Review Article

Acupuncture for Low Back Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Table 4

Summary of positive results with meta-analysis, functional improvement.

ComparatorAuthors (date)Number of RCTs (patients) pooledOutcome measured time pointEffect estimate (MD, SMD)
95% confidence interval

Sham therapy Rubinstein et al. (2010) [22]1 (745)
3 (1044)
<1 month
<3 months
SMD = −0.18 [95% CI, −0.32 to −0.04]
SMD = −0.28 [95% CI, −0.41 to−0.16]

No treatmentLam et al. (2013) [17]3 (451)ImmediatelySMD = −0.94 [95% CI, −1.41 to −0.47]
Xu et al. (2013) [19]4 (NR)>1 monthSMD = −0.58 [95% CI, −0.82 to −0.34]
Furlan et al. (2012) [20]1 (NR)ImmediatelyMD = −8.20 [95% CI, −12.0 to −4.40]
Rubinstein et al. (2010) [22]1 (214)<3 monthsSMD = −0.61 [95% CI, −0.90 to −0.33]
Manheimer et al. (2005) [28]6 (NR)<6 weeksSMD = −0.62 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.30]
Furlan et al. (2005) [29]2 (90)<3 monthsSMD = −0.63 [95% CI, −1.08 to −0.19]

Plus conventional therapyLam et al. (2013) [17]3 (144)ImmediatelySMD = −0.87 [95% CI, −1.61 to −0.14]
Rubinstein et al. (2010) [22]2 (99)
4 (2824)
<1 month
<3 months
SMD = −1.04 [95% CI, −1.46 to −0.61]
SMD = −0.66 [95% CI, −0.74 to −0.58]
Furlan et al. (2005) [29]3 (173)
3 (173)
Immediately
<3 months
SMD = −0.95 [95% CI, −1.27 to −0.63]
SMD = −0.95 [95% CI, −1.37 to −0.54]

MD: mean difference; SMD: standardized mean difference; CI: confidence interval, NR: not reported.