Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Acupuncture in chronic aspecific low back pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 17, Article number: 319 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This Bayesian network meta-analysis investigated the available randomized control trials (RCTs) to point out which acupuncture protocol is the most effective for chronic aspecific low back pain (LBP). Efficacy was measured in terms of pain (Visual Analogic Scale, VAS) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMQ), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS).

Methods

PubMed, Google scholar, Embase, and Scopus were accessed in March 2022. All the RCTs comparing two or more acupuncture modalities for aspecific chronic LBP were accessed. Only studies which investigated the efficacy of acupuncture on patients with symptoms lasting a minimum of 1.5 months, or with at least three episodes in the previous 12 months, were considered eligible. The Review Manager Software (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for the methodological quality assessment. The STATA Software/MP, Version 14.1 (StataCorporation, College Station, Texas, USA), was used for the statistical analyses. The NMA was performed through the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis.

Results

Data from 44 RCTs (8338 procedures) were retrieved. 56% of patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 48 ± 10.6 years. The mean BMI was 26.3 ± 2.2 kg/m2. The individual group (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.02, 7.98) and the standard combined with TENS (95% CI 2.03, 7.97) demonstrated the highest improvement of the RMQ. The VAS score was lower in the standard combined with TENS group (95% CI 3.28, 4.56). Considering the standard acupuncture group, different studies used similar protocols and acupuncture points and the results could thus be compared. The equation for global linearity did not find any statistically significant inconsistency in any of the network comparison.

Conclusion

Verum acupuncture is more effective than sham treatment for the non-pharmacological management of LBP. Among the verum protocols, individualized acupuncture and standard acupuncture with TENS were the protocols that resulted in the highest improvement in pain and quality of life.

Level of Evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is common, leading to relevant economic burden [1, 2]. On average, the lifetime prevalence of LBP is as high as 80% [3, 4]. LBP is aspecific in most cases, and no pathoanatomical cause can be found [5]. In such patients, management aims to reduce symptoms and disability, allowing the return to daily life activities and participation in physiotherapy [5]. Current guidelines recommend physiotherapy as a first-line treatment for chronic LBP [6]. As some patients do not experience sufficient benefit from physiotherapy alone, further options are required. Pharmacotherapy is the second step in the management of chronic aspecific LBP [6]. NSAIDs and opiates represent the most successful treatment options [7, 8]. However, potential side-effects of pharmacotherapy, along with the risk of opioids addiction, make this option viable and safe only in the short term. As the number of patients with chronic aspecific LBP increases, so does the demand for safe and effective therapies. Among these, acupuncture has been widely investigated in recent times as possible options, proving to be a safe and effective therapy for chronic aspecific LBP [9,10,11]. Many different acupuncture protocols have been proposed for the management of chronic aspecific LBP. This Bayesian network meta-analysis investigated the available randomized control trials (RCTs) to try and identify which acupuncture protocol is the most effective for chronic aspecific LBP. Efficacy was measured in terms of pain (Visual Analogic Scale, VAS) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMQ) to investigate the efficacy of acupuncture on different aspects of the patients’ overall quality of life.

Material and methods

Search strategy

This Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions [12]. A guide protocol was preliminary drafted:

  • P (population): Chronic low back pain;

  • I (intervention): Acupuncture;

  • C (comparison): Standardized, sham, individual, auricular, electroacupuncture, acupuncture combined with Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS);

  • O (outcomes): VAS, RMQ.

Data source and extraction

Two authors (A.M. and A.B.) independently performed the literature search in April 2022. The following databases were accessed: PubMed, Google scholar, Embase, and Scopus. The following keywords were used in combination: low, lumbar, back, lower, spine, pain, disability, management, therapy, treatments, acupuncture, auricular, tens, electroacupuncture, auricular, individualized, standardized, visual analogic scale, vas, Roland Morris questionnaire. The same authors independently performed the initial screening. If the title and abstract matched the topic, the article full-text was accessed. A cross reference of the bibliographies was also performed. Disagreement was debated and solved by a third author (N.M.).

