Bones & Jointspreliminary · human data

Moxibustion eased chronic back pain in trials, but couldn't beat core exercises

Pooled trials suggest moxibustion relieves chronic low back pain better than western medicine and acupuncture, but it showed no advantage over core stability training, and the reviewers graded the evidence very low to low quality.

Compiled by FitTools from the study cited below

The citation, figures and study details on this page are taken mechanically from the source record. No human editor has reviewed it.

Added to Pulse 22 October 2026

Study design
Meta-analysis
Evidence
preliminary
Published
22 October 2026

Key takeaway

What it shows: Too shaky to act on: ten trials in 987 people pointed moxibustion's way, but most were at high risk of bias and the reviewers graded the whole evidence base very low to low. Even then it showed no edge over core stability training.

Study details

Design
Meta-analysis
Authors
Chen FQ, Ge JF, Leng YF, Li C, Chen B, Sun ZL, et al.
Journal
Complement Ther Clin Pract
Published
2020
Added to Pulse
22 October 2026

Why it matters

Chronic low back pain is one of the most common reasons adults seek treatment, and plenty of people turn to traditional therapies when medication and standard care disappoint. Moxibustion, which involves burning the herb mugwort on or near the skin at specific points, is a staple of East Asian medicine for exactly this complaint. Individual trials have reported benefits, but small studies of alternative therapies are notoriously prone to bias. This review set out to pool the randomised evidence and grade how trustworthy it actually is.

What they did

The reviewers searched nine databases, including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase, up to November 2019 for randomised trials of moxibustion in people with chronic low back pain. Ten trials with 987 patients met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes covered pain intensity on standard scales, disability, the JOA score and quality of life measured by the SF-36. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data, assessed each trial against the Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and applied the GRADE system to rate the overall quality of the evidence.

What they found

On pain scores, moxibustion came out ahead of western medicine and ahead of acupuncture, but it failed to beat core stability training. Combining moxibustion with other active treatments, including medication, massage, acupuncture and core stability training, relieved pain better than those treatments alone. The therapy also showed favourable effects on disability, the JOA score and SF-36 quality of life. The catch is the quality verdict: the evidence across all ten trials was rated very low to low, and the authors state plainly that firm conclusions cannot be drawn.

Where it fits

This is a familiar shape in alternative-therapy research: positive pooled numbers resting on a small trial base with a high risk of bias. The review extends earlier single studies by quantifying the effects and, importantly, by showing moxibustion did not outperform an exercise-based comparator. That detail matters, because core stability training is cheap, widely accessible and already a mainstream option for back pain. The authors conclude that rigorously designed large-scale trials are still needed before moxibustion can claim a firm place in back pain care.

What it means for you

If you are tempted by moxibustion for a stubborn back, the pooled numbers look encouraging on the surface but the reviewers themselves rate the evidence too weak for firm conclusions. The most practical detail here is the comparison it lost: the therapy showed no advantage over core stability training. That is worth knowing before spending money on repeated sessions, since the treatment that matched it is a form of exercise most people can learn and do for very little.

The source

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101130

Read the study →

Related tools & guides

More research, with the reality check: every study we hold → · this week’s → · or open the full Pulse feed →