Positive Health Online
Your Country
Research: ERNST and PITTLER,
Listed in Issue 42
Abstract
ERNST and PITTLER, Department of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, UK write that although complementary/alternative therapies are used frequently for low back pain, expert opinion regarding their efficacy would be helpful until data from randomised, controlled trials become available.
Background
Methodology
The author generated a questionnaire survey to generate opinion from a systematically identified expert panel regarding clinical efficacy of complementary/alternative therapies for low back pain. Computerised searches identified 50 clinical experts on low back pain, who were each sent a questionnaire to assess their perceived clinical effectiveness regarding complementary therapy for 4 categories of low back pain.
Results
Osteopathy and chiropractic were rated as effective by most experts for acute uncomplicated low back pain. Most experts considered acupuncture as effective as osteopathy and chiropractic for chronic uncomplicated low back pain. Homoeopathy was generally perceived as ineffective for any type of low back pain by the experts. Clinical experience with herbs for low back pain was insufficient to form an opinion.
Conclusion
The opinion of experts favours the effectiveness of osteopathy and chiropractic for acute uncomplicated low back pain and acupuncture is judged to be of value for chronic, uncomplicated low back pain. Homoeopathy was perceived as ineffective for any type of low back pain, and there was insufficient experience with herbs as a treatment for low back pain to form an opinion.
References
Ernst E and Pittler MH. Experts opinions on complementary/alternative therapies for low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22(2): 87-90. Feb 1999.