![]() |
![]() |
J Acupunct Res > Volume 36(3); 2019 > Article |
|
Author (y) | Treatment group gender and mean age (y) | Intervention | Treatment frequency | Evaluation index | Result | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control group gender and age | Treatment | Control | Treatment period | |||
Li (2018) [12] | M = 14, F = 26, 11.68 ± 1.69 (mean) | A: chiropractic manipulation + exercise + psychological counseling (n = 37) | B: Milwaukee brace (n = 35) | 2/wk | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A:21.85 ± 2.97 → 10.83 ± 2.69* | ||||||
M = 12, F = 28 12.23 ± 2.07 (mean) | 12 mo | AEMG | B:22.53 ± 3.19 → 9.73 ± 2.42* | |||
SDS | AEMG ratio increased*‡ | |||||
SAS | SDS score decreased*‡ | |||||
SAS score decreased*‡ | ||||||
Luo (2018) [13] | M = 14, F = 23, 12.68 ± 1.53 (mean) | A: chiropractic manipulation + traction + exercise (n = 37) | B: exercise (n = 39) | 3/wk | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 18.43 ± 6.50 → 14.49 ± 6.56*‡ | ||||||
M = 14, F = 25 12.18 ± 1.59 (mean) | 3 mo | B: 20.87 ± 9.69 → 18.51 ± 9.54* | ||||
Chen (2018) [14] | unknown (adolescent) | A: chiropractic manipulation (n = 40) | B: customized brace (n = 36) | Unknown | Cobb’s angle-total effective rate | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 29.35 ± 5.23 → 9.15 ± 6.35‡ | ||||||
B: 28.32 ± 6.02 → 18.32 ± 5.45 | ||||||
Cured (case) A: 11 (45.0%)/B: 8 (22.2%) | ||||||
Markedly effective (case) A: 18 (45.0%)/B: 8 (22.2%) | ||||||
Effective (case) A: 9 (22.5%)/B: 16 (44.4%) | ||||||
6 mo | VAS | Invalid (case) A: 2 (5.0%)/B: 7 (19.4%) | ||||
Total effective rate (%) A: 95.0/B: 80.5 | ||||||
VAS decreased | ||||||
A: 6.23 ± 1.21 → 1.56 ± 0.78‡ | ||||||
B: 6.14 ± 1.96 → 4.12 ± 1.02 | ||||||
Wang (2017) [15] | Unknown (adolescent) | A: spinal manipulation (n = 51) | B: traction (n = 51) | Unknown | Cobb’s angle-total effective rate | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 25.30 ± 1.08 → 14.29 ± 1.38‡ | ||||||
10 times*3 courses | B: 25.34 ± 1.04 → 20.37 ± 1.42 | |||||
Total effective rate (%) A: 96.08‡, B: 68.68 | ||||||
Li (2017) [16] | M = 13, F = 27, 10~18 | A: chiropractic manipulation + traction + brace (n = 36) | B: Boston brace (n = 38) | 2-3 times/wk | Cobb’s angle -total effective rate | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 23.5 ± 7.4 → 10.5 ± 6.3‡ | ||||||
B: 23.5 ± 7.9 → 14.4 ± 6.8 | ||||||
Cured (case) A: 12 (33.3%)‡, B: 4 (10.5%) | ||||||
Markedly effective (case) A: 10 (27.8%)‡, B: 7 (18.4%) | ||||||
Effective (case) A: 12 (33.3%), B: 18 (47.4%) | ||||||
M = 12, F = 28, 10~18 | 3 mo | VAS | Invalid (case) A :2 (5.6%)‡, B: 9 (23.7%) | |||
Total effective rate (%) A: 94.4, B: 76.3 | ||||||
VAS decreased | ||||||
A:3.0 ± 1.2 → 0.7 ± 0.8*,‡ | ||||||
B:3.1 ± 1.2 → 1.4 ± 1.0* | ||||||
