4.7 Article

A Treatment Trial of Acupuncture in IBS Patients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 6, Pages 1489-1497

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.156

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [1 R21 AT 002564, R21 AT002860-02, 1K24 AT 004095, K24 AT004095, R01 AT001414, R21 AT002860, 1R21 AT 002860-01, 1R01 AT 001414-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR001032, RR 01032] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the effects of true and sham acupuncture in relieving symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: A total of 230 adult IBS patients (75% females, average age: 38.4 years) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of true or sham acupuncture (6 treatments) after a 3-week run-in with sham acupuncture in an augmented or limited patient-practitioner interaction. A third arm of the study included a waitlist control group. The primary outcome was the IBS Global Improvement Scale (IBS-GIS) (range: 1-7); secondary outcomes included the IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS), the IBS Adequate Relief (IBS-AR), and the IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QOL). RESULTS: Although there was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture on the IBS-GIS (41 vs. 32%, P=0.25), both groups improved significantly compared with the waitlist control group (37 vs. 4%, P=0.001). Similarly, small differences that were not statistically significant favored acupuncture over the other three outcomes: IBS-AR (59 vs. 57%, P=0.83), IBS-SSS (31 vs. 21%, P=0.18), and IBS-QOL (17 vs. 13%, P=0.56). Eliminating responders during the run-in period did not substantively change the results. Side effects were generally mild and only slightly greater in the acupuncture group. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find evidence to support the superiority of acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture in the treatment of IBS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available