Evidence Hub

Should thread-embedding and auricular acupuncture be combined rather than used individually for non-specific chronic low back pain?: A double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial

T. Pham, Nam Trung Le, T. T. Nguyen, Haoran Chu

Integrative Medicine Research, 2025

168 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background Non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP), the most common type, is a leading cause of global disability. The combined effect of thread-embedding acupuncture (TEA) and auricular acupuncture (AA) remains unclear. This study evaluates whether combining TEA and AA improves NCLBP management compared to either alone. Methods In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 168 NCLBP patients were randomized into four groups (n = 42): TEA+AA, TEA+sham AA, AA+sham TEA, or sham both, alongside conventional treatment. The intervention lasted 4 weeks with a 4-week follow-up. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); secondary outcomes included pain score, paracetamol use, quality of life, global improvement, and adverse events (AEs). Results In the intention-to-treat analysis, the acupuncture groups showed significantly lower ODI percentage scores compared to the sham group (p < 0.0001). Both the TEA+AA and TEA+sham AA groups outperformed the AA+sham TEA group (mean differences [MD]:9.1 and -7.5, respectively; p < 0.0001) at week 4 and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) during follow-up. The TEA+AA group showed greater improvement than the TEA+sham AA group at weeks 2 and 6; however, these differences did not reach the MCID. Secondary effectiveness outcomes followed a similar trend. The results were consistent with the per-protocol analysis. AEs were mild and self-limiting. Conclusion TEA and AA are safe and effective adjuncts…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 168 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free