Du (2016) [17] | M = 22, F = 43 9.3 ± 4 (mean) | A: spinal manipulation + exercise + acupotomology (n = 65) | B: Milwaukee brace (n = 58) | 3/wk | VC, FEV1/FVC, MVV, AEMG ratio of the sEMG | Pulmonary function A: improved*, B: decreased* |
VC (ml/kg) A: 89.3 ± 8.9 → 94.1 ± 9.8*,‡ | ||||||
B: 90.5 ± 9.9 → 85.2 ± 8.4* | ||||||
FEV1/FVC A: 87.2 ± 7.4 → 95.7 ± 7.7*,‡ | ||||||
M = 18, F = 40 8.9 ± 0.5 (mean) | 12 mo | B: 89.0 ± 8.1 → 82.1 ± 6.6* | ||||
MVV (L/min) A: 68.5 ± 8.9 → 77.4 ± 10.2*,‡ | ||||||
B: 71.7 ± 9.8 → 66.3 ± 8.2* | ||||||
AEMG ratio of the sEMG reduced†, and tended to remain at 1 after stopping treatment, adverse in control group* | ||||||
Wei (2015) [18] | M = 18, F = 40 9.1 ± 0.4 (mean) | A: spinal manipulation + exercise + acupotomology (n = 58) | B: Milwaukee brace (n = 49) | 2/wk | Cobb’s angle, VC, FEV1/FVC, MVV, AEMG ratio of the sEMG | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 30.4 ± 3.7 → 10.2 ± 2.2 (12 mo)* → 12.0 ± 2.5 (24 mo)‡ | ||||||
B: 31.5 ± 3.2 → 9.0 ± 2.0 (12 mo)* → 7.9 ± 0.8 (24 mo) | ||||||
Percentages of original Cobb angle (%) | ||||||
A: 51.4 (12 mo)a → 62.5 (24 mo)‡ | ||||||
B: 47.8 (12 mo) → 34.7 (24 mo) | ||||||
Pulmonary function A: improved* B: decreased* | ||||||
M = 10, F = 39 8.9 ± 0.6 (mean) | 12 mo | VC (ml/kg) A: 90 ± 9 → 93 ± 10*,‡ | ||||
B: 90 ± 9 → 87 ± 8* | ||||||
FEV1/FVC A: 89 ± 7 → 93 ± 7*,‡ | ||||||
B: 90 ± 7 → 88 ± 6* | ||||||
MVV (L/min) A: 73 ± 10 → 76 ± 11*,‡ | ||||||
B: 72 ± 10 → 69 ± 8* | ||||||
AEMG ratio of the sEMG reduced†, and tended to remain at 1 after stopping treatment, B: adverse* | ||||||
Sun (2015) [19] | M = 5, F = 4 14.5 (mean) | A: chiropractic manipulation + exercise (n = 9) | B: muscle strength training (n = 9) | 1-2 times/wk | RMDQ, VAS, lumbar ROM, torso muscle strength | RMDQ A: 7.21 ± 5.46 → 2.17 ± 3.81* |
B: 9.43 ± 3.10 → 9.65 ± 2.74 | ||||||
VAS A: 5.00 ± 2.21 → 1.50 ± 0.85* | ||||||
M = 5, F = 4 13.9 (mean) | 12 wks | B: 5.74 ± 1.21 → 5.11 ± 1.98 | ||||
Waist mobility (ROM) increased* | ||||||
Torso muscle strength increased* | ||||||
Ren (2014) [20] | M = 33, F = 47 12.38 (mean) | A: chiropractic manipulation (n = 25) | B: therapeutic exercise (n = 30) | 1/2d | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 22.21 ± 6.76 → 20.15 ± 7.75 (p = 0.0325) | ||||||
2 mo*5 courses | B: 21.54 ± 6.70 → 17.00 ± 8.00 (p = 0.031) | |||||
C: CTLSO brace (n = 25) | C: 23.04 ± 5.94 → 11.86 ± 5.07 (p = 0.000) | |||||
A < B‡, B < C§, A < C§ | ||||||
Wei (2014) [21] | M = 17, F = 36 9.12 ± 0.43 (mean) | A: spinal manipulation (25 min) + exercise (40 min) + acupotomology (n = 53) | B: Milwaukee brace (n = 31) | 2/wk | Cobb’s angle correction rate, VC, FEV1/FVC, MVV, AEMG ratio of the sEMG | Cobb's angle (°) |
A: 20.43 ± 3.78 → 10.23 ± 2.19* | ||||||
B: 21.56 ± 3.06 → 9.05 ± 1.95* | ||||||
Correction rate A: 52%|| / B: 47% | ||||||
VC (ml/kg) A: 90.21 ± 9.87 → 93.01 ± 10.01*,§ | ||||||
B: 90.31 ± 9.90 → 87.17 ± 8.89* | ||||||
