Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for functional constipation: a randomised, sham-controlled pilot trial

Lee, Hye-Yoon; Kwon, Oh-Jin; Kim, Jung-Eun; Kim, Mikyeong; Kim, Ae-Ran; Park, Hyo-Ju; Cho, Jung-Hyo; Kim, Joo-Hee; Choi, Sun-Mi

doi:10.1186/s12906-018-2243-4

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

Table 2 Effects of treatment with RA and SA by all participants, subgroup A, and subgroup B

From: Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for functional constipation: a randomised, sham-controlled pilot trial

			Baseline	Post-treatment^a	Mean change	MD (95% CI), Hedge’s g	Follow-up^b	Mean change	MD (95% CI), Hedge’s g
DF (freq/wk)	Total	RA (n = 14)	5.86 ± 5.62	5.43 ± 3.39	−0.43 ± 4.09	−1.70 (− 3.94, 0.55),	5.79 ± 3.64	− 0.07 ± 4.16	−1.74 (− 4.13, 0.66),
	Total	SA (n = 15)	3.73 ± 1.62	5.00 ± 1.77	1.27 ± 1.10	0.56	5.40 ± 1.96	1.67 ± 1.72	0.53
	Subgroup A	RA (n = 5)	7.60 ± 9.40	6.60 ± 4.34	−1.00 ± 5.66	−1.75 (− 8.61, 5.11),	7.80 ± 4.66	0.20 ± 5.76	−0.30 (−7.34, 6.74),
	Subgroup A	SA (n = 4)	4.00 ± 2.71	4.75 ± 2.36	0.75 ± 0.96	0.36	4.50 ± 1.73	0.50 ± 1.29	0.06
	Subgroup B	RA (n = 9)	7.00 ± 6.80	5.89 ± 3.86	−1.11 ± 4.94	−2.86 (−6.67, 0.94)	6.67 ± 4.09	−0.33 ± 5.12	−2.58 (− 6.70, 1.54),
	Subgroup B	SA (n = 8)	3.25 ± 0.71	5.00 ± 1.51	1.75 ± 1.04	0.74	5.50 ± 2.27	2.25 ± 1.98	0.62
SCBM (freq/wk)	Total	RA (n = 14)	0.71 ± 1.20	3.21 ± 3.83	2.50 ± 3.86	0.17 (−2.37, 2.70),	3.43 ± 4.05	2.71 ± 4.01	0.78 (−1.67, 3.24),
	Total	SA (n = 15)	1.13 ± 1.51	3.47 ± 2.45	2.33 ± 2.74	0.05	3.07 ± 2.19	1.93 ± 2.25	0.23
	Subgroup A	RA (n = 5)	0.60 ± 0.89	4.60 ± 5.18	4.00 ± 5.43	3.75 (−2.78, 10.28),	6.00 ± 5.43	5.40 ± 5.37	4.90 (1.56, 11.36),
	Subgroup A	SA (n = 4)	2.00 ± 2.71	2.25 ± 2.63	0.25 ± 0.50	0.81	2.50 ± 2.52	0.50 ± 0.58	1.07
	Subgroup B	RA (n = 9)	0.56 ± 0.88	3.22 ± 4.41	2.67 ± 4.33	−0.21 (−3.88, 3.47),	3.44 ± 4.90	2.89 ± 4.83	0.76 (−3.29, 4.82),
	Subgroup B	SA (n = 8)	0.63 ± 0.52	3.50 ± 2.07	2.88 ± 2.36	0.06	2.75 ± 2.31	2.13 ± 2.47	0.18
BSS	Total	RA (n = 14)	3.60 ± 1.09	4.17 ± 1.48	0.57 ± 1.72	0.42 (−0.66, 1.50),	4.69 ± 0.82	1.09 ± 1.30	0.95 (0.11, 1.79),
	Total	SA (n = 15)	3.32 ± 1.38	3.47 ± 1.33	0.15 ± 1.06	0.29	3.46 ± 1.19	0.14 ± 0.88	0.84
	Subgroup A	RA (n = 5)	2.71 ± 0.64	4.68 ± 1.09	1.97 ± 1.23	1.06 (−0.64, 2.77),	4.60 ± 0.23	1.89 ± 0.51	1.19 (0.34, 2.03),
	Subgroup A	SA (n = 4)	1.46 ± 0.42	2.36 ± 1.08	0.91 ± 0.82	0.87	2.16 ± 0.90	0.70 ± 0.56	2.00
	Subgroup B	RA (n = 9)	3.31 ± 1.12	4.08 ± 1.80	0.78 ± 2.11	0.96 (−0.89, 2.82)	5.01 ± 0.81	1.70 ± 1.10	1.91 (0.84, 2.98),
	Subgroup B	SA (n = 8)	3.96 ± 1.31	3.77 ± 1.43	−0.19 ± 1.35	0.51	3.75 ± 1.15	−0.21 ± 0.95	1.76
CAS	Total	RA (n = 14)	7.93 ± 4.01	4.71 ± 3.73	−3.21 ± 2.91	−0.55 (−2.73, 1.64),	4.43 ± 3.98	−3.50 ± 3.98	−0.63 (−3.29, 2.02),
	Total	SA (n = 15)	7.27 ± 3.01	4.60 ± 2.41	−2.67 + ±2.82	0.18	4.40 ± 2.85	−2.87 ± 2.95	0.17
	Subgroup A	RA (n = 5)	10.40 ± 1.82	5.40 ± 1.82	−5.00 ± 3.16	−3.50 (−8.90, 1.90),	4.20 ± 2.86	−6.20 ± 4.15	−4.70 (−11.10, 1.70),
	Subgroup A	SA (n = 4)	6.25 ± 2.63	4.75 ± 1.50	−1.50 ± 3.70	0.92	4.75 ± 1.71	−1.50 ± 3.87	1.04
	Subgroup B	RA (n = 9)	10.56 ± 2.01	6.33 ± 3.67	−4.22 ± 3.03	−0.22 (−3.22, 2.77),	5.56 ± 4.36	−5.00 ± 3.84	−1.00 (− 4.71, 2.71),
	Subgroup B	SA (n = 8)	9.63 ± 1.85	5.63 ± 2.00	−4.00 ± 2.73	0.08	5.63 ± 2.77	−4.00 ± 3.25	0.27

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation, mean difference (95% CI), or Hedge’s g.DF, defecation frequency
SCBM spontaneous complete bowel movement, BSS Bristol stool scale, CAS constipation assessment scale, Subgroup A participants whose proportion of hard stool (BSS type 1–2) > 25% of total defecation, Subgroup B participants whose CAS score ≥ 7, RA real acupuncture, SA sham acupuncture
^aweek 5
^bweek 9

Back to article page

ISSN: 2662-7671

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccomplementarymedicineandtherapies@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com