The efficacy of traction for back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of traction for patients with low back pain (LBP) with or without radiating pain, taking into account the clinical technique or parameters used. DATA SOURCES: A computer-aided search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the English language, from 1966 to December 2001. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs were included if: participants were over the age of 18 years, with LBP with or without radiating pain; the intervention group received traction as the main or sole treatment; the comparison group received sham traction or another conservative treatment; and the study used 1 of 4 primary outcome measures. DATA EXTRACTION: The study was conducted in 2 strands. Strand 1 assessed methodologic quality using a specific criteria list recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. The strength of the evidence was then rated using the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research system. Strand 2 applied further inclusion criteria based on recommended clinical parameters. One reviewer conducted the selection and data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Strand 1: 1 study scored 9 points (maximum score, 10 points); the other 12 scored between 0 and 3 points, indicating that most were of poor quality. Nine studies reported negative findings, but only 1 study was of a high quality. Three studies reported positive findings and 1 study was inconclusive. Strand 2: only 4 trials having low methodologic quality were included, 2 of which reported negative findings, and 2 positive findings. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the use of traction in LBP remains inconclusive because of the continued lack of methodologic rigor and the limited application of clinical parameters as used in clinical practice. Further trials, which give attention to these areas, are needed before any firm conclusions and recommendations may be made.     

A randomised controlled study of reflexology for the management of chronic low back pain

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) continues to rise. However, questions regarding the efficacy of many CAM therapies for CLBP remain unresolved. The present study investigated the effectiveness of reflexology for CLBP. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial was conducted. N=243 patients were randomised to one of three groups: reflexology, relaxation, or non-intervention (usual care). All completed a questionnaire booklet before and after the treatment phase, and at six months follow up. This measured their general health status, pain, functioning, coping strategies and mood. After adjusting for pre-treatment scores repeated measures ANCOVA found no significant differences between the groups pre and post treatment on the primary outcome measures of pain and functioning. There was a main effect of pain reduction, irrespective of group. Trends in the data illustrated the pain reduction was greatest in the reflexology group. Thus, the current study does not indicate that adding reflexology to usual GP care for the management of CLBP is any more effective than usual GP care alone.     

The effectiveness of traditional Thai massage versus massage with herbal compress among elderly patients with low back pain: A randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of including an herbal compress in a traditional Thai massage regimen for the care of low back pain in the elderly.Design and methodsThis study was a randomised controlled trial. The sample consisted of 140 patients suffering from non-specific chronic low back pain, who were randomly assigned to either the TTM (n = 70) or TMH (n = 70) group. The primary outcome was pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale), and the secondary outcomes were disability, back performance and quality of life. The outcome measurements were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks and 15 weeks.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in the primary and secondary outcomes between the two study groups (p-value > 0.05). Although improvement was observed for both groups in pain intensity, disability, quality of life, and back performance.ConclusionsThere was no additional benefit of including an herbal compress in a regimen of Thai massage for the care of low back pain in the elderly.     

Stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review

Objectives

To examine the literature to determine if stabilisation exercises are effective for the treatment of pain and dysfunction in patients with low back pain.

Data sources

PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, AMED, PEDro and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2006.

Review methods

Inclusion criteria were: randomised clinical trials; in English; full publications; subjects were adults with low back pain; one group received specific stabilisation exercises as the primary intervention; and outcome measures included some measure of pain and/or function. Following a systematic search of major databases, articles were scored according to the PEDro criteria for quality. Due to heterogeneity of specific interventions, control groups, duration of follow-up, outcome measures and study population, a meta-analysis was not conducted. A qualitative review was undertaken that focused on study quality, study population and type of control group.

Results

In total, 18 trials were included in the review; a large number of trials were excluded. There was little evidence to support the use of stabilisation exercises for acute low back pain. There was some evidence to support the use of stabilisation exercises in chronic back pain, with the majority of high-quality trials showing a significant difference in favour of stabilisation exercises. Overall, however, the evidence was conflicting, and significant differences favouring stabilisation exercises were less likely when they were compared with active treatment control groups rather than inactive control groups.

Conclusions

There may be a role for specific stabilisation exercises in some patients with chronic low back pain, but these are no more effective than other active interventions.     

