Neurostimulation as an Efficacious Nonpharmacologic Analgesic following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

This case highlights the importance of pursuing nonpharmacologic analgesic modalities in orthopedic surgery to combat the current opioid epidemic. Presented is a patient who underwent an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis operation and through the use of neurostimulation (in the form of auricular electrostimulation), fully recovered from surgery without the usage of any opioid or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications. The patient was fitted with a novel auricular electrostimulation device (DyAnsys Primary Relief) in the immediate postoperative period that provided constant neurostimulation for 10 days, this neurostimulator was the only analgesic modality used in this case, and the patient reported minimal postoperative pain. The utility of this case centers around the lack of postoperative opioid use, presenting the idea that postsurgical orthopedic pain can be managed in a nonpharmacologic capacity, combatting the fields' ongoing opioid epidemic.

Substituting Cannabidiol for Opioids and Pain Medications Among Individuals With Fibromyalgia: A Large Online Survey.

People report substituting cannabis for pain medications, but whether cannabidiol (CBD) is used similarly remains unknown. CBD products can be CBD alone (isolate), hemp extract (containing <0.3% Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], other cannabinoids, and terpenes), or CBD-cannabis (containing >0.3% THC). In a secondary analysis from a cross-sectional survey, we examined substitution patterns among n = 878 individuals with fibromyalgia who currently used CBD. We sub-grouped participants by most commonly used CBD product (CBD isolate, hemp, CBD-cannabis, no preference) and whether they substituted CBD for medications. We investigated rationale for substituting, substitution-driven medication changes, CBD use patterns, and changes in pain-related symptoms (eg, sleep, anxiety). The study population was 93.6% female and 91.5% Caucasian, with an average age of 55.5 years. The majority (n = 632, 72.0%) reported substituting CBD products for medications, most commonly NSAIDs (59.0%), opioids (53.3%), gabapentanoids (35.0%), and benzodiazepines (23.1%). Most substituting participants reported decreasing or stopping use of these pain medications. The most common reasons for substitution were fewer side effects and better symptom management. Age, hemp products, past-year use of marijuana, and higher somatic burden were all associated with substituting (P's ≤ .05). Those who substituted reported larger improvements in health and pain than those who did not. Participants using CBD-cannabis reported significantly more substitutions than any other group (P's ≤ .001) and larger improvements in health, pain, memory, and sleep than other subgroups. This widespread naturalistic substitution for pain medications suggests the need for more rigorous study designs to examine this effect. PERSPECTIVE: This article shows that people with fibromyalgia are deliberately substituting CBD products for conventional pain medications despite the dearth of evidence suggesting CBD products may be helpful for fibromyalgia. CBD's medication-sparing and therapeutic potential should be examined in more rigorous study designs.

Cannabidiol Use for Fibromyalgia: Prevalence of Use and Perceptions of Effectiveness in a Large Online Survey.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is widely advertised as helpful for chronic pain management but research is limited. Using a cross-sectional, anonymous survey, we examined patterns of naturalistic CBD use among individuals with fibromyalgia (FM) and other chronic pain conditions. Our objective was to better understand rates of CBD use, reasons for use and discontinuation, communication with healthcare professionals about CBD, and perceptions of CBD effectiveness and safety among people with FM. After excluding incomplete surveys, our study population consisted of N = 2,701 participants with fibromyalgia, primarily in the United States. Overall, 38.1% reported never using CBD, 29.4% reported past CBD use, and 32.4% reported current CBD use. Past-year cannabis use was strongly associated with past or current CBD use. Those using CBD typically did so due to inadequate symptom relief, while those not using CBD typically cited safety concerns as their reason for not using CBD. Two-thirds of participants disclosed CBD use to their physician, although only 33% asked for physician advice on using CBD. Participants used CBD for numerous FM-related symptoms (most commonly pain), and generally reported slight to much improvement across symptom domains. Around half of participants reported side effects, which were typically minor. Our findings are limited by selection bias and our cross-sectional design, which prevents causal associations. In conclusion, CBD use is common among individuals with FM and many individuals using CBD report improvements across numerous FM-related symptoms. Our findings highlight the need for additional rigorous studies to better understand CBD's potential for FM management. PERSPECTIVE: This article indicates that CBD use is common among people with fibromyalgia, and the results suggest that many derive benefit from using CBD across multiple symptoms domains. Clinicians should discuss CBD use with fibromyalgia patients, and future studies are needed to rigorously assess CBD's therapeutic value for fibromyalgia symptoms.

