Case studies and small trials suggest that acupuncture may effectively treat hypertension, but no large randomized trials have been reported. The Stop Hypertension with the Acupuncture Research Program pilot trial enrolled 192 participants with untreated blood pressure (BP) in the range of 140/90 to 179/109 mm Hg. The design of the trial combined rigorous methodology and adherence to principles of traditional Chinese medicine. Participants were weaned off antihypertensives before enrollment and were then randomly assigned to 3 treatments: individualized traditional Chinese acupuncture, standardized acupuncture at preselected points, or invasive sham acupuncture. Participants received ≤12 acupuncture treatments over 6 to 8 weeks. During the first 10 weeks after random assignment, BP was monitored every 14 days, and antihypertensives were prescribed if BP exceeded 180/110 mm Hg. The mean BP decrease from baseline to 10 weeks, the primary end point, did not differ significantly between participants randomly assigned to active (individualized and standardized) versus sham acupuncture (systolic BP: −3.56 versus −3.84 mm Hg, respectively; 95% CI for the difference: −4.0 to 4.6 mm Hg; P =0.90; diastolic BP: −4.32 versus −2.81 mm Hg, 95% CI for the difference: −3.6 to 0.6 mm Hg; P =0.16). Categorizing participants by age, race, gender, baseline BP, history of antihypertensive use, obesity, or primary traditional Chinese medicine diagnosis did not reveal any subgroups for which the benefits of active acupuncture differed significantly from sham acupuncture. Active acupuncture provided no greater benefit than invasive sham acupuncture in reducing systolic or diastolic BP.

This pilot study used a randomized controlled clinical trial design to compare the effects of standard emergency medical care to auricular acupunctur

Background: Recent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions. Methods: A working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory. Results: An extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Conclusion: The Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Musculoskeletal disorders are the second leading cause of disability worldwide, led by low back pain (LBP), with an estimated LBP prevalence among US adults of 20%.^1-3 The direct costs of back pain in the United States in 2010 were $34 billion,⁴ with additional indirect costs including lost workplace productivity estimated at $200 billion.⁵ In the US military, LBP is one of the most common reasons members seek medical care⁶ and one of the most likely conditions to interrupt combat duty.^6,7 Common medical therapies for LBP, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, spinal fusions, and epidural steroid injections, demonstrate limited effectiveness^8-10; furthermore, many of these treatments have unacceptably high risk profiles.^8,11-14

Randomized controlled trial. To assess changes in pain levels and physical functioning in response to standard medical care (SMC) versus SMC plus chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) for the treatment of low back pain (LBP) among 18 to 35-year-old active-duty military personnel. LBP is common, costly, and a significant cause of long-term sick leave and work loss. Many different interventions are available, but there exists no consensus on the best approach. One intervention often used is manipulative therapy. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that manipulative therapy may be as effective as other conservative treatments of LBP, but its appropriate role in the healthcare delivery system has not been established. Prospective, 2-arm randomized controlled trial pilot study comparing SMC plus CMT with only SMC. The primary outcome measures were changes in back-related pain on the numerical rating scale and physical functioning at 4 weeks on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and back pain functional scale (BPFS). Mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores decreased in both groups during the course of the study, but adjusted mean scores were significantly better in the SMC plus CMT group than in the SMC group at both week 2 (P < 0.001) and week 4 (P = 0.004). Mean numerical rating scale pain scores were also significantly better in the group that received CMT. Adjusted mean back pain functional scale scores were significantly higher (improved) in the SMC plus CMT group than in the SMC group at both week 2 (P < 0.001) and week 4 (P = 0.004). The results of this trial suggest that CMT in conjunction with SMC offers a significant advantage for decreasing pain and improving physical functioning when compared with only standard care, for men and women between 18 and 35 years of age with acute LBP.

Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.