FEV1/FVC A: 89.11 ± 7.25 → 93.01 ± 10.01*,§ | ||||||
B: 90.03 ± 7.55 → 88.22 ± 6.95* | ||||||
MVV (L/min) A: 73.21 ± 10.58 → 76.37 ± 11.28*,§ | ||||||
B: 72.98 ± 10.11 → 69.88 ± 8.95* | ||||||
M = 11, F = 20 8.97 ± 0.52 (mean) | 12 mo | AEMG ratio of sEMG | ||||
A: 1.58 ± 0.25 → 1.10 ± 0.17†,§ | ||||||
B: 1.49 ± 0.30 → 1.62 ± 0.47* | ||||||
Wang (2014) [22] | Gender unknown (adolescent) | A chiropractic manipulation + soft tissue therapy (n = 50) | B: traction (n = 50) | 1/d | Cobb’s angle total effective rate, cure rate (= the rate of recovery) | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 22.38 ± 7.97 → 13.69 ± 5.51‡ | ||||||
B: 22.97 ± 8.01 → 18.19 ± 6.84 | ||||||
Cured (case) A:17, B:12 | ||||||
Effective (case) A:32, B:32 | ||||||
Invalid (case) A:1, B:6 | ||||||
1 wk*5 courses | Total effective rate (%) A:94.2, B:88.0, A > B‡ | |||||
Cure rate (%) A: 34.0, B: 24.0, A > B‡ | ||||||
Qian (2007) [23] | M = 47, F = 43 8.73 ± 0.56 (mean) | A: spinal manipulation (40 min) + soft tissue therapy (20min) (n = 90) | B: observed (n = 30) | 1/d | Cobb’s angle, cure rate (= the rate of recovery) | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 17.86 ± 2.84|| → 11.11 ± 4.97† | ||||||
B: 16.89 ± 2.94 → 15.64 ± 4.07 | ||||||
Cured (case) A: 22, B: 2 | ||||||
Effective (case) A: 55, B: 5 | ||||||
M = 18, F = 12 8.60 ± 0.56 (mean) | 10 times*1course | Invalid (case) A: 13, B: 23 | ||||
Total effective rate (%) A: 85.56, B: 23.33, A > B§ | ||||||
Cure rate (%) A: 24.44, B: 6.67, A > B§ | ||||||
Shen (2016) [24] | A: spinal manipulation + exercise + acupotomy (n = 58) | B: Milwaukee brace (n = 49) | 2/wk | Cobb’s angle correction rate, VC, FEV1/FVC, MVV, AEMG ratio of the sEMG | Cobb’s angle (°) | |
M = 18, F = 40 9.10 ± 0.44 (mean) | A: 20.32 ± 3.76 → 10.23 ± 2.19 (12 mo)*,a → 12.05 ± | |||||
2.48 (24 mo) | ||||||
B: 21.43 ± 3.58 → 9.05 ± 1.95 (12 mo)* → 7.92 ± 0.85 (24 mo) | ||||||
12 mo | Correction rate | |||||
A: 51.4% (12 mo)|| → 62.5% (24 mo)* | ||||||
M = 10, F = 39 8.92 ± 0.51 (mean) | B: 47.8% (12 mo) → 34.7% (24 mo)* | |||||
Pulmonary function (VC, FEV1/FVC, MVV) | ||||||
A: increased*, B: decreased* | ||||||
AEMG A: reduced†, tended to remain at 1 after stopping treatment, B: adverse* | ||||||
Rowe (2006) [25] | A: F(16), F(13) | A: chiropractic manipulation + soft tissue therapy (n = 2) | B: sham manipulation (n = 1) | 3 (1st mo) → 2 (2nd) → 3 (3-4th) → 2 (5-6th) treatments/wk | SQLI | A: 1 patient reported a clinically important improvement in the moods and feelings |
B: F(16) | ||||||
C: F(13), M(16), F(10) | C: observed (n = 3) | B: no clinically important changes | ||||
14 (mean) | 6 mo | C: 1 patient expressed a clinically important deterioration |
Compared with the results before treatment in the same group, *p < 0.05; †p < 0.01; Compared to the control group, ‡p < 0.05; §p < 0.01; ||p > 0.05.