Eligibility criteria

All the RCTs comparing two or more acupuncture modalities for aspecific chronic LBP were accessed. Only studies which investigated the efficacy of acupuncture on patients with symptoms lasting a minimum of 1.5 months, or with at least three episodes in the previous 12 months were considered eligible. Only studies involving patients aged 18 to 75 were considered. Aspecific LBP was defined as pain that was not arising from a specific pathoanatomical condition [5]. Given the authors language capabilities, articles in English, German, Italian, French and Spanish were eligible. Only level I of evidence studies, according to Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine [13], were considered. Studies reporting data over acupressure or percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation were not considered. Studies reporting the efficacy of acupuncture in patients with acute pain were not included, nor were those investigating the cervicothoracic segments. Studies investigating patients with neurological deficits were excluded, along with studies including patients with radicular pain (unless the radicular pain was only a minor complaint). Editorials, reviews, letters, opinion, technical notes, comments were not eligible, nor were biomechanical, cadaveric, or animal studies. Only articles reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion. Missing data under the outcomes of interest warranted exclusion from this study.

Data extraction

Two authors (A.M. and A.B.) independently performed data extraction the resulting articles for inclusion. Study generalities (author, year, journal, design, length of the follow-up) and patient demographic at baseline were extracted (number of samples and related mean BMI and age, percentage of female). For every treatment, the following data were retrieved: VAS, RMQ, adverse events. The groups considered were standard acupuncture alone, standard acupuncture with TENS, electroacupuncture, individualized acupuncture, and auricular acupuncture. The treatment group was classified as individualized acupuncture when the treating physician chose the needling points for each patient, without following a specific protocol. The treatment was defined as standard acupuncture when all patients were treated with the same protocol. Sham acupuncture was defined as the needling of points other than the known acupuncture points: as shallow needling of acupuncture points may also elicit a fibroblast reaction, this method was considered as a form of verum acupuncture [14]. The association of acupuncture with electrostimulation was considered separately.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias assessment was conducted by two authors (A.M. and A.B.) independently. The Review Manager Software (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for the methodological quality assessment. The following risk of bias were evaluated: selection, detection, reporting, attrition, and other source of bias. For each comparison, the risk of bias was investigated using funnel plots. Plot asymmetries relates to greater risk of bias.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted by the senior author (F.M.). Baseline comparability was assessed through the IBM SPSS software. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for analysis, with P values > 0.1 considered satisfactory. All other treatments rather than standardized, individual, auricular, electroacupuncture, combined with TENS, sham acupuncture were included in the “control group” and excluded from the analysis. The STATA Software/MP, Version 14.1 (StataCorporation, College Station, Texas, USA) was used for the statistical analyses. The NMA was performed through the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method was used for analysis, with standardized mean difference (STD) effect measure. The overall inconsistency was evaluated through the equation for global linearity via the Wald test. If the P value < 0.5, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and the consistency assumption could be accepted at the overall level of each treatment. Both confidence (CI) and percentile (PrI) intervals were set at 95%. For each comparison, edge plots were performed to display amount and interpolations of direct comparisons; interval plots were performed to rank the treatments according to their effect measure; and asymmetry of the funnel plots was associated with the greater risk of publication bias.

Results

Search result

The literature search resulted in 817 RCTs. Four hundred and seven were excluded as they were duplicates. A further 330 studies were incompatible with the eligibility criteria: type of study (N = 89), not matching the topic of interest (N = 193), acupressure or percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (N = 15), acute LBP (N = 11), concerning cervicothoracic segments (N = 5), presence of severe neurologic impairment or spine deformities (N = 3), acute setting (N = 2), old age (N = 1), language limitations (N = 2), other (N = 9). Another 13 studies were excluded as they did not report quantitative data under the outcomes of interest. This left 44 RCTs for the present study. The literature search results are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the literature search

Full size image

Methodological quality assessment

Given the randomized design of the included studies, the risk of selection bias was low. Assessor blinding was performed in 75% (33 of 44) studies; however, the blinding methods were often biased, and the overall risk of detection bias was moderate. The risk of attrition and reporting biases were low to moderate, as was the risk of other bias. Concluding, the methodological quality assessment showed low to moderate risk of bias (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Methodological quality assessment