Herbal Medicine for Low Back Pain: A Cochrane Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for nonspecific low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006. METHODS: We searched numerous electronic databases up to September 2014; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area. We included RCTs examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic nonspecific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines that we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared with assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2050 participants) were included. Capsicum frutescens (cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), Salix alba (white willow bark), Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey), Solidago chilensis (Brazilian arnica), and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials. CONCLUSIONS: Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Herbal medicine for low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition and imposes a substantial economic burden upon people living in industrialized societies. A large proportion of people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to September 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinical Trials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal and PubMed; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic non-specific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines which we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A library scientist with the Cochrane Back Review Group conducted the database searches. One review author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. We downloaded full references and abstracts of the identified studies and retrieved a hard copy of each study for final inclusion decisions. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared to assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (2050 participants) in this review. One trial on Solidago chilensis M. (Brazilian arnica) (20 participants) found very low quality evidence of reduction in perception of pain and improved flexibility with application of Brazilian arnica-containing gel twice daily as compared to placebo gel. Capsicum frutescens cream or plaster probably produces more favourable results than placebo in people with chronic LBP (three trials, 755 participants, moderate quality evidence). Based on current evidence, it is not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for treating people with acute LBP compared to placebo (one trial, 40 participants, low quality evidence). Another trial found equivalence of C. frutescens cream to a homeopathic ointment (one trial, 161 participants, very low quality evidence). Daily doses of Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside, may be better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and may reduce use of rescue medication (two trials, 315 participants, low quality evidence). Another H. procumbens trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx®) but was of very low quality (one trial, 88 participants, very low quality). Daily doses of Salix alba (white willow bark), standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin, are probably better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication (two trials, 261 participants, moderate quality evidence). An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (one trial, 228 participants) but was graded as very low quality evidence. S. alba minimally affected platelet thrombosis versus a cardioprotective dose of acetylsalicylate (one trial, 51 participants). One trial (120 participants) examining Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey root extract) found low quality evidence that a Kytta-Salbe comfrey extract ointment is better than placebo ointment for short-term improvements in pain as assessed by VAS. Aromatic lavender essential oil applied by acupressure may reduce subjective pain intensity and improve lateral spine flexion and walking time compared to untreated participants (one trial, 61 participants,very low quality evidence). No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: C. frutescens (Cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although H. procumbens, S. alba, S. officinale L., S. chilensis, and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.

An empirical study using permutation-based resampling in meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: In meta-regression, as the number of trials in the analyses decreases, the risk of false positives or false negatives increases. This is partly due to the assumption of normality that may not hold in small samples. Creation of a distribution from the observed trials using permutation methods to calculate P values may allow for less spurious findings. Permutation has not been empirically tested in meta-regression. The objective of this study was to perform an empirical investigation to explore the differences in results for meta-analyses on a small number of trials using standard large sample approaches verses permutation-based methods for meta-regression. METHODS: We isolated a sample of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) for interventions that have a small number of trials (herbal medicine trials). Trials were then grouped by herbal species and condition and assessed for methodological quality using the Jadad scale, and data were extracted for each outcome. Finally, we performed meta-analyses on the primary outcome of each group of trials and meta-regression for methodological quality subgroups within each meta-analysis. We used large sample methods and permutation methods in our meta-regression modeling. We then compared final models and final P values between methods. RESULTS: We collected 110 trials across 5 intervention/outcome pairings and 5 to 10 trials per covariate. When applying large sample methods and permutation-based methods in our backwards stepwise regression the covariates in the final models were identical in all cases. The P values for the covariates in the final model were larger in 78% (7/9) of the cases for permutation and identical for 22% (2/9) of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: We present empirical evidence that permutation-based resampling may not change final models when using backwards stepwise regression, but may increase P values in meta-regression of multiple covariates for relatively small amount of trials.