AEMG, average electromyogram; FEV1/FVC, the % of forced expiratory volume in 1 second of forced vital capacity; MVV, maximum ventilator volume; RMDQ, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; ROM, range of movement; SAS, self-rating anxiety scale; SDS, self-rating depression scale; sEMG, surface electromyogram; SQLI, Scoliosis Quality of Life Index; VC, vital capacity.
Author (y) | Gender and age (y) | Intervention | Treatment frequency | Evaluation index | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment period | |||||
Zhang (2017) [26] | M = 8, F = 22, 13.37 ± 4.11 (mean) | Spinal manipulation + exercise (n = 30) | Unknown | Cobb’s angle-total effective rate | Cobb’s angle (°) 16.73 ± 8.23 → 10.73±4.41* |
Cure 3 cases (10.00%) | |||||
Effective 22 cases (73.33%) | |||||
20 times | Invalid 5 cases (16.67%) | ||||
Total effective rate 25 cases (83.33%) | |||||
total effective rate 25 cases (83.33%) | |||||
Zhang (2016) [27] | M = 19, F = 29, 10~20, 16 (median) | Chiropractic manipulation + traction + Chinese medicine fumigation | 1/d | Cobb’s angle VAS score ODI score | Cobb’s angle (°) 30.15 ± 4.16 → 12.10 ± 3.64† |
VAS decreased† 4.85 ± 0.16 → 2.15 ± 0.10 | |||||
2 mo | ODI decreased† 33.33 ± 5.17→ 17.79 ± 2.35 | ||||
Chen (2013) [28] | M = 11, F = 27, 14.5 (mean) | Soft tissue therapy + traction + chiropractic manipulation (n = 38) | Unknown | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) 11-20 (27 cases), 21-30 (11 cases) |
Cure 15 cases, markedly Effective 9 cases | |||||
8 wks | Effective 8 cases, invalid 6 cases | ||||
Wu (2008) [29] | M = 13, F = 19, 11.98 ± 1.92 (mean) | Chiropractic manipulation (Banfa) + soft tissue therapy + acupuncture (n = 32) | 1/2d | Cobb’s angle-total effective rate | Cobb’s angle (°) 20.00 ± 7.91 → 8.81 ± 8.14† |
Cure 15 (46.87%), effective 12 (37.50%), invalid 5 (15.63%) | |||||
3 mo | Total effective rate = 84.38% (15 cases clinically cured) | ||||
Pu Chu (2017) [30] | F(12) | Chiropractic manipulation (n = 1) | 3 (1-2nd mo) > 2 (3-6th) times a wk | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) 26 → 6 (thoracic) (23%) |
23 → 16 (lumbar) (30%) | |||||
Dovorany (2015) [31] | A: F = 13 | Chiropractic rehabilitation | 5 d/wk for the first 2 wks > 3 times daily for the rest | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) |
B: F = 13 (n = 2, identical twin girls) | A: 47 → 19 (2 wks) → 22 (24 mo) (TL-L2) | ||||
24 mo | B: 37 → 16 (2 wks) → 26 (24 mo) (T11-L4) | ||||
Chen (2008) [32] | F(15) | Chiropractic manipulation + Milwaukee brace (n = 1) | 2/wk, Frequency gradually decreased | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) 46 → 16 (T7-L1) |
