodology are required to clarify the effect of laser acupuncture on lower back pain.
• CT enterography has been widely used in evaluating obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). • Capsule endoscopy showed high diagnostic yield for OGIB after negative CT enterography. • Negative CT enterography does not exclude important causes of small bowel bleeding. • Most lesions missed at CT-enterography are flat and can be detected by capsule endoscopy.
Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the pain-relief efficacy of thermal stimulation induced by a pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) thermal stimulation applied to acupoints (APs) in patients with low back pain (LBP). The study was designed as a randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Methods. Fifty-six LBP patients whose minimum pain intensity score on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100 mm) was more than 30 mm were randomly allocated to either the placebo-controlled or the treatment group at a 1:1 ratio. The treatment and placebo-controlled groups received PRF thermal stimulation plus cupping therapy and cupping therapy only, respectively. Each patient was scheduled to receive a total of three treatment sessions over one week with allowing a window up to 4 days. Six of the 13 predefined APs were selected differently for each session depending on the change in patient's symptoms and intensity of pain. The primary outcome was the mean difference between the placebo-controlled and treatment group of VAS changes from the baseline to the end of the follow-up period. Results The patients' reported VAS scores from baseline to the end of follow-up (average: 9.8 days) were significantly decreased by 8.036 points (two-sided 95% CI, -11.841 to -4.231) and 13.393 points (two-sided 95% CI: 17.198 to -9.588) in the treatment and the placebo-controlled groups, respectively. However, the change in VAS scores between the treatment group and the placebo-controlled group was not significantly different (2.015 mm, two-sided 95% CI: -5.288 to 9.317). Conclusion The trial results indicated that treatment with either PRF thermal stimulation with cupping therapy or cupping therapy alone effectively relieved LBP. The efficacy of PRF thermal stimulation combined with cupping therapy was not superior to that of cupping therapy alone. Trial registration number: Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0002137). The trial was registered retrospectively on 10 November, 2016.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.