Comparison of Concordance between Chuna Manual Therapy Diagnostic Methods (Palpation, X-ray, Artificial Intelligence Program) in Lumbar Spine: An Exploratory, Cross-Sectional Clinical Study

Before Chuna manual therapy (CMT), a manual therapy applied in Korean medicine, CMT spinal diagnosis using palpation or X-ray is performed. However, studies on the inter-rater concordance of CMT diagnostic methods, concordance among diagnostic methods, and standard CMT diagnostic methods are scarce. Moreover, no clinical studies have used artificial intelligence (AI) programs for X-ray image-based CMT diagnosis. Therefore, this study sought a feasible and standard CMT spinal diagnostic method and explored the clinical applicability of the CMT-AI program. One hundred participants were recruited, and the concordance within and among different diagnostic modalities was analyzed by dividing them into manual diagnosis (MD), X-ray image-based diagnosis (XRD) by experts and non-experts, and XRD using a CMT-AI program by non-experts. Regarding intra-group concordance, XRD by experts showed the highest concordance (used as a gold standard when comparing inter-group concordance), followed by XRD using the AI program, XRD by non-experts, and then MD. Comparing diagnostic results between the groups, concordance with the gold standard was the highest for XRD using the AI program, followed by XRD by non-experts, and MD. Therefore, XRD is a more reasonable CMT diagnostic method than MD. Furthermore, the clinical applicability of the CMT-AI program is high.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Concomitant Treatment with Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Whiplash Injuries: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of Chuna manual therapy combined with usual care to those of usual care alone for treating whiplash injuries.

DESIGN

A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Three hospitals in Korea.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 132 participants between 19 and 70 years of age, involved in traffic accidents and treated at three hospitals in Korea, >2 but <13 weeks prior to enrollment, with neck pain consistent with whiplash-associated disorder grades I and II and a numeric rating scale score ≥5 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were equally and randomly allocated to the Chuna manual therapy and usual care (n = 66) or usual care (n = 66) groups and underwent corresponding treatment for three weeks.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of days to achieve a 50% pain reduction. Secondary outcomes included areas under the 50% numeric rating scale reduction curve: pain, disability, quality of life, and safety.

RESULTS

The Chuna manual therapy + usual care group (23.31 ± 21.36 days; p = 0.01) required significantly fewer days to achieve 50% pain reduction compared to the usual care group (50.41 ± 48.32 days; p = 0.01). Regarding pain severity, functional index, and quality of life index, Chuna manual therapy and usual care were more effective than usual care alone. Safety was acceptable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with subacute whiplash injury, Chuna manual therapy showed a rapid rate of recovery, high effectiveness, and safety.

Cost-Effectiveness of Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care, Compared with Usual Care Only for People with Neck Pain following Traffic Accidents: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

This is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of Chuna manual therapy (CMT) plus usual Korean traditional medicine for traffic accident victims using a randomized controlled trial. A total of 132 participants were equally allocated to the intervention group receiving 6-11 sessions of CMT plus usual Korean traditional medicine care for three weeks or usual care including acupuncture, cupping, herbal medicine, moxibustion, and traditional physiotherapy at three hospitals. At 12 weeks, from a healthcare perspective, the intervention group had significantly higher costs (mean (SD), $778 (435) vs. $618 (318); difference, $160; 95% CI, $15 to $289; p = 0.005). From a societal perspective, total costs were insignificantly lower in the intervention group (mean (SD), $1077 (1081) vs. $1146 (1485); difference, $-69; 95% CI, $-568 to $377; p = 0.761). The intervention group dominated, with significantly higher QALYs gained at lower overall cost with a 72% chance of being cost-effective. From a societal perspective, the intervention was cost-saving for individuals who had neck pain after car accidents, although it was not cost-effective from the healthcare perspective ($40,038 per QALY gained). Findings support use of CMT as an integrated care treatment for whiplash from a societal perspective. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine cost-effectiveness in other cultural contexts.

Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is common, with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, and as such it places substantial social and economic burden on individuals and society. Chuna manual therapy (CMT) combines aspects of physiology, biodynamics of spine and joint motion, and basic theory of movement dynamics. This study aimed to test the comparative effectiveness and safety of CMT for non-acute LBP.

Methods

A three-arm, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted from 28 March 2016 to 19 September 2016, at four medical institutions. A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to the CMT group (n = 20), usual care (UC) group (n = 20), or combined treatment (CMT + UC) group (n = 20), and received the relevant treatments for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was a numeric rating scale (NRS) representation of LBP intensity, while secondary outcomes included NRS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), lumbar range of motion, and safety.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 55 patients (CMT, 18; UC, 18; CMT + UC, 19) were included in the per-protocol analysis (drop-out rate 5.3%). Over the treatment period there were significant differences in the NRS score for LBP (CMT mean − 3.28 (95% CI − 4.08, − 2.47); UC − 1.95 (− 2.82, − 1.08); CMT + UC − 1.75 (− 2.70, − 0.80), P < 0.01) and the ODI scores in each group (CMT − 12.29 (− 16.86, − 7.72); UC − 10.34 (− 14.63, − 6.06); CMT + UC − 9.27 (− 14.28, − 4.26), P < 0.01). The changes in other secondary outcomes did not significantly differ among the three groups. Sixteen minor-to-moderate safety concerns were reported.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that CMT has comparative efficacy for non-acute LBP and is generally safe. As this was a preliminary study, a well-powered (over 192 participants) two-arm (CMT versus UC) verification trial will be performed to assess the generalizability of these results.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0001850. Registered on 12 March 2016.