Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynamics. This study aimed to test the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT for non-acute LBP. METHODS: A three-arm, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted from 28 March 2016 to 19 September 2016, at four medical institutions. A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to the CMT group (n = 20), usual care (UC) group (n = 20), or combined treatment (CMT + UC) group (n = 20), and received the relevant treatments for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) representation of LBP intensity, while secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), lumbar range of motion, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 55 patients (CMT, 18; UC, 18; CMT + UC, 19) were included in the per-protocol analysis (drop-out rate 5.3%). Over the treatment period there were significant differences in the NRS score for LBP (CMT mean - 3.28 (95% CI - 4.08, - 2.47); UC - 1.95 (- 2.82, - 1.08); CMT + UC - 1.75 (- 2.70, - 0.80), P < 0.01) and the ODI scores in each group (CMT - 12.29 (- 16.86, - 7.72); UC - 10.34 (- 14.63, - 6.06); CMT + UC - 9.27 (- 14.28, - 4.26), P < 0.01). The changes in other secondary outcomes did not significantly differ among the three groups. Sixteen minor-to-moderate safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CMT has comparative efficacy for non-acute LBP and is generally safe. As this was a preliminary study, a well-powered (over 192 participants) two-arm (CMT versus UC) verification trial will be performed to assess the generalizability of these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850 . Registered on 12 March 2016.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for nonacute low back pain: study protocol for a pilot multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pCRN study).

BACKGROUND: While Chuna manual therapy is a Korean manual therapy widely used primarily for low back pain (LBP)-related disorders in Korea, well-designed studies on the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy are scarce. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is the protocol for a three-armed, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled pilot trial. Sixty severe nonacute LBP patients (pain duration of at least 3 weeks, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥5) will be recruited at four Korean medicine hospitals. Participants will be randomly allocated to the Chuna group (n = 20), usual care group (n = 20), or Chuna plus usual care group (n = 20) for 6 weeks of treatment. Usual care will consist of orally administered conventional medicine, physical therapy, and back pain care education. The trial will be conducted with outcome assessor and statistician blinding. The primary endpoint will be NRS of LBP at week 7 post randomization. Secondary outcomes include NRS of leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire, lumbar range of motion (ROM), the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) health survey, the Health Utility Index III (HUI-III), and economic evaluation and safety data. Post-treatment follow-ups will be conducted at 1, 4, and 10 weeks after conclusion of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy compared to conventional usual care. Costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be analyzed for exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. If this pilot study does not reach a definite conclusion due to its small sample size, these results will be used as preliminary results to calculate sample size for future large-scale clinical trials and contribute in the assessment of feasibility of a full-scale multicenter trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850 . Registered on 17 March 2016.