Full size image

Patient demographics

Data from 8338 procedures were retrieved. 56% of patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 48 ± 10.6 years. The mean BMI was 26.3 ± 2.2 kg/m2. The ANOVA test found moderate baseline comparability in symptoms duration (P > 0.05). Patient demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Generalities and patient baseline of the included studies
Full size table

Outcomes of interest

The individual group (SMD 5.00; 95% CI 2.02, 7.98) and the standard combined with TENS (SMD 5.00; 95% CI 2.03, 7.97) demonstrated the highest improvement of RMQ. The VAS score was lower in the standard combined with TENS group (SMD 3.92; 95% CI 3.28, 4.56). Considering the standard acupuncture group, different studies utilized similar protocols and acupuncture points and the results could thus be compared. The equation for global linearity did not find any statistically significant inconsistency in any of the network comparisons. Edge, interval, and funnel plots are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Results of the network comparisons

Full size image

Discussion

According to the main findings of the present Bayesian network meta-analysis, individualized acupuncture and the standard protocol with TENS may represent the most effective acupuncture strategies for the management of chronic aspecific LBP. These two treatment protocols showed the highest improvements of VAS and RMQ. As verum acupuncture scored better than sham treatment, the present study points to the efficacy of acupuncture in the management of aspecific chronic LBP. This finding further supports current guidelines which recommend acupuncture as one of the possible first-line, non-pharmacological management modality for aspecific chronic LBP [6].

These results are consistent with previous studies [10, 11], which observed a superiority of acupuncture compared to sham treatment [57, 58]. A meta-analysis by Amaral et al. observed only moderate-quality evidence in favor of acupuncture treatment for LBP; however, this study focused only on trigger point acupuncture in the geriatric population, and the results are not directly comparable with those of the present cohort [9]. Nascimiento et al. also observed poor outcomes for acupuncture for LBP in the geriatric population [59]. While no specific characteristics could be highlighted in patients who responded to acupuncture for chronic pain [60], the role of age on the effectiveness of the therapy in the setting of LBP deserves further investigation. A meta-analysis by Mu and colleagues found that acupuncture has only limited effect on pain relief and improvement of the quality of life in the immediate to short term [61]. Li et al. highlighted that a treatment duration of at least 5 weeks is required to achieve 80% of the maximum analgesic effect [62] of acupuncture. Thus, the relatively short timeframe considered by Mu et al. (one to 12 weeks) [61], along with the high risk of bias of the included studies [61], may explain the differences in the observed results. The literature regarding the use of acupuncture in the acute setting is limited and, so far, no studies have been directed to analyze the literature regarding different types of acupuncture for the treatment of acute LBP. Thus, a direct comparison of the presented results with those of the acute setting is not possible. Overall, acupuncture seems to be modestly effective for the management of acute LBP, and the available studies agree that more high-quality work are required to gain more evidence around this topic [63, 64]. Considering the reluctance of many physicians to prescribe acupuncture in patients with chronic LBP, it is fundamental to highlight the efficacy of this treatment in comparison with sham acupuncture. However, the finding that individualized treatment is more effective than standard treatment suggests that a precise diagnosis of chronic LBP according to the criteria of traditional Chinese medicine and the choice of specific acupuncture points may be key for the efficacy of the treatment. This result confirms the clinical experience of the authors. The association of standard protocols with TENS yielded however results similar to those of individualized acupuncture.

This study has several limitations. The most important limitation is the heterogeneous protocols used. Given the randomized design of patient allocation, the risk of selection bias was low. However, some studies did not perform patients or personnel blinding, thus increasing the risk of detection and performance biases, respectively. General health measures were seldom reported, as were also information about the duration of previous symptoms, and type of pain (e.g., central sensitization). Previous conservative strategies were barely reported. Given the lack of quantitative data, the ethnicity of the patients was not analyzed separately. Given the heterogeneity of the protocols used, it was not possible to analyze the effects of the associations of acupuncture with other treatments such as pharmacological management and physio- and psychotherapy. Also, some acupuncture techniques such as moxibustion, cupping or scalp acupuncture were excluded from the study as the available data were not sufficient to grant inclusion. As a multimodal approach is often advisable to tackle the different organic and psychosocial aspects of chronic LBP [6, 65,66,67,68], further studies will be required to investigate the efficacy of different treatment associations and protocols. Furthermore, the available studies only allowed for a precise analysis of the effects of acupuncture in the population < 75 years old: targeted studies for this segment of the population will be required to investigate the efficacy of acupuncture in the elderly.