18 mo | |||||
Byun (2016) [33] | M = 4, F = 1 | Chiropractic manipulation + soft tissue therapy (n = 5) | 3/wk | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) |
11.8 ± 1.3 (mean) | 8 wks | 11.2 ± 1.3 → 2.4 ± 3.4 (after 4 wks) → 1.0 ± 2.2 (after 8 wks) | |||
Park (2013) [34] | A: F(13) | Chuna manipulation + foot orthosis (n = 4) | Unknown | Cobb’s angle, difference of pelvic height, difference of balance | Cobb’s angle (°) |
Each 8, 17, 16, 5 times | A: 37 → 32 (thoracic), 25 → 25 (lumbar), B: 11 → 7 (thoracic) | ||||
B: M(14) | C: 23 → 18 (thoracic), 18 → 13 (lumbar), D: 13 → 5 (thoracic) | ||||
C: F(8) | Difference of pelvic height(mm) A: 5 → 3, B: 8 → 6, C: 8 → 4, D: 3 → 8 | ||||
D: M(8) | Difference of balance (%) | ||||
A: 6.8 → 4.2, B: 4.4 → none, C: 10.6 → 3.6, D: 6.8 → 5 | |||||
Jo (2013) [35] | A: F(15) | Chuna manipulation + soft tissue therapy + acupuncture, cupping, physical therapy + brace (in 2 cases) (n = 3) | 1/wk | Cobb’s angle (correction ratio), VAS | Cobb’s angle (°) |
B: F(16) | 3 mo | A: 19.22 → 12.85 (33.14%), B: 24.57 → 21.03 (14.40%), | |||
C: F(17) | C: 30.14 → 24.31 (19.34%) | ||||
VAS A: 6 → 5 → 2, B: 2 → 3 → 1, C: 2 → 2 → 1 | |||||
Jang (2014) [36] | A: F(17) | Chuna manipulation + acupuncture, bee venom, cupping, physical therapy + exercise (n = 2) | A: 10 sessions | Cobb’s angle, VNRS score | Cobb’s angle (°) |
B: 12 sessions | A:27 → 23 (thoracic), 17 → 10 (lumbar) | ||||
B: F(15) | 1 mo | B:30 → 21 (thoracic), 16 → 16 (lumbar) | |||
VNRS A: 6 → 2, B: 6 → 3 | |||||
Lee (2017) [37] | A: M(12) | MET + acupuncture (n = 2) | 1/wk | Cobb’s angle (Correctability) | Cobb’s angle (°) |
A: 15 sessions | A: 12.7 → 3.7 (69.16%) (thoracic), 11.4 → 2.3 (79.82%) (lumbar) | ||||
B: F(27) | B: 20 sessions | B: 12.0 → 8.6 (33.0%) (thoracic), 17.0 → 10.3 (39.41%) (lumbar) | |||
3 mo | |||||
Lee (2012) [38] | A: F(13) | Chuna manipulation + soft tissue therapy + acupuncture, cupping, physical therapy (n = 4) | 1/wk | Cobb’s angle (correctability), VAS score | Cobb’s angle (°) |
B: F(24) | A: 36.37 → 34.43 (5.33%), B: 18.53 → 17.92 (3.29%) | ||||
C: F(21) | 3 mo | C: 41.92 → 35.59 (15.10%), D: 15.85 → 13.15 (17.03%) | |||
D: M(16) | VAS (1st, 2nd, 3rd mo) | ||||
A: 8 → 5 → 3, B: 10 → 5 → 2, C: 5 → 7 → 3, D: 5 → 4 → 4 | |||||
Hong (2010) [39] | A: F(13) | Chuna manipulation + acupuncture (n = 2) | A: 17 sessions | Cobb’s angle (correctability), VAS score | Cobb’s angle (°) |
B: 13 sessions | A: 19 → 10.6 (44.2%), B: 11.3 → 7 (38.0%) | ||||
B: F(14) | A: 2.5 mo | VAS A: 5 → 1-2, B: 7 → 1-2 | |||
B: 1 mo | |||||