Herbal therapy for treating rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Herbal medicine interventions have been identified as having potential benefit in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES: To update an existing systematic (Cochrane) review of herbal therapies in RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dissertation Abstracts (1996 to 2009), unrestricted by language, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in October 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of herbal interventions compared with placebo or active controls in RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.  MAIN RESULTS: Twelve new studies were added to the update, a total of 22 studies were included.Evidence from seven studies indicate potential benefits of gamma linolenic acid (GLA) from evening primrose oil, borage seed oil, or blackcurrent seed oil, in terms of reduced pain intensity (mean difference (MD) -32.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -56.25 to -9.42,100 point pain scale); improved disability (MD -15.75% 95% CI -27.06 to -4.44%); and an increase in adverse events (GLA 20% versus placebo 3%), that was not statistically different (relative risk 4.24, 95% CI 0.78 to 22.99).Three studies compared Tripterygium wilfordii (thunder god vine) to placebo and one to sulfasalazine and indicated improvements in some outcomes, but data could not be pooled due to differing interventions, comparisons and outcomes. One study reported serious side effects with oral Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F. In the follow-up studies, all side effects were mild to moderate and resolved after the intervention ceased. Two studies compared Phytodolor(®) N to placebo but poor reporting limited data extraction. The remaining studies each considered differing herbal interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Several herbal interventions are inadequately justified by single studies or non-comparable studies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. There is moderate evidence that oils containing GLA (evening primrose, borage, or blackcurrant seed oil) afford some benefit in relieving symptoms for RA, while evidence for Phytodolor® N is less convincing.Tripterygium wilfordii products may reduce some RA symptoms, however, oral use may be associated with several side effects. Many trials of herbal therapies are hampered by research design flaws and inadequate reporting. Further investigation of each herbal therapy is warranted, particularly via well designed, fully powered, confirmatory clinical trials that use American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria to measure outcomes and report results according to CONSORT guidelines.

Randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions underreport important details of the intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of reporting and predictors of reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of herbal medicine interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, and Academy of Microscope Enhanced Dentistry up to December 2007 for any English language RCT of 11 commonly used herbal medicine interventions. Two individuals separately and independently assessed all trials using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for herbal medicines interventions. We randomly selected 100 of these trials, extracted a set of potential predictor variables identified through a literature search and consultation with experts, and performed a conceptually driven stepwise elimination regression analyses for predictor variables. RESULTS: The 406 trials reported on average 38% of the information suggested in the checklist. Regression analyses revealed better overall reporting in trials with a participant flow diagram (P=0.008), those of Panax quinquefolius (P=0.018), and those published in more recent years (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that RCTs of herbal medicine interventions frequently do not report important characteristics of the intervention. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT for herbal medicines when reporting their trials.

Evidence of effectiveness of herbal medicinal products in the treatment of arthritis. Part 2: Rheumatoid arthritis.

Herbal medicinal products (HMPs) that interact with the mediators of inflammation are used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to update a previous systematic review published in 2000. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CISCOM, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane registers) to June 2007, unrestricted by date or language, and included randomized controlled trials that compared HMPs with inert (placebo) or active controls in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Five reviewers contributed to data extraction. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus with reference to Cochrane guidelines and advice from the Cochrane Collaboration. Twenty studies (10 identified for this review update, and 10 of the 11 studies of the original review) investigating 14 HMPs were included. Meta-analysis was restricted to data from previous seven studies with oils from borage, blackcurrant and evening primrose containing gamma linolenic acid (GLA). GLA doses equal or higher than 1400 mg/day showed benefit in the alleviation of rheumatic complaints whereas lower doses ( approximately 500 mg) were ineffective. Three studies compared products from Tripterygium wilfordii (thunder god vine) to placebos and returned favorable results but data could not be pooled because the interventions and measures differed. Serious adverse effects occurred in one study. In a follow-up study all side effects were mild to moderate and resolved after the intervention ceased, but time to resolution was variable. Two studies comparing Phytodolor NR to placebo were of limited use because some measures were poorly defined. The remaining studies, each considering differing HMPs, were assessed individually. For most HMPs used in the treatment of RA, the evidence of effectiveness was insufficient to either recommend or discourage their use. Interventions with HMPs containing GLA or Tripterygium wilfordii extract appear to produce therapeutic effects but further investigations are warranted to prove their effectiveness and safety.

Evidence of effectiveness of herbal medicinal products in the treatment of arthritis. Part I: Osteoarthritis.