Conclusion

Verum acupuncture is more efficient than sham treatment for the non-pharmacological management of LBP. Among verum protocols, individualized acupuncture and standard acupuncture with TENS were the protocols that allowed for the highest improvement in pain and quality of life. 

Availability of data and materials

The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.

Abbreviations

RCTs:

Randomized control trials

LBP:

Low back pain

VAS:

Visual analogic scale

RMQ:

Roland Morris disability questionnaire

PRISMA:

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMI:

Body mass index

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

NMA:

Network meta-analysis

STD:

Standardized mean difference

CI:

Confidence interval

PrI:

Percentile interval

References

  1. Golob AL, Wipf JE. Low back pain. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98:405–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2014.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Krismer M, van Tulder M. Strategies for prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Low back pain (non-specific). Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ganesan S, Acharya AS, Chauhan R, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for low back pain in 1355 young adults: a cross-sectional study. Asian Spine J. 2017;11:610–7. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.4.610.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee CA, Jang H-D, Moon JE, et al. The relationship between change of weight and chronic low back pain in population over 50 years of age: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083969.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. The Lancet. 2017;389:736–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, et al. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:514–30. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Baroncini A, et al. Opioids for chronic low back pain management: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2021;14:635–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2021.1903316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Eschweiler J, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic lumbar pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br Med Bull. 2021;138:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldab003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Amaral LKB, Souza MB, Campos MGM, et al. Efficacy of conservative therapy in older people with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis and GRADE recommendations. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;90:104177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang J-F, Zheng X-Q, Chen D, et al. Can acupuncture improve chronic spinal pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2021;11:1248–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220962440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li Y-X, Yuan S-E, Jiang J-Q, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of acupuncture on pain and function in non-specific low back pain. Acupunct Med. 2020;38:235–43. https://doi.org/10.1136/acupmed-2017-011622.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Howick JCI, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H, Goddard O, Hodgkinson M (2011) The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Available at https://www.cebm.net/indexaspx?o=5653. www.https://www.cebm.net/

