Clinical Trials Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 16, 2022; 10(32): 11753-11765
Published online Nov 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11753
Clinical efficacy of electromagnetic field therapy combined with traditional Chinese pain-reducing paste in myofascial pain syndrome
Jing Xiao, Bing-Yan Cao, Zeng Xie, Yu-Xuan Ji, Xing-Li Zhao, Hong-Jie Yang, Wei Zhuang, Hai-Hua Sun, Wen-Ming Liang
Jing Xiao, Bing-Yan Cao, Zeng Xie, Yu-Xuan Ji, Xing-Li Zhao, Hong-Jie Yang, Wei Zhuang, Hai-Hua Sun, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Xiyuan Hospital, Chinese Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China
Wen-Ming Liang, Life Sciences Center, Vilnius University, Vilnius LT-10257, Lithuania
Author contributions: Xiao J, Cao BY, Xie Z and Liang WM were responsible for the study conception and design, data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript drafting; Ji YX, Zhao XL, Yang HJ, Zhuang W and Sun HH were responsible for the data collection and data analysis; all authors reviewed and approved the final version to be published.
Supported by the Project of Capacity Building for Sustainable Utilization of Precious Traditional Chinese Medicine Resources, No. 2060302.
Institutional review board statement: The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Xiyuan Hospital of the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (Approval No. 2018XLA049-7).
Clinical trial registration statement: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn). The registration number is ChiCTR2000033700. And this registration policy applies to randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials.
Informed consent statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Data sharing statement: Raw data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
CONSORT 2010 statement: The authors have read the CONSORT 2010 statement, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the CONSORT 2010 statement.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Zeng Xie, MMed, Doctor, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Xiyuan Hospital, Chinese Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 1 Xiyuan Caochang, Haidian District, Beijing 100091, China. xzyig131@163.com
Received: May 30, 2022
Peer-review started: May 30, 2022
First decision: July 13, 2022
Revised: July 26, 2022
Accepted: October 17, 2022
Article in press: October 17, 2022
Published online: November 16, 2022
Processing time: 161 Days and 20.9 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a modern treatment for MPS, while damp-clearing and pain-reducing paste (DPP) combined with a heating effect has been used as an herbal ointment in China for a very long time.

Research motivation

Both heating-DPP and PEMF are effective in the treatment of MPS. However, their synergistic effects remain unclear.

Research objectives

This manuscript aimed to study whether PEMF therapy combined with heating-DPP is better than heating-DPP alone in the treatment of lumbar MPS.

Research methods

In total, 120 patients with MPS were randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental (EG) and control (CG) groups. Both groups were treated with heating-DPP combined with PEMF therapy; however, the electromagnetic function was disabled in the therapeutic apparatus used for patients in the CG. All patients received a two-week intervention, and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, which comprises a visual analog scale (VAS), present pain intensity index (PPI), and pain rating index (PRI), was completed by participants at five time points: pre-test, end of the first and second week of receiving treatment, and end of the first and fourth week after completing treatment.

Research results

The VAS, PPI, and PRI (total, affective pain, and sensory pain scores) scores of the EG were significantly lesser than those of the CG after treatment and follow-up tests.

Research conclusions

PEMF therapy combined with heating-DPP had better efficacy than heating-DPP alone in reducing overall pain intensity, sensory pain, and affective pain.

Research perspectives

PEMF therapy plus heating-DPP, with their tested synergistic effects, may be a better option for treating lumbar MPS than heating-DPP alone. Further research on the pharmacology of DPP is needed.