The American journal of medicine · 2008
Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Shaun Wen Huey, Liong Men Long, Yuen Kah Hay, Leong Wing Seng, Chee Christopher, Cheah Phaik Yeong, Choong Weng Pho, Wu Yue, Khan Nurzalina, Choong Wooi Long, Yap Hin Wai, Krieger John N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) afflicts 2%-10% of adult men. Available therapies offer little or no proven benefit. Because acupuncture represents an attractive "natural" therapy, we compared the efficacy of acupuncture to sham acupuncture for CP/CPPS.
METHODS: Participants met US National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria for CP/CPPS, were aged > or = 20 years old, and had a total score > or = 15 on the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and symptoms for at least 3 of the preceding 6 months. They were randomized 1:1 to acupuncture or sham acupuncture. Treatment consisted of twice-weekly 30-minute sessions for 10 weeks (20 sessions total) without needle stimulation, herbs, or adjuvants. The primary response criterion was a 6-point decrease from baseline to week 10 in NIH-CPSI total score (range 0-43).
RESULTS: Thirty-two (73%) of 44 participants responded in the acupuncture group compared with 21 (47%) of 45 sham group participants (relative risk 1.81, 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.1, P = .02). Long-term responses 24 weeks after completing therapy without additional treatment occurred in 14 (32%) of 44 acupuncture group participants and in 6 (13%) of 45 sham group participants (relative risk 2.39, 95% confidence interval, 1.0-5.6, P = .04).
CONCLUSIONS: After 10 weeks of treatment, acupuncture proved almost twice as likely as sham treatment to improve CP/CPPS symptoms. Participants receiving acupuncture were 2.4-fold more likely to experience long-term benefit than were participants receiving sham acupuncture.
METHODS: Participants met US National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria for CP/CPPS, were aged > or = 20 years old, and had a total score > or = 15 on the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and symptoms for at least 3 of the preceding 6 months. They were randomized 1:1 to acupuncture or sham acupuncture. Treatment consisted of twice-weekly 30-minute sessions for 10 weeks (20 sessions total) without needle stimulation, herbs, or adjuvants. The primary response criterion was a 6-point decrease from baseline to week 10 in NIH-CPSI total score (range 0-43).
RESULTS: Thirty-two (73%) of 44 participants responded in the acupuncture group compared with 21 (47%) of 45 sham group participants (relative risk 1.81, 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.1, P = .02). Long-term responses 24 weeks after completing therapy without additional treatment occurred in 14 (32%) of 44 acupuncture group participants and in 6 (13%) of 45 sham group participants (relative risk 2.39, 95% confidence interval, 1.0-5.6, P = .04).
CONCLUSIONS: After 10 weeks of treatment, acupuncture proved almost twice as likely as sham treatment to improve CP/CPPS symptoms. Participants receiving acupuncture were 2.4-fold more likely to experience long-term benefit than were participants receiving sham acupuncture.