Abstract:Chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is very common; it is defined as pain without a recognizable etiology that lasts for more than three months. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest that acupuncture can offer an effective alternative therapy. This review is a split from an earlier Cochrane review and it focuses on chronic LBP. To assess the effects of acupuncture compared to sham intervention, no treatment, or usual care for chronic nonspecific LBP. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two Chinese databases, and two trial registers to 29 August 2019 without restrictions on language or publication status. We also screened reference lists and LBP guidelines to identify potentially relevant studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic nonspecific LBP in adults. We excluded RCTs that investigated LBP with a specific etiology. We included trials comparing acupuncture with sham intervention, no treatment, and usual care. The primary outcomes were pain, back‐specific functional status, and quality of life; the secondary outcomes were pain‐related disability, global assessment, or adverse events. Two review authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. We meta‐analyzed data that were clinically homogeneous using a random‐effects model in Review Manager 5.3. Otherwise, we reported the data qualitatively. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 33 studies (37 articles) with 8270 participants. The majority of studies were carried out in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Seven studies (5572 participants) conducted in Germany accounted for 67% of the participants. Sixteen trials compared acupuncture with sham intervention, usual care, or no treatment. Most studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the acupuncturist. A few studies were found to have high risk of detection, attrition, reporting or selection bias. We found low‐certainty evidence (seven trials, 1403 participants) that acupuncture may relieve pain in the immediate term (up to seven days) compared to sham intervention (mean difference (MD) ‐9.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐13.82 to ‐4.61, visual analogue scale (VAS) 0‐100). The difference did not meet the clinically important threshold of 15 points or 30% relative change. Very low‐certainty evidence from five trials (1481 participants) showed that acupuncture was not more effective than sham in improving back‐specific function in the immediate term (standardized mean difference (SMD) ‐0.16, 95% CI ‐0.38 to 0.06; corresponding to the Hannover Function Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ, 0 to 100, higher values better) change (MD 3.33 points; 95% CI ‐1.25 to 7.90)). Three trials (1068 participants) yielded low‐certainty evidence that acupuncture seemed not to be more effective clinically in the short term for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45; corresponding to the physical 12‐item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐12, 0‐100, higher values better) change (MD 2.33 points; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.37)). The reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence to either low to very low were risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We found moderate‐certainty evidence that acupuncture produced greater and clinically important pain relief (MD ‐20.32, 95% CI ‐24.50 to ‐16.14; four trials, 366 participants; (VAS, 0 to 100), and improved back function (SMD ‐0.53, 95% CI ‐0.73 to ‐0.34; five trials, 2960 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 11.50 points; 95% CI 7.38 to 15.84)) in the immediate term compared to no treatment. The evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. No studies reported on quality of life in the short term or adverse events. Low‐certainty evidence (five trials, 1054 participants) suggested that acupuncture may reduce pain (MD ‐10.26, 95% CI ‐17.11 to ‐3.40; not clinically important on 0 to 100 VAS), and improve back‐specific function immediately after treatment (SMD: ‐0.47; 95% CI: ‐0.77 to ‐0.17; five trials, 1381 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 9.78 points, 95% CI 3.54 to 16.02)) compared to usual care. Moderate‐certainty evidence from one trial (731 participants) found that acupuncture was more effective in improving physical quality of life (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58) but not mental quality of life in the short term (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.55). The certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate to low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Low‐certainty evidence suggested a similar incidence of adverse events immediately after treatment in the acupuncture and sham intervention groups (four trials, 465 participants) (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01), and the acupuncture and usual care groups (one trial, 74 participants) (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.36 to 30.68). The certainty of the evidence -Abstract Truncated-

Evidence for Dry Needling in the Management of Myofascial Trigger Points Associated With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Is Dry Needling Effective When Combined with Other Therapies for Myofascial Trigger Points Associated with Neck Pain Symptoms? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dry needling: a literature review with implications for clinical practice guidelines

Therapeutic effects of dry needling on lateral epicondylitis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness of dry needling for improving pain and disability in adults with tension-type, cervicogenic, or migraine headaches: protocol for a systematic review

Electrical dry needling versus conventional physiotherapy in the treatment of active and latent myofascial trigger points in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain

Dry needling techniques as a treatment for improving disability and pain in patients with different types of headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dry Needling on Latent and Active Myofascial Trigger Points Versus Oral Diclofenac in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Optimal Acupuncture Methods for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Short-term effect of acupuncture dry needle in treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparison of the effects of dry needling and spinal manipulative therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy alone on functional disability and endurance in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: An experimental study

Dry Needling with the Use of FRSc Technique in Addition to Standard Rehabilitation Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Both PROMs and Measurement Tools

Acupuncture therapy on myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acupuncture for Lumbar Myofascial Pain Protocol for a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Dry needling versus Manual Therapy in patients with Mechanical Neck Pain: A Randomized Control Trial

Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain.

The efficacy of silver needle therapy for treating low back pain: a protocol for meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Acupressure on Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A Review of the Evidence for the Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost of Acupuncture, Massage Therapy, and Spinal Manipulation for Back Pain

Dry Needling in Overhead Athletes with Myofascial Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review

Superficial dry needling and active stretching in the treatment of myofascial pain--a randomised controlled trial