|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
full text:
Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Cancer pain is certainly a major public health concern but is more likely to be addressed outside the primary care setting (eg, by oncologists, at cancer centers, as part of palliative care).Article Outline
Tables 3 and 4
provide concise summaries of the reviewed clinical trial data for each
complementary approach stratified by painful health conditions and
various control groups. In these tables, positive trials are those in
which the complementary approach provided statistically significant
improvements in pain severity or pain-related disability or function
compared with the control group. Negative trials are those in which no
difference was seen between groups. Based on a preponderance of positive
trials vs negative trials, current evidence suggests that the following
complementary approaches may help some patients manage their painful
health conditions: acupuncture and yoga for back pain; acupuncture and
tai chi for OA of the knee; massage therapy for neck pain with adequate
doses and for short-term benefit; and relaxation techniques for severe
headaches and migraine. Weaker evidence suggests that massage therapy,
SM, and osteopathic manipulation might also be of some benefit to those
with back pain, and relaxation approaches and tai chi might help those
with fibromyalgia.
Caveats
A
number of methodological issues temper our conclusions. The trial
samples tend to be white, female, and older, with very few, if any,
minority group participants; as such, the generalizability of the
findings to the breadth of patients seen by primary care physicians in
the United States is still unresolved. Often, the trials reviewed were
small, with fewer than 100 total participants.
Small trials are prone to
more variability and to false-negative results. In many of the trials
in which the statistical superiority of a given complementary health
approach was reported, it was not clear if the differences vs the
control group were clinically relevant. For the given painful health
condition, a wide number of outcome measures were often used to assess
pain and function. This plethora of outcomes may partly explain the
conflicting results seen across trials. For most complementary
approaches, there are no standard treatment protocols or algorithms, and
in the case of dietary supplements, no rigorously established dosages
and products; as such, trials of a given complementary approach rarely
compare the exact same intervention. Our findings that relatively few
mild adverse events and no serious adverse events were associated with
complementary approaches are consistent with the findings from a number
of systematic reviews.125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133
However, even large clinical trials are not powered to identify
infrequent adverse events, and therefore, it is likely that this review
underestimates the entire range of events associated with the
complementary approaches examined. Finally, our review was intended to
be an overview of data from RCTs performed in the United States. The
inclusion of RCTs performed outside the United States may have resulted
in a different set of recommendations.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.