Back to Authors

Jensen, Mark A.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1524-1881

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 2

Effects of Tuina in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Yang, Juan , Do, Alexander , Soderlind, Jennifer N., Mallory, Molly J., Bublitz, Sara E. , Calva, Jason J., Croghan, Ivana T. , Zhou, Xuan , Ma, Qingyu , Tay, B. K., Choo, Celia Tan Ia, Jensen, Mark A. , Brault, Jeffrey S. , Bauer, Brent A. , Zhou, Xuan , Fischer, Karen M. , Chen, Jiaxu

Journal of Primary Care & Community Health | October 5, 2025 | Volume: 16 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/21501319251357404 Get It

Background: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) is a prevalent, disabling condition worldwide. Tuina, a traditional Chinese manual therapy, has shown potential benefits, but evidence remains limited. Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of Tuina therapy in managing CNLBP in a U.S. population. Methods: A prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Mayo Clinic Rochester campus (February 2020-April 2024). 204 participants with CNLBP were randomized into 3 groups: Tuina (N = 68), physical therapy (N = 68), or a combination of both (N = 68). Each group received 6 treatments over 2 months. The primary outcome was pain intensity (VAS); secondary outcomes included disability (ODI), quality of life (SF-36), and adverse events. Additionally, participants completed a satisfaction survey at the end of the trial. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) was used for survey data collection. Data was assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the multiple repeated measurements, Kruskal-Wallis tests, while Chi-square tests, and Bonferroni correction in SAS software. Results: 185 subjects completed the study. Significant decreases in VAS, ODI, and SF-36 Overall Physical scores were found from baseline, to post treatment and follow-up in all groups ( P < .05), while there were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, or SF-36 outcomes between the Tuina group and the other 2 groups. There were 4 adverse events observed in the trial, 1 in the Physical therapy group and 3 in the Mixed group. Only 1 transient low back pain after Tuina therapy was observed in the Mixed group but did not require treatment. The high percentage of patients who received the Tuina program was extremely helpful (n = 94/126, 77.0%). The willingness to recommend was significantly higher for Tuina compared to physical therapy (Mixed group [N = 59/62, 95.2%], Tuina group [N = 57/64, 91.9%], and physical therapy group [N = 31/59, 59.6%] ( P < .05). Conclusion: Tuina therapy showed comparable benefits to physical therapy and combined treatment of both in improving pain, function, and quality of life in patients with CNLBP. With high patient satisfaction and a favorable safety profile, Tuina appears to be a safe and acceptable non-invasive treatment option. Further studies are needed to validate these findings in the future.
Efficacy and safety of Tuina for chronic nonspecific low back pain: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis
Yang, Juan , Zhou, Xuan , Ma, Qingyu , Woods, Jeffrey , Mohabbat, Arya B. , Do, Alexander , Brault, Jeffrey S. , Jensen, Mark A. , Shin, Kyung-Min , Shen, Longbin , Zhao, Canghuan , Cheong, Philip , He, Kejie , Guo, Yu , Chen, Zhuoming , Tang, Yong , Tan, Celia Ia Choo , Bauer, Brent A. , Woods, Jeffrey T., Tang, Shujie , Chen, Jiaxu

Medicine | March 2, 2023 | Volume: 102 | Issue: 9 | Pages: e33018

10.1097/md.0000000000033018 Get It

Objective: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) is a serious medical and social problem resulting in functional decline and decreased work ability. Tuina, a form of manual therapy, has been sparsely used to treat patients with CNLBP. To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of Tuina for patients with CNLBP. Methods: Multiple English and Chinese literature databases were searched until September 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Tuina in the treatment of CNLBP. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and certainty of the evidence was determined with the online Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Results: Fifteen RCTs with 1390 patients were included. Tuina demonstrated a significant effect on pain (SMD: −0.82; 95% CI −1.12 to −0.53; P < .001; I 2 = 81%) and physical function (SMD: −0.91; 95% CI −1.55 to −0.27; P = .005; I 2 = 90%) when compared to control. However, Tuina resulted in no significant improvement for quality of life (QoL) (SMD: 0.58; 95% CI −0.04 to 1.21; P = .07; I 2 = 73%;) compared to control. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence quality was determined to be low level for pain relief, physical function, and QoL measurements. Only six studies reported adverse events; none were serious. Conclusion: Tuina might be an effective and safe strategy for treating CNLBP in terms of pain and physical function, but not for QoL. The study results should be interpreted with caution for their low-level evidence. More multicenter, large-scale RCTs with a rigorous design are required to further confirm our findings.