《中国康复理论与实践》

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2019, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (8): 886-894.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2019.08.004

• 专题 • 上一篇    下一篇

肌内效贴对慢性非特异性腰痛疗效的Meta分析

眭有昕, 沈思捷, 朱悦, 王文秀, 白子荣, 王宇航, 吴云川, 王萌   

  1. 南京中医药大学第二临床医学院，江苏南京市 210023
  • 收稿日期:2019-04-15 修回日期:2019-05-08 出版日期:2019-08-25 发布日期:2019-08-16
  • 通讯作者: 王萌，E-mail: wm4212576@126.com
  • 作者简介:眭有昕(1998-)，女，汉族，江苏镇江市人，本科生。

Effect of Kinesio Taping on Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Meta-analysis

SUI You-xin, SHEN Si-jie, ZHU Yue, WANG Wen-xiu, BAI Zi-rong, WANG Yu-hang, WU Yun-chuan, WANG Meng   

  1. The Second Clinical Medical School, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
  • Received:2019-04-15 Revised:2019-05-08 Published:2019-08-25 Online:2019-08-16
  • Contact: WANG Meng, E-mail: wm4212576@126.com

PDF (PC)

摘要： 目的 系统评价肌内效贴对慢性非特异性腰痛的疗效。 方法 检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、Web of Science、CNKI、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、维普信息资源系统(VIP)、万方数据库从建库至2019年1月关于肌内效贴治疗慢性非特异性腰痛的随机对照试验(RCT)研究。根据Cochrane系统评价标准对纳入文献进行质量评估，提取相关数据，采用RevMan 5.3 软件进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入9项RCT研究，共计545例受试者。Meta分析结果显示，肌内效贴在改善疼痛方面优于无刺激组(MD = -0.76, 95%CI: -1.43~-0.08, P = 0.03)，可能优于假刺激组(MD = -1.10, 95%CI: -2.22~0.02, P = 0.05)；在改善功能障碍方面，肌内效贴组Oswestry功能障碍指数评分显著优于无刺激组(MD = -6.02, 95%CI: -8.63~-3.41, P < 0.001)和假刺激组(MD = -4.11, 95%CI: -5.82~-2.41, P < 0.001)；肌内效贴组Roland Morris功能障碍问卷表评分与无刺激组(MD = 0.69, 95%CI: -2.35~3.74, P = 0.66)和假刺激组(MD = -0.17, 95%CI: -1.43~1.08, P = 0.78)相比均无显著性差异。 结论 肌内效贴可以减轻慢性非特异性腰痛患者疼痛，并改善其功能障碍。

关键词: 非特异性腰痛, 慢性腰痛, 肌内效贴, Meta分析

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effect of Kinesio taping on chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP). Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and Wanfang Data were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCT) about the effect of Kinesio taping on CNLBP from establishment to January, 2019. The included studies were evaluated according to the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze the extracted data. Results Finally, nine RCTs involving 545 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the effect of Kinesio taping was significantly different in the improvement of pain compared with the non-stimulated group (MD = -0.76, 95%CI: -1.43 to -0.08, P = 0.03), the difference might be significant compared with the sham stimulation group (MD = -1.10, 95%CI: -2.22 to 0.02, P = 0.05); For improving dysfunction, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were better in the Kinesio taping group than in the non-stimulation group (MD = -6.02, 95%CI: -8.63 to -3.41, P < 0.001) and the sham stimulation group (MD = -4.11, 95%CI: -5.82 to -2.41, P < 0.001), however, their was no significant difference in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score between the Kinesio taping group and the non-stimulated group (MD = 0.69, 95%CI: -2.35 to 3.74, P = 0.66), and between the Kinesio taping group and the sham stimulation group (MD = -0.17, 95%CI: -1.43 to 1.08, P = 0.78). Conclusion For the patients with CNLBP, the intervention of Kinesio taping could alleviate pain and improve function.

Key words: nonspecific low back pain, chronic low back pain, Kinesio taping, Meta-analysis

中图分类号: