Acupuncture for Acute Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomised, Controlled, Double-Blind, Placebo Trial

Objective To assess the efficacy of Yamamoto's acupuncture method on pain, drug intake, functional capacity and quality of life for the treatment of acute non-specific low back pain (ANLBP). Methods A prospective, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 80 men and women with ANLBP who were randomly assigned to five acupuncture sessions (intervention group (IG), n=40) and to five non-penetrating acupuncture sessions (sham group (SG), n=40). Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. The measurements used were: visual analogue scale (VAS) for cumulative pain (before intervention, VAS1) and immediate pain (after intervention, VAS2); function (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM)); quality of life (SF-36); improvement rating; and number of anti-inflammatory tablets taken. The primary endpoint was a decrease of at least 2 cm in VAS1. Results Pain VAS improved significantly in the IG from day 14 onwards compared with the SG, but the difference did not reach the prespecified clinically relevant value of 2 cm. The IG was significantly superior to the SG in the following outcomes: cumulative pain, function, pain (SF-36) and vitality (SF-36) at days 14, 21 and 28 (p<0.05); limitation in physical aspects (SF-36) at all times (p=0.007 and p=0.02); and functional capacity (SF-36) at days 21 and 28 (p<0.05). The IG also took significantly fewer anti-inflammatory tablets than the SG (p=0.004) at all evaluation times and the improvement rating was better than the SG (p<0.001). Conclusions Yamamoto's new scalp acupuncture was more effective than sham treatment with regard to decrease in pain and anti-inflammatory intake as well as improving functional status and quality of life for patients with ANLBP. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 01124955.

A Comparison of the CDIO and EUR-ACE Quality Assurance Systems

The CDIO approach intends to raise the quality of engineering education programs, worldwide by including a number of quality assurance (QA) tools such as the CDIO Standards, Syllabus, and self-evaluation model. CDIO programmes are also evaluated by external standards. Therefore, a CDIO programme needs a quality assurance system that fulfills external requirements and is able to produce the necessary evidence and documentation with minimal additional effort above and beyond the CDIO QA components. Efficient execution of this task requires understanding the similarities and differences between the CDIO and external quality assurance systems, in this case, the European Accreditation of Engineering Programmes (EUR-ACE) system. This article compares and contrasts these two QA approaches, in particular the CDIO Syllabus and the EUR-ACE programme outcomes and the CDIO Standards and EUR-ACE accreditation criteria. Also considered are the pros and cons of a continuous improvement rating scale-based system and a threshold-based accreditation model.

Use of Three Depression Scales for Evaluation of Pretreatment Severity and of Improvement after Treatment

We investigated the Castilian Spanish versions of three scales (the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression, and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) as to their suitability for classifying major depression patients in four levels of severity prior to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants, and also as to their suitability for classifying these patients in four improvement levels when administered posttreatment. Although the scales behaved quite similarly, each was most efficient at the task for which it had been designed, i.e., severity rating for the Hamilton and Carroll scales, improvement rating for the Montgomery-Asberg scale.

Comparison of Efficacy of Timiperone, a New Butyrophenone Derivative, and Clocapramine in Schizophrenia: A Multiclinic Double-Blind Study

The clinical efficacy and safety of timiperone, a new butyrophenone derivative, on chronic schizophrenia was compared with clocapramine by the double-blind method using a total of eighty-eight patients, consisting of forty-four patients in each group. In the final global improvement rating, the global improvement rating in each week and the general usefulness rating, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. However, in the global improvement rating in each symptom, timiperone was significantly superior to clocapramine in delusion and showed a superior tendency to clocapramine in contact. Timiperone showed a higher improvement rate than clocapramine in hallucination and disturbance of self-conciousness. In the over-all safety rating, there were no significant differences between the two groups, but in accompanying symptoms and side-effects, timiperone showed significantly less tendency than clocapramine in dyskinesia, insomnia, constipation and nausea. From these results, including the analysis by stratification, it was considered that timiperone was a superior or equivalent neuroleptic in comparison with clocapramine against the negative symptoms as well as the positive ones of chronic schizophrenia, and was equally safe or safer than clocapramine.