  14. Miyazaki S, Hagihara A, Kanda R, et al. Applicability of press needles to a double-blind trial: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2009;25:438–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e318193a6e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brinkhaus B, Witt CM, Jena S, et al. Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:450–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.4.450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Camilotti BM, Leite N, Alberti D, et al. Effects of Ai Chi and Yamamoto new scalp acupuncture on chronic low back pain. Fisioter mov. 2015;28:723–30. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-5150.028.004.ao09.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ceccherelli F, Rigoni MT, Gagliardi G, et al. Comparison of superficial and deep acupuncture in the treatment of lumbar myofascial pain: a double-blind randomized controlled study. Clin J Pain. 2002;18:149–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200205000-00003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cherkin DC, Eisenberg D, Sherman KJ, et al. Randomized trial comparing traditional Chinese medical acupuncture, therapeutic massage, and self-care education for chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1081–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.8.1081.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Avins AL, et al. A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:858–66. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cho Y-J, Song Y-K, Cha Y-Y, et al. Acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a multicenter, randomized, patient-assessor blind, sham-controlled clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:549–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318275e601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Comachio J, Oliveira CC, Silva IFR, et al. Effectiveness of manual and electrical acupuncture for chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2020;13:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jams.2020.03.064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Cesare A, Giombini A, Di Cesare M, et al. Comparison between the effects of trigger point mesotherapy versus acupuncture points mesotherapy in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a short term randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Med. 2011;19:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2010.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Giles LGF, Müller R. Chronic spinal pain syndromes: a clinical pilot trial comparing acupuncture, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and spinal manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:376–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-4754(99)70082-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Giles LGF, Muller R. Chronic spinal pain: a randomized clinical trial comparing medication, acupuncture, and spinal manipulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1490–502. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200307150-00003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grant DJ, Bishop-Miller J, Winchester DM, et al. A randomized comparative trial of acupuncture versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic back pain in the elderly. Pain. 1999;82:9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00027-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haake M, Müller H-H, Schade-Brittinger C, et al. German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for chronic low back pain: randomized, multicenter, blinded, parallel-group trial with 3 groups. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1892–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.17.1892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hasegawa TM, Baptista AS, de Souza MC, et al. Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, placebo trial. Acupunct Med. 2014;32:109–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/acupmed-2013-010333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hunter RF, McDonough SM, Bradbury I, et al. Exercise and auricular acupuncture for chronic low-back pain: a feasibility randomized-controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2012;28:259–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182274018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Inoue M, Kitakoji H, Ishizaki N, et al. Relief of low back pain immediately after acupuncture treatment–a randomised, placebo controlled trial. Acupunct Med. 2006;24:103–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/aim.24.3.103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Itoh K, Itoh S, Katsumi Y, et al. A pilot study on using acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to treat chronic non-specific low back pain. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009;15:22–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2008.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Itoh K, Katsumi Y, Kitakoji H. Trigger point acupuncture treatment of chronic low back pain in elderly patients–a blinded RCT. Acupunct Med. 2004;22:170–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/aim.22.4.170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kalauokalani D, Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, et al. Lessons from a trial of acupuncture and massage for low back pain: patient expectations and treatment effects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(13):1418–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kennedy S, Baxter GD, Kerr DP, et al. Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a pilot randomised non-penetrating sham controlled trial. Complement Ther Med. 2008;16:139–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2007.03.001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kerr DP, Walsh DM, Baxter D. Acupuncture in the management of chronic low back pain: a blinded randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2003;19:364–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200311000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Leibing E, Leonhardt U, Köster G, et al. Acupuncture treatment of chronic low-back pain–a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 9-month follow-up. Pain. 2002;96:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00444-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu L, Skinner MA, McDonough SM, et al. Acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing treatment session numbers. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31:1592–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517705690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yong L, Min Y, Tao L, Xiaolong Z, Wen T, Mingyang G, Yonghe H. Effect of hand-ear acupuncture on chronic low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Tradit Chin Med. 2019;39:587–94.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Macdonald AJ, Macrae KD, Master BR, et al. Superficial acupuncture in the relief of chronic low back pain. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1983;65:44–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mendelson G, Selwood TS, Kranz H, et al. Acupuncture treatment of chronic back pain. Am J Med. 1983;74:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(83)91117-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meng CF, Wang D, Ngeow J, et al. Acupuncture for chronic low back pain in older patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42:1508–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keg405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Molsberger AF, Mau J, Pawelec DB, et al. Does acupuncture improve the orthopedic management of chronic low back pain–a randomized, blinded, controlled trial with 3 months follow up. Pain. 2002;99:579–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00269-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pach D, Yang-Strobel X, Lüdtke R, et al. Standardized versus individualized acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013: 125937. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/125937.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rajfur J, Pasternok M, Rajfur K, et al. Efficacy of selected electrical therapies on chronic low back pain: a comparative clinical pilot study. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sator-Katzenschlager SM, Scharbert G, Kozek-Langenecker SA, et al. The short- and long-term benefit in chronic low back pain through adjuvant electrical versus manual auricular acupuncture. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1359–64. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000107941.16173.f7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shankar N, Thakur M, Tandon OP, et al. Autonomic status and pain profile in patients of chronic low back pain and following electro acupuncture therapy: a randomized control trial. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2011;55:25–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Szczurko O, Cooley K, Busse JW, et al. Naturopathic care for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2007;2: e919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Thorpe L, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a short course of traditional acupuncture compared with usual care for persistent non-specific low back pain. BMJ. 2006;333:623. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38878.907361.7C.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Witt CM, Jena S, Selim D, et al. Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yeung CKN, Leung MCP, Chow DHK. The use of electro-acupuncture in conjunction with exercise for the treatment of chronic low-back pain. J Altern Complement Med. 2003;9:479–90. https://doi.org/10.1089/107555303322284767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tsui MLK, Cheing GLY. The effectiveness of electroacupuncture versus electrical heat acupuncture in the management of chronic low-back pain. J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10:803–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2004.10.803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tsukayama H, Yamashita H, Amagai H, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of electroacupuncture and TENS for low back pain: a preliminary study for a pragmatic trial. Acupunct Med. 2002;20:175–80. https://doi.org/10.1136/aim.20.4.175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Weiss J, Quante S, Xue F, et al. Effectiveness and acceptance of acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19:935–41. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2012.0338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Yoo D-J, Jung J-Y, Chung S-H. Effects of the embedding acupuncture treatments for chronic low back pain patients. J Korean Med Rehabilit. 2015;25:105–12. https://doi.org/10.18325/jkmr.2015.25.4.105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Yuan J, Purepong N, Hunter RF, et al. Different frequencies of acupuncture treatment for chronic low back pain: an assessor-blinded pilot randomised controlled trial. Complement Ther Med. 2009;17:131–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2008.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yun M, Shao Y, Zhang Y, et al. Hegu acupuncture for chronic low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med. 2012;18:130–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2010.0779.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Zaringhalam J, Manaheji H, Rastqar A, et al. Reduction of chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised controlled clinical trial on acupuncture and baclofen. Chin Med. 2010;5:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8546-5-15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Asano H, Plonka D, Weeger J. Effectiveness of acupuncture for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Acupunct. 2022;34:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1089/acu.2021.0057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Xiang Y, He J-Y, Tian H-H, et al. Evidence of efficacy of acupuncture in the management of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo- or sham-controlled trials. Acupunct Med. 2020;38:15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nascimento PRCd, Costa LOP, Araujo AC, et al. Effectiveness of interventions for non-specific low back pain in older adults. Syst Rev Meta-Anal Physiother. 2019;105:147–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2018.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Foster NE, Vertosick EA, Lewith G, et al. Identifying patients with chronic pain who respond to acupuncture: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. Acupunct Med. 2021;39:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964528420920303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Mu J, Furlan AD, Lam WY, et al. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12:CD013814. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Li C, Pei Q, Chen Y, et al. The response-time relationship and covariate effects of acupuncture for chronic pain: a systematic review and model-based longitudinal meta-analysis. Eur J Pain. 2020;24:1653–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Su X, Qian H, Chen B, et al. Acupuncture for acute low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10:3924–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lee J-H, Choi T-Y, Lee MS, et al. Acupuncture for acute low back pain: a systematic review. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:172–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31824909f9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Madhusudhan SK. Novel analgesic combination of tramadol, paracetamol, caffeine and taurine in the management of moderate to moderately severe acute low back pain. J Orthop. 2013;10(3):144–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2013.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Andrea De Giorgio, Padulo J, Goran K (2018) Effectiveness of yoga combined with back school program on anxiety, kinesiophobia and pain in people with non-specific chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized trial, 8: 104–112. https://doi.org/10.11138/mltj/2018.8.1.104

