- Alison Tonks, associate editor (atonks@bmj.com)
Acupuncture relieves chronic low back pain
The literature evaluating acupuncture for low back pain has been reviewed at least twice before, with conflicting results. The latest update, including 23 extra trials, shows that acupuncture can work, at least for people who have had back pain for more than three months. A thorough search found 33 randomised trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture, no treatment, or other active treatments such as massage. Only 10 of the trials had been reviewed before. The others were new, unpublished, or in languages other than English, including Chinese, Japanese, and Polish.
Overall, acupuncture worked significantly better than sham acupuncture or no treatment in people with chronic back pain. The authors found a difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture equivalent to 14.5 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale measuring pain. Acupuncture was no better than other active treatments at relieving chronic pain, however, and looked significantly worse than spinal manipulation (two trials) or massage (one trial).
It's still unclear whether acupuncture works for acute back pain. These reviewers, and others before them, found too few decent trials to be certain.
Annals of Internal Medicine 2005;142: 651-63
New drug treatment for heart failure increases mortality
Nesiritide, a new drug treatment for acute on chronic heart failure, looked promising until a recent meta-analysis found that it was associated with a suspicious increase in deaths. The analysis included data from three trials comparing the new intravenous drug with conventional treatments for decompensated heart failure, usually vasodilators and diuretics. Inotropes such as dobutamine were excluded. Four per cent of 377 patients given control treatments died within 30 days, compared with 7.2% of 485 patients treated with an infusion of nesiritide (hazard ratio 1.8, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.31, P = 0.057; figure).
Credit: JAMA
The analysis isn't perfect, and the findings aren't strictly significant in the conventional sense, but the authors …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012