ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Evaluation of Tuina Combined with Medicated Oil in Non-Specific Low Back Pain Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Efficacy Evaluation of Tuina Combined Medicated Oil in the Treatment of Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Trial
- Therapeutic effect of modified meridian-guided acupoint pressing on lumbar facet joint osteoarthritis: an integrated microbiomics and metabolomics analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) causes functional impairments and reduced quality of life. Evidence for non-pharmacological approaches, such as Tuina and Flying Eagle Wood Lok Medicated Oil (TNO), remains limited. This study compares the efficacy of TNO and Tuina with water (TNW). Patients and Methods: This single-center, open-label, evaluator-blinded randomized controlled trial (June 2023 - June 2025) was conducted at Shanghai Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine with 100 participants aged 20-59 years, diagnosed with NSLBP based on the North American Spine Society criteria. The Ethics Committee (2023SHL-KY-96-01) approves the study, and assessors are blinded to group assignments for objective evaluations. All participants provided informed consent and completed the study. The trial group received TNO treatment thrice weekly for 4 weeks, with 20-minute follow-up sessions, compared to TNW. The primary outcome was the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, with secondary outcomes (JOA scores, Infrared Thermography, muscle tension, and tenderness scores). Adverse reactions were recorded for safety assessment. Results: This trial recruited 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [5.2] years; 57 [57%] female) who were randomized into two groups. One hundred percent of patients completed all outcome measurements. The mean difference in VAS scores from baseline at week 8 for the TNO group was -4.48 (95% CI, -4.89 to -4.07). At week 8, the difference in JOA scores for the TNO groups was 10.8 (95% CI, 10.12 to 11.48; P <0.001). The effectiveness remained at the follow-up. LC-MS analysis identified 621 compounds (Negative: 258, Positive: 363). Conclusion: This study found that TNO was more effective than Tuina alone, with improved pain, muscle tension, tenderness, and thermal imaging at 8 weeks. Thus, this combination should be considered for the treatment of non-specific low back pain. The short follow-up period (8 weeks), the single-center design, and the absence of a placebo oil group are significant limitations that may restrict generalizability. Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: : ChiCTR2300076144.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.