Cho (2009) [40] | F(7) | Chuna manipulation (n = 1) | 1-2/wk | Cobb’s angle, Ilium shadow measurement, BMI | Cobb’s angle (°) 15 → 1 (lumbar), 20 → 5 (thoracic) |
19 sessions | Ferguson's angle (°) 28 → 33 | ||||
Ilium shadow measurement (cm) Lt 5.0 → 5.2/Rt 5.8 → 6.3 | |||||
3 mo | BMI (kg/m2) 19.3 → 17.2 | ||||
Lee (2007) [41] | Chuna manipulation (cervical) + FCST, SOT + acupuncture (n = 3) | A: 21 sessions | Cobb’s angle (correctability), VAS score | Cobb’s angle (°) A: 49 → 35 (29%), B: 15 → 4 (73%), C: 59 → 39 (34%) | |
B: 15 sessions | |||||
A: F(15) | C: 27 sessions | ||||
B: F(15) | A: 3 mo | VAS A: no change, B: unknown → 1, C: unknown → 0-3 | |||
C: M(16) | B: 3 mo | ||||
C: 5 mo | |||||
Kim (2004) [42] | F(13) | Chuna manipulation + Milwaukee brace (n = 1) | 1/wk | Cobb’s angle | Cobb’s angle (°) |
15 wks | 12 → 9 (cervicothoracic), 20 → 17 (thoracic), 33 → 25 (lumbar) | ||||
Kang (2006) [43] | F(12) | Chuna manipulation + acupuncture (n = 1) | 1/wk | Cobb’s angle (correctability), VAS score | Cobb’s angle (°) 23 → 15 (34.7%) (thoracic), 25 → 10 (60.0%) (lumbar) |
12 wks | VAS 2 → 0 | ||||
Villafañe (2012) [44] | F(9) | Deep tissue massage, spinal manipulation + exercise + physiotherapy treatment (n = 1) | 1/wk | Cobb’s angle (improvement), SRS-22, BSSQ-br, BrQ | Cobb’s angle (°) |
18 → 7 (55%) (thoracic), 24 → 11 (54%) (thoracolumbar) after 6 mo, 11 (thoracic), 11 (thoracolumbar) | |||||
36 wks | SRS-22 :105, BSSQ-br: 27, BrQ: 141 | ||||
Woggon (2013) [45] | 12 females (adolescent) | Chiropractic manipulation (n = 12) | Unknown | Cobb’s angle | Changes over 8° Cobb’s angle: 9 cases (thoracic), 10 cases (lumbar) |
2 wks |
Compared with the results before treatment, *p < 0.05; †p < 0.01.
BSSQ-br, Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire; BrQ, Brace Questionnaire; FCST, Functional Cerebrospinal Technique; MET, muscle energy technique; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; SOT, Sacro-occipital Technique; SRS-22, Scoliosis Research Society 22; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale.
Search | Query | Items found |
---|---|---|
#1 | Search (ALL: Chuna <OR> ALL: Tuina <OR> ALL: chiropractic) (ALL: scoliosis) | 88 |
#2 | Search (ALL: manipulation <AND> ALL: scoliosis) | 27 |
#3 | #1 OR #2 | 115 |
A Literature Review of the Microneedle Therapy System for Hair Loss2020 November;37(4)
Systematic Review of Fire Needling or Warm Needling Treatment for Ankle Sprain2020 February;37(1)
A Systematic Review of Acupuncture for Tennis Elbow2019 November;36(4)
Systematic Review of Acupuncture Treatment for Mild Cognitive Impairment2019 May;36(2)
Systematic Review of Chuna Manipulative Treatment for Ankle Sprain2018 May;35(2)
![]() |
![]() |