...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Efficacy of traction for non-specific low back pain: a randomised clinical trial.
【24h】

Efficacy of traction for non-specific low back pain: a randomised clinical trial.

机译:牵引疗法对非特异性下腰痛的疗效:一项随机临床试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Previous trials to assess the efficacy of lumbar traction for back pain have been methodologically flawed. To avoid these shortcomings, we conducted a randomised controlled trial in which high-dose traction was compared with sham traction. The sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that tightens in the back during traction. To the patient, the experience is that of traction. The patients and outcome assessor were blinded for the assigned treatment. 151 patients with at least six weeks of non-specific low back pain were randomised. Intention to treat analysis showed no differences between the groups on all outcome measures (patients' global perceived effect, severity of main complaints, functional status and pain); all 95% confidence intervals included the value zero. The number of withdrawals from treatment, loss to follow-up, and protocol deviations was low. Consequently, the per-protocol analysis showed results similar to the intention to treat analysis. Subgroup analyses did not show any group for which traction might seem promising. Our data do not support the claim that traction is effective for patients with low back pain.
机译:先前评估腰椎牵引治疗腰痛的方法的方法学上存在缺陷。为了避免这些缺点,我们进行了一项随机对照试验,将高剂量牵引与假牵引进行了比较。假牵引采用专门研发的支架,在牵引过程中可将背部拉紧。对患者而言,体验就是牵引。患者和结果评估者对指定的治疗方法视而不见。随机选择151名至少有6周的非特异性下腰痛患者。治疗意向分析显示,各组在所有结局指标(患者的总体感觉效果,主要主诉的严重程度,功能状态和疼痛)方面均无差异;所有95%的置信区间都包含零值。从治疗中退出,失去随访以及方案偏差的次数很低。因此,按方案分析显示的结果与治疗分析意图相似。亚组分析未显示任何对牵引力看似有希望的组。我们的数据不支持牵引对腰痛患者有效的说法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号