Herbal medicinal products (HMPs) are used in a variety of oral and topical forms for the treatment of osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to update a previous systematic review published in 2000. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CISCOM, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane registers) to June 2007, unrestricted by date or language, and included randomized controlled trials that compared HMPs with inert (placebo) or active controls in patients with osteoarthritis. Five reviewers contributed to data extraction. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus with reference to Cochrane guidelines and advice from the Cochrane Collaboration.Thirty-five studies (30 studies identified for this review update, and 5 studies included in the original review) evaluating the effectiveness of 22 HMPs were included. However, due to differing HMPs, interventions, comparators, and outcome measures, meta-analysis was restricted to data from studies of three HMPs: topical capsaicin, avocado-soybean unsaponifiables, and the Chinese herbal mixture SKI306X showed benefit in the alleviation of osteoarthritic pain.Several studies investigating products from devil's claw, and a powder from rose hip and seed, reported favorable effects on osteoarthritic pain, whereas two studies of a willow bark extract returned disparate results. Three studies of Phytodolor N(R) were of limited use because doses and measures were inconsistent among trials. The remaining single studies for each HMP provided moderate evidence of effectiveness. No serious side effects were reported with any herbal intervention.Despite some evidence, the effectiveness of none of the HMPs is proven beyond doubt. The obvious potential benefits of HMPs in the treatment of osteoarthritis are reduced reliance on synthetic medications with the associated risks of harmful adverse events, but further clinical trials are necessary before HMPs can be adopted in osteoarthritis treatment guidelines.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with herbal, vitamin, mineral, and homeopathic supplements.

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Herbal medicine for low back pain: a Cochrane review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine compared with placebo, no intervention, or "standard/accepted/conventional treatments" for nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain is a common condition and a substantial economic burden in industrialized societies. A large proportion of patients with chronic low back pain use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and/or visit CAM practitioners. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in low back pain. METHODS: The following databases were searched: Medline (1966 to April 2003), Embase (1980 to April 2003), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2003), and Cochrane Complementary Medicine (CM) field Trials Register. Additionally, reference lists in review articles, guidelines, and in the retrieved trials were checked. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using adults (>18 years of age) suffering from acute, subacute, or chronic nonspecific low back pain. Types of interventions included herbal medicines defined as a plant that is used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Two reviewers (J.J.G. and M.W.T.) conducted electronic searches in all databases. One reviewer (J.J.G.) contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. Authors, title, subject headings, publication type, and abstract of the isolated studies were downloaded or a hard copy was retrieved. Methodologic quality and clinical relevance were assessed separately by two individuals (J.J.G. and M.W.T.). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Ten trials were included in this review. Two high-quality trials utilizing Harpagophytum procumbens (Devil's claw) found strong evidence for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication for daily doses standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside with another high-quality trial demonstrating relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Two moderate-quality trials utilizing Salix alba (White willow bark) found moderate evidence for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication for daily doses standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin with an additional trial demonstrating relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Three low-quality trials using Capsicum frutescens (Cayenne) using various topical preparations found moderate evidence for favorable results against placebo and one trial found equivalence to a homeopathic ointment. CONCLUSIONS: Harpagophytum procumbens, Salix alba, and Capsicum frutescens seem to reduce pain more than placebo. Additional trials testing these herbal medicines against standard treatments will clarify their equivalence in terms of efficacy. The quality of reporting in these trials was generally poor; thus, trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement in reporting clinical trials of herbal medicines.

Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: Explanation and elaboration.

Controlled trials that use randomized allocation are the best tool to control for bias and confounding in trials testing clinical interventions. Investigators must be sure to include information that is required by the reader to judge the validity and implications of the findings in the reports of these trials. In part, complete reporting of trials will allow clinicians to modify their clinical practice to reflect current evidence toward the improvement of clinical outcomes. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to assist investigators, authors, reviewers, and editors on the necessary information to be included in reports of controlled clinical trials. The CONSORT statement is applicable to any intervention, including herbal medicinal products. Controlled trials of herbal interventions do not adequately report the information suggested in CONSORT. Recently, reporting recommendations were developed in which several CONSORT items were elaborated to become relevant and complete for randomized controlled trials of herbal medicines. We expect that these recommendations will lead to more complete and accurate reporting of herbal trials. We wrote this explanatory document to outline the rationale for each recommendation and to assist authors in using them by providing the CONSORT items and the associated elaboration, together with examples of good reporting and empirical evidence, where available, for each. These recommendations for the reporting of herbal medicinal products presented here are open to revision as more evidence accumulates and critical comments are collected.

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of herbal medicine interventions.