Acupuncture in patients with acute low back pain: A multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial

Reviews of the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment for acute low back pain have concluded that there is insufficient evidence for its efficacy and that more research is needed to evaluate it. A multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted at 4 primary-care centres in Spain to evaluate the effects of acupuncture in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain in the context of primary care. A total of 275 patients with nonspecific acute low back pain (diagnosed by their general practitioner) were recruited and assigned randomly to 4 different groups: conventional treatment either alone or complemented by 5 sessions over a 2-week period of true acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or placebo acupuncture per patient. Patients were treated from February 2006 to January 2008. The primary outcome was the reduction in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 35% or more after 2weeks' treatment. The patients in the 3 types of acupuncture groups were blinded to the treatments, but those who received conventional treatment alone were not. In the analysis adjusted for the total sample (true acupuncture relative risk 5.04, 95% confidence interval 2.24-11.32; sham acupuncture relative risk 5.02, 95% confidence interval 2.26-11.16; placebo acupuncture relative risk 2.57 95% confidence interval 1.21-5.46), as well as for the subsample of occupationally active patients, all 3 modalities of acupuncture were better than conventional treatment alone, but there was no difference among the 3 acupuncture modalities, which implies that true acupuncture is not better than sham or placebo acupuncture.     

Acupuncture and dry needling in the management of myofascial trigger point pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Pain from myofascial trigger points is often treated by needling, with or without injection, although evidence is inconclusive on whether this is effective. We aimed to review the current evidence on needling without injection, by conducting a systematic literature review.We searched electronic databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials, and included studies where at least one group were treated by needling directly into the myofascial trigger points, and where the control was either no treatment, or usual care; indirect local dry needling or some form of placebo intervention. We extracted data on pain, using VAS scores as the standard.Seven studies were included. One study concluded that direct dry needling was superior to no intervention. Two studies, comparing direct dry needling to needling elsewhere in the muscle, produced contradictory results. Four studies used a placebo control and were included in a meta-analysis. Combining these studies (n = 134), needling was not found to be significantly superior to placebo (standardised mean difference, 14.9 [95%CI, ?5.81 to 33.99]), however marked statistical heterogeneity was present (I² = 88%).In conclusion, there is limited evidence deriving from one study that deep needling directly into myofascial trigger points has an overall treatment effect when compared with standardised care. Whilst the result of the meta-analysis of needling compared with placebo controls does not attain statistically significant, the overall direction could be compatible with a treatment effect of dry needling on myofascial trigger point pain. However, the limited sample size and poor quality of these studies highlights and supports the need for large scale, good quality placebo controlled trials in this area.     

The efficacy of interventions for low back pain in nurses: A systematic review

ObjectivesTo investigate the efficacy of interventions for the prevention and treatment of low back pain in nurses.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesThe review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42015026941) and followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. A two phase approach was used. In phase one, all randomised controlled trials included in the systematic review of Dawson et al. (2007) which reviewed interventions for low back pain in nurses until 2004 were selected. In phase two, relevant randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised controlled trials published from 2004 until December 2015 were identified by an electronic search of nine databases (Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycARTICLES, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PEDro, Scopus and MEDLINE). To be eligible, trials had to examine the efficacy of interventions either for the prevention or treatment of low back pain in nurses. Primary outcomes of interest were any measure of pain and/or disability.Review methodsThree reviewers independently assessed eligibility and two reviewers independently conducted a risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Back and Neck Group).ResultsFour studies were retrieved from phase one. In phase two, 15,628 titles and abstracts were scanned. From these, 150 full-text studies were retrieved and ten were eligible. Fourteen studies (four from phase one, ten from phase two) were eligible for risk of bias assessment. The included trials were highly heterogeneous, differing in pain and disability outcome measures, types of intervention, types of control group and follow-up durations. Only four of the included studies ( n= 644 subjects) had a low risk of bias (≥6/12). Manual handling training and stress management in isolation were not effective in nurses with and without low back pain (risk of bias, 7/12, n = 210); the addition of a stretching exercise intervention was better than only performing usual activities (risk of bias, 6/12, n = 127); combining manual handling training and back school was better than passive physiotherapy (risk of bias, 7/12, n = 124); and a multidimensional intervention (risk of bias, 7/12, n = 183) was not superior to a general exercise program in reducing low back pain in nurses.ConclusionsOnly four relevant low risk of bias randomised controlled trials were found. At present there is no strong evidence of efficacy for any intervention in preventing or treating low back pain in nurses. Additional high quality randomised controlled trials are required. It may be worth exploring the efficacy of more individualised multidimensional interventions for low back pain in the nursing population.     

50 years of randomised controlled trials published in the journal Physiotherapy: a review 1967 to 2017

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are described as the gold standard of investigative clinical research. Evidence based practice is critical to the physiotherapy profession, and it is therefore important to explore the research underpinning practice by examining published RCTs.

