机构：[1]Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Acupuncture & Moxibust Dept, Beijing, Peoples R China[2]Tianjin Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Sch Med Technol, Beijing, Peoples R China[3]Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Tuina & Pain Management Dept, Dongzhimen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China[4]Inner Mongolia Xingan Meng Peoples Hosp, Dept Pediat, Wulanhaote, Peoples R China[5]Langfang TCM Hosp, Acupuncture & Moxibust Dept, Langfang, Peoples R China[6]Luohu Dist Chinese Hosp, Acupuncture & Moxibust Dept, Shenzhen, Peoples R China[7]Beijing Municipal Med Insurance Bur, Med Insurance Payment Dept, Beijing, Peoples R China[8]Capital Med Univ, Xuanwu Hosp, Tradit Chinese Med Dept, Beijing, Peoples R China首都医科大学宣武医院
BackgroundTuina therapy (Tuina) is commonly utilized for managing knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet the available evidence is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Tuina compared to widely accepted manual physical therapy (mPT) for patients with KOA.MethodsBetween Oct 2019 and Oct 2021, patients with KOA (Kellgren-Lawrence score II or III) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive Tuina or mPT, with eight 20-min sessions over 3 weeks. Assessments were performed at baseline, week 4, 8, and 16. The primary outcome was the change of total Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from baseline to week 4. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC subscales, knee pain measures, performance-based tests, quality-of-life measures, and safety assessments. Patients, evaluators, and statisticians were blinded to treatment group assignment. All main analyses were by intention-to-treat.ResultsOf the 140 patients allocated to Tuina or mPT, 127 completed the treatment. There was significant intervention x time interaction observed in the WOMAC-total (F(2, 266) = 3.87, P = 0.02), there was no statistically significant between groups at week 4 (between-group difference: -1.00, 95%CI: -5.33 to 3.33, P = 0.79, Bonferroni correction). By week 8, Tuina showed significantly consistent improvement compared to mPT (between-group difference: -4.33, 95%CI: -8.34 to -0.31, P = 0.03, Bonferroni correction), whereas there were no statistically significant differences between groups at week 16 (between-group difference: 0.74, 95%CI: -3.67 to 5.15, P = 0.37, Bonferroni correction). Most secondary outcomes showed no significant between-group differences, except for the Timed Up and Go Test Time favoring mPT (0.94, 95%CI: 0.03 to 1.85, P = 0.04). No serious adverse events occurred. One patient in the mPT group took the medication and no patients received other therapies for KOA.ConclusionsTuina produced beneficial effectiveness similar to mPT in treating KOA.Trial registrationNCT03966248, Registered on 29/05/2019, ClinicalTrials.gov.
基金：
This work was supported by Beijing University of Chinese Medicine and
Capital Clinical Characteristic Application Research (No. Z181100001718165).
第一作者机构：[1]Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Acupuncture & Moxibust Dept, Beijing, Peoples R China[2]Tianjin Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Sch Med Technol, Beijing, Peoples R China
共同第一作者：
通讯作者：
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714)：
Ma Peihong,Liu Luping,Li Sina,et al.Comparative effectiveness of Tuina therapy versus manual physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial[J].BMC COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AND THERAPIES.2025,25(1):doi:10.1186/s12906-025-04850-w.
APA：
Ma, Peihong,Liu, Luping,Li, Sina,Cai, Meiling,Han, Siyu...&Yu, Changhe.(2025).Comparative effectiveness of Tuina therapy versus manual physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.BMC COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AND THERAPIES,25,(1)
MLA：
Ma, Peihong,et al."Comparative effectiveness of Tuina therapy versus manual physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial".BMC COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AND THERAPIES 25..1(2025)