BACKGROUND: Public interest in herbal medicines has generated an increasing number of trials evaluating their efficacy. Trials with poor methodologic quality have exaggerated estimates of treatment effect, and incomplete reporting of trials causes difficulties in assessing trial methodologic quality. The objective of this project was to examine the quality of reporting of randomized controlled intervention trials of herbal medicine. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966 to September 2003) was searched for randomized controlled trials of 10 herbal medicines. Two individuals (J. G. and J. D.) independently assessed trials using the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials checklist. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The mean number of checklist items reported across all and for individual herbal medicines was calculated. The influence of decade of publication and species of herbal medicine tested was explored using an analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 206 randomized controlled trials of herbal medicine were included. Interrater reliability on reporting quality assessment was high. A total of 45% of items were reported across all trials. The quality of reporting improved across decades from the 1970s to the 2000s. Individual herbal species differed in the total number of items reported, with echinacea, ginkgo, St. John's wort, and kava trials reporting the most items. CONCLUSIONS: Important methodologic components of randomized controlled trials of herbal medicines are incompletely reported including allocation concealment, method used to generate the allocation sequence, and whether an intention-to-treat analysis was used. Also, key information unique to these trials may be missing, such as percentage of active constituents and type or form of the herbal medicine preparation. We suggest trialists consult a recent extension of the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials statement specific to herbal medicine trials when designing and reporting randomized controlled intervention trials of herbal medicines.

Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement.

Herbal medicinal products are widely used, vary greatly in content and quality, and are actively tested in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). The authors' objective was to develop recommendations for reporting RCTs of herbal medicine interventions, based on the need to elaborate on the 22-item CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist. Telephone calls were made and a consensus meeting was held with 16 participants in Toronto, Canada, to develop these recommendations. The group agreed on context-specific elaborations of 9 CONSORT checklist items for RCTs of herbal medicines. Item 4, concerning the herbal medicine intervention, required the most extensive elaboration. These recommendations have been developed to improve the reporting of RCTs using herbal medicine interventions.

Complementary and alternative therapies for low back pain.

The support for the principles of evidence-based medicine has increased within the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The objective of this chapter is to determine the effectiveness of CAM therapies compared to placebo, no intervention, or other interventions for acute/subacute and chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). Results from Cochrane reviews on acupuncture, botanical medicine, massage, neuroreflexotherapy, and spinal manipulation have been used. The results showed that acupuncture is more effective than no treatment or sham treatment for chronic LBP but that there are no differences in effectiveness compared with other conventional therapies. Specific botanical medicines can be effective for acute episodes of chronic non-specific LBP in terms of short-term improvement in pain and functional status; long-term efficacy was not assessed. Massage seems more beneficial than sham treatment for chronic non-specific LBP but effectiveness compared with other conventional therapies is inconclusive. Neuroreflexotherapy appears to be more effective than sham treatment or standard care for chronic non-specific LBP. Spinal manipulation was more effective than sham manipulation or ineffective therapies, and equally effective as other conventional therapies. In summary, the results on CAM therapies for (acute episodes of) chronic LBP are promising but more evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness compared to conventional treatments is needed.

Harpgophytum procumbens for osteoarthritis and low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of Harpagophytum procumbens preparations in the treatment of various forms of musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Several databases and other sources were searched to identify randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and controlled clinical trials testing Harpagophytum preparations in adults suffering from pain due to osteoarthritis or low back pain. RESULTS: Given the clinical heterogeneity and insufficient data for statistical pooling, trials were described in a narrative way, taking into consideration methodological quality scores. Twelve trials were included with six investigating osteoarthritis (two were identical trials), four low back pain, and three mixed-pain conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence for an ethanolic Harpagophytum extract containing less than <30 mg harpagoside per day in the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis. There is moderate evidence of effectiveness for (1) the use of a Harpagophytum powder at 60 mg harpagoside in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the spine, hip and knee; (2) the use of an aqueous Harpagophytum extract at a daily dose of 100 mg harpagoside in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic non-specific low back pain; and (3) the use of an aqueous extract of Harpagophytum procumbens at 60 mg harpagoside being non-inferior to 12.5 mg rofecoxib per day for chronic non-specific low-back pain (NSLBP) in the short term. Strong evidence exists for the use of an aqueous Harpagophytum extract at a daily dose equivalent of 50 mg harpagoside in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic NSLBP.