Measuring practitioner/therapist effects in randomised trials of low back pain and neck pain interventions in primary care settings

In psychological health treatment studies it has been shown that differences between therapists account for some of the non‐specific effect of treatment but this phenomenon has not so far systematically been investigated in musculoskeletal disorders. In this study we evaluated and compared the size and potential influence of the ‘practitioner effect’ (or ‘therapist effect’) in three randomised treatment trials of low back pain and neck pain patients in primary care. We calculated the proportion of variance in outcomes attributable to differences across practitioners, i.e. the practitioner–variance partition coefficient (p–vpc). As measures of outcome, we focused on self‐reported disability as the primary outcome, but we also investigated assessed psychological outcomes. The p–vpc for the disability measures ranged from 2.6% to 7.1% across trials and time points (post treatment and follow up). Estimates differed between treatment subgroups within trials; being highest in treatment subgroups assigned to psychosocial‐based interventions. A ‘practitioner effect’ does exist and is more pronounced in treatments involving greater psychosocial emphasis. This has implications for both practice and research in this clinical area. It highlights the importance of patient–practitioner interactions, and the need to address practitioner effects in designing and analysing outcome studies in low back pain and neck pain in primary care.     

A double blind randomised controlled clinical trial on the effect of transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia (TSE) on low back pain

A double blind randomised controlled clinical trial on the effect of transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia (TSE) on low back pain was carried out in 58 patients attending a Pain Management Unit. Four TSE instruments, two active and two sham, were used and each patient was assigned randomly to one of these. Low back pain was rated by each patient using a visual analogue scale (VAS) immediately before and immediately after a single 20min treatment of TSE and also daily for the week prior to, and the week following, the treatment. No significant difference in mean pain score was detected between the active and sham treated groups immediately after treatment or during the subsequent week. The Hospital, Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) were completed by each patient and there was a positive correlation between the scores achieved on these scales and the mean pain scores in both the active and sham treated groups. A post‐trial problem was the discovery that the specification of the two active TSE machines differed from the manufacturer's specification. Thus, the output frequencies were either more (+10%) or less (?17%) while the maximum output voltages were both less (?40% and ?20%), respectively. However, additional statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the results obtained with the two active machines.     

Doctors' attitudes and beliefs regarding acute low back pain management: A systematic review

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the attitudes and beliefs of doctors to acute low back pain, and the factors that influence these. The review comprised three phases: a methodological assessment of databases (Medline, EMBASE, Psychinfo, BIOSIS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) identified potential papers; these were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers, the extraction of data and the rating of internal validity and strength of the evidence, using valid and reliable scales from accepted papers. Themes were then identified from the accepted literature. The search generated a total of 15 papers of both qualitative (n=3) and quantitative (n=12) methodologies. Themes that emerged included doctors' attitudes and beliefs, and four factors that influenced attitudes and beliefs: doctors' specialty, demographic factors, personal beliefs and education. There was consistent evidence that doctors' specialty impacted their attitudes and beliefs: lack of consensus regarding the natural history of LBP, around treatment options, and issues regarding work. There was inconsistent evidence that demographic factors (age) and level of education impacted doctors' attitudes and beliefs. Strategies to address/ modify these attitudes and beliefs are required, as in some cases they are at odds with guideline recommendations. Long term, these changes in these areas have the potential to maximise patient-care, and reduce costs to health services.     

Sanfu acupoint herbal patching for stable asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BackgroundSanfu acupoint herbal patching (SAHP) is extensively used in people with stable asthma in China. However, the evidence available is scarce. This systematic review aims to evaluate the preventive and therapeutic effect and safety of SAHP in people with stable asthma.MethodsWe searched seven electronic databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies and RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro 3.6.1 were applied to perform data analyses.ResultsA total of 34 RCTs involving 3313 participants were included. The overall methodological quality of the trials was of high risk of bias. SAHP plus conventional therapy (CT) decreased the mean frequency (times per year) of asthma exacerbations compared with CT alone (MD: −1.42; 95% CI: −2.19 to −0.65; 7 RCTs), and similar effect was found for SAHP versus sham SAHP (MD: 0.42; 95%CI: 0.26–0.69; 1 RCT). For lung function (including PEF%, FEV₁% and FEV₁/FVC), SAHP plus CT showed better effect than CT alone, and so did SAHP versus sham SAHP on PEF and PEF%. Adverse effects in the SAHP groups were reported to be mild and well tolerated.ConclusionsSAHP alone or combined with CT appears to be more effective than sham SAHP or CT on reduction of asthma exacerbations, improving lung function, and SAHP seems to be safe. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in trial quality. Further, rigorously designed, large-scale trials are warranted for robust evidence.     

