The effect of an acupressure backrest on pain and disability in office workers with chronic low back pain: A randomized, controlled study and patients’ preferences

Purepong, Nithima; Channak, Sirinant; Boonyong, Sujitra; Thaveeratitham, Premtip; Janwantanakul, Prawit

doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2015.03.005

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fifty-eight partially RPPTs from 2005 onwards were found, of which 44 (including 24 873 patients) were eligible for at least basic data extraction (table 1), and 20 could be included in the meta-analyses (PRISMA flow chart, figure 1). 15–72 Exclusion reasons for the meta-analyses were: no availability of both treatment outcomes in the randomised and preference cohorts separately in 14 trials,15 16 18 19 23 24 27 30 31 34 39 41 42 63 no availability of SDs, which could also not be converted from other available data in five trials,21 29 49 52 62 and the number of events or the power of one or both cohort(s) was too low to perform separate randomised and preference analyses in five trials 25 28 40 55 72. The trials covered a wide range of clinical areas and interventions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.ResultsIn total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).ConclusionsPatients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019094438.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sufficient support to the lumbar region would be effective method to relieve the waist fatigue [19]. What's more, to prevent the lower back pain, a special backrest with stimulating acupoints is also effective [20]. Due to the local comfort sensitivity, waist should receive discomfort if back and hips were asserted discomfort stimulus, which aggravates general discomfort feeling, explaining the reason why hips and backs can do a larger influence on whole-body comfort, which is well in line with the study by Kyung et al [21] reported that the whole-body discomfort level might be predominantly determined by the local parts of lower back discomfort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of partial-body and whole-body static sitting comfort

Xu¹,

Quan²,

Huang³

et al. 2017

J. vibroeng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The whole-body comfort sensation was moderately to highly correlated with local body part comfort sensation in both sitting and driving, in order to understand what exact relationship exists between them, the seating comfort evaluations under the stimulus of four body parts (i.e. backs, waist, hips and thighs) were carried out for 15 subjects separately, subjective ratings on both partial-body and whole-body comfort are derived under different conditions. Impact factor (IF) of the partial-body comfort to whole-body comfort is calculated by the linear regression method, and the main variables are obtained by the stepwise regression algorithm. The most significant local body part in influencing whole body comfort is found at the region of hips, followed by backs, waist and hips. With impact factor analysis on partial body comfort, the results show that the local comfort feeling of waist is most potential to be influenced by other body parts, while the comfort sensitivity of thighs is the lowest.

show abstract

“…The data collection tool was a two-part questionnaire which was completed in four phases: before, immediately after, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks after the intervention[ 20 ] by participants in both the groups. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic characteristics and the second part of the questionnaire was a visual analog scale (VAS).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of acupressure on pain severity in female nurses with chronic low back pain

Movahedi

Ghafari

Nazari

et al. 2017

Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of an acupressure backrest on pain and disability in office workers with chronic low back pain: A randomized, controlled study and patients’ preferences

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

Analysis of partial-body and whole-body static sitting comfort

The effects of acupressure on pain severity in female nurses with chronic low back pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About