Acupuncture as an alternative or in addition to conventional treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Conventional therapies (CTs), pharmacological (PH) and non–pharmacological (NPH), do not always achieve benefits in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). We assessed efficacy and safety of acupuncture for CLBP as alternative or addition to CT. Methods: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture alone or in combination with CT to CT. We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase up to May 2022. We assessed risk of bias with the original Cochrane tool and GRADE certainty of evidence. Results were pooled through meta-analysis. Results: Ten RCTs (2122 participants) were included comparing acupuncture versus CT and 6 (374 participants) comparing acupuncture plus CT to CT alone. Comparing acupuncture with NPH or PH, no differences were found for pain and disability. Comparing with combined PH and NPH, pain and disability were reduced (SMD=-0.50, 95%CI-0.62 to -0.37; SMD=-0.71, 95%CI-1.17 to -0.24). Comparing acupuncture plus NPH with NPH alone, pain and disability were reduced (SMD=-0.70, 95%CI-0.94 to -0.46; SMD=-0.95, 95%CI-1.36 to -0.54). Comparing acupuncture plus PH with PH alone, pain and disability were reduced (MD=-0.21,8 95%CI-433.28 to -10.42; MD=-3.1, 95%CI-4.87 to -1.83). Comparing acupuncture plus combined treatment versus combined treatment alone, no differences were found in pain, while disability was reduced (MD=-3.40 95%CI-5.17 to -1.63). No studies assessed adverse event. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Conclusion: We are uncertain whether acupuncture is more effective and safer than CT. In the comparisons without estimates’ imprecision, acupuncture showed promising results. Acupuncture could be an option based on patients’ preferences.