The effectiveness of walking versus exercise on pain and function in chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objective: Walking is commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in chronic low back pain. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of walking interventions compared to other physical exercise on pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance, in chronic low back pain.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of walking alone compared to exercise and to exercise with added walking on adults with chronic low back pain were identified using the MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsychINFO, and SPORT Discus^TM databases. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the results. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the clinical relevance of each outcome measure was evaluated.

Results: Meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria was performed. The effectiveness of walking and exercise at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-ups appeared statistically similar. Adding walking to exercise did not induce any further statistical improvement, at short-term.

Conclusions: Pain, disability, quality of life and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise in chronic low back pain. Walking may be considered as an alternative to other physical activity. Further studies with larger samples, different walking dosages, and different walking types should be conducted.

• Implications for Rehabilitation

• Walking is commonly recommended as an activity in chronic low back pain.

• Pain, disability, and fear-avoidance similarly improve by walking or exercise.

• Adding walking to exercise does not induce greater improvement in the short-term.

• Walking may be a less-expensive alternative to physical exercise in chronic low back pain.

     

A physiotherapist-led exercise and education program for preventing recurrence of low back pain: a randomised controlled pilot trial

Background

Before beginning a large and complex trial it is considered good practice to run a pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability so that quality is maintained and resources are not wasted.

瑜伽干预下背痛效果的Meta分析

目的系统评价瑜伽治疗下背痛的有效性。方法计算机检索Web of Science、BBSCO Academic Source Complete、Elsevier ScienceDirect、Scopus、PubMed、WanFang Data和CNKI数据库,搜集有关瑜伽治疗下背痛有效性的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial,RCT),检索时限均从建库至2019年11月4日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入14个RCT,包括1 684例患者。Meta分析结果显示:与常规治疗相比,瑜伽治疗下背痛的RMDQ问卷评分更低[MD=–1.86,95%CI(–2.39,–1.33),P<0.000 01],其差异有统计学意义。亚组分析结果显示,不同锻炼频率、下背痛程度、致因、干预周期、样本量等亚组的瑜伽治疗效果均优于常规治疗组,差异均有统计学意义。结论现有证据表明,瑜伽治疗下背痛能取得更好疗效。受纳入研究数量和质量限制,上述结论尚需开展更多高质量研究予以验证。     

Factors impacting on doctors’ management of acute low back pain: A systematic review

The aim of this review was to determine the factors that impact on doctors’ management of patients with acute low back pain. A methodological assessment of databases (Medline, EMBASE, Psychinfo, BIOSIS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) identified papers which were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from accepted papers, and the internal validity and strength of the evidence were determined using valid and reliable scales.The search generated a total of 28 papers [quantitative (n = 27), qualitative (n = 1) methodologies]. Themes were identified from the accepted papers: education (n = 18), knowledge of clinical guidelines and impact on management (n = 7), and doctors’ demographics (n = 4). There was consistent evidence that doctors did not adhere to clinical guidelines when performing a spinal assessment. There was inconsistent evidence that education increased adherence with acute LBP guideline recommendations in terms of referral rates to physiotherapy, for investigations, to secondary care and for maintaining patients at work. Strategies to address the factors impacting on doctors’ management of acute LBP are required; these would lead to improvement in patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.     

Relationship between physical activity and disability in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It is often assumed that patients with pain-related disability due to low back pain (LBP) will have reduced physical activity levels, but recent studies have provided results that challenge this assumption. The aim of our systematic review was to examine the relationship between physical activity and disability in LBP. The literature search included 6 electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and studies to May 2010. To be included, studies had to measure both disability (eg, with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and physical activity (eg, by accelerometry) in patients with non-specific LBP. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data, and authors were contacted for additional data. Correlation coefficients were pooled using the random-effects model. The search identified 3213 records and 18 studies were eligible for inclusion. The pooled results showed a weak relationship between physical activity and disability in acute or subacute (<3 months) LBP (r = −0.08, 95% confidence interval = −0.17 to 0.002), and a moderate and negative relationship in chronic (>3 months) LBP (r = −0.33, 95% confidence interval = −0.51 to −0.15). That is, persons with acute or subacute LBP appear to vary in the levels of physical activity independent of their pain-related disability. Persons with chronic LBP with high levels of disability are also likely to have low levels of physical activity.