  67. Dimer da Luz R, De Silva Silva M, Steffen Evaldt A, et al. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation associated with core stability exercises in nonspecific postural low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Muscle Ligaments Tendons J. 2019;09:446. https://doi.org/10.32098/mltj.03.2019.20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Depaoli Lemos VJ, Selau RC, Blos C, et al. Electroacupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in chronic nonspecific low back pain: a blind randomized clinical trial. Muscle Ligaments Tendons J. 2021;11:719. https://doi.org/10.32098/mltj.04.2021.15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No external source of funding was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Alice Baroncini, Jörg Eschweiler, Alexandra Klimuch & Filippo Migliorini

  2. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy

    Nicola Maffulli

  3. Faculty of Medicine, School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 7QB, England

    Nicola Maffulli

  4. Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4DG, England

    Nicola Maffulli

  5. Acupuncture Study Group, Grafing, Germany

    Friedrich Molsberger

Authors
  1. Alice Baroncini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicola Maffulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jörg Eschweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Friedrich Molsberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexandra Klimuch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Filippo Migliorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FM involved in conception and design of the study, literature search, data extraction, methodological quality assessment, writing, statistical analysis, interpretation of data, and final approval; AB involved in literature search, data extraction, methodological quality assessment, writing, and final approval; NM involved in revision and final approval; and FM and AK involved in supervision and final approval. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Migliorini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

Professor Maffulli is Editor in Chief of the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baroncini, A., Maffulli, N., Eschweiler, J. et al. Acupuncture in chronic aspecific low back pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 17, 319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03212-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03212-3

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X