Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background  

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.     

Effectiveness of preventive back educational interventions for low back pain: a critical review of randomized controlled clinical trials

Purpose

A systematic search was conducted to study the efficiency of preventive educational interventions mainly focused on a biomechanical/biomedical model.

Methods

The Pubmed electronic database and the Cochrane Library were searched based on a combination of keywords related to low back pain (LBP) and posture education. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying the efficiency on outcomes directly related to LBP of a preventive intervention programme mainly based on education of proper care of the back for subjects not seeking treatment were included. References of the articles meeting these inclusion criteria were also checked to identify other potential citations. Besides, a methodological study assessment of the included RCTs was performed.

Results

Nine studies, all conducted at the workplace were included in this review. Their mean quality level was low (5.1/12) and among the four studies with a huge sample size (n > 400 subjects), only one had an acceptable methodological quality score (6/12). The education interventions differed widely from one study to another. No significant differences between the control and education groups were found at the follow-up in eight out of the nine studies on the incidence of back pain, disability and sick leave.

Conclusions

The results of the RCTs included in this review suggest that educational interventions mainly focused on a biomechanical/biomedical model are not effective in preventing LBP. However, taking into account the methodological quality level of the RCTs as well as the very short and heterogeneous interventions often proposed, additional high-quality studies with a longer education period are needed to conclude that such interventions are inefficient.     

Acupuncture and related techniques for postoperative pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Postoperative pain management remains a significant challenge for all healthcare providers. The objective of this systematic review was to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture and related techniques as adjunct analgesics for acute postoperative pain management. We searched the databases of Medline (1966-2007), CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2006), and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using acupuncture for postoperative pain management. We extracted data about postoperative opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, and opioid-related side-effects. Combined data were analysed using a random effects model. Fifteen RCTs comparing acupuncture with sham control in the management of acute postoperative pain were included. Weighted mean difference for cumulative opioid analgesic consumption was -3.14 mg (95% confidence interval, CI: -5.15, -1.14), -8.33 mg (95% CI: -11.06, -5.61), and -9.14 mg (95% CI: -16.07, -2.22) at 8, 24, and 72 h, respectively. Postoperative pain intensity (visual analogue scale, 0-100 mm) was also significantly decreased in the acupuncture group at 8 and 72 h compared with the control group. The acupuncture treatment group was associated with a lower incidence of opioid-related side-effects such as nausea (relative risk, RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.86), dizziness (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.81), sedation (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.99), pruritus (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.96), and urinary retention (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.74). Perioperative acupuncture may be a useful adjunct for acute postoperative pain management.     

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background contextThere have been no full-scale trials of the optimal number of visits for the care of any condition with spinal manipulation.PurposeTo identify the dose-response relationship between visits to a chiropractor for spinal manipulation and chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes and to determine the efficacy of manipulation by comparison with a light massage control.Study design/settingPractice-based randomized controlled trial.Patient sampleFour hundred participants with cLBP.Outcome measuresThe primary cLBP outcomes were the 100-point modified Von Korff pain intensity and functional disability scales evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included days with pain and functional disability, pain unpleasantness, global perceived improvement, medication use, and general health status.MethodsOne hundred participants with cLBP were randomized to each of four dose levels of care: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for 6 weeks. At sessions when manipulation was not assigned, they received a focused light massage control. Covariate-adjusted linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, 39, and 52 weeks.ResultsFor the primary outcomes, mean pain and disability improvement in the manipulation groups were 20 points by 12 weeks and sustainable to 52 weeks. Linear dose-response effects were small, reaching about two points per six manipulation sessions at 12 and 52 weeks for both variables (p<.025). At 12 weeks, the greatest differences from the no-manipulation control were found for 12 sessions (8.6 pain and 7.6 disability points, p<.025); at 24 weeks, differences were negligible; and at 52 weeks, the greatest group differences were seen for 18 visits (5.9 pain and 8.8 disability points, p<.025).ConclusionsThe number of spinal manipulation visits had modest effects on cLBP outcomes above those of 18 hands-on visits to a chiropractor. Overall, 12 visits yielded the most favorable results but was not well distinguished from other dose levels.     

Prehabilitation for general surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background

Prehabilitation seeks to optimize patient health before surgery to improve outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on prehabilitation, however an updated synthesis of this evidence is required across General Surgery to inform potential Supplementary discipline-level protocols. Accordingly, this systematic review of RCTs aimed to evaluate the use of prehabilitation interventions across the discipline of General Surgery.

Methods

This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403289), and adhered to PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched to 4 March 2023 for RCTs evaluating prehabilitation interventions within the discipline of General Surgery. After data extraction, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized and analysed. However, meta-analysis was precluded due to heterogeneity across included studies.

Results

From 929 records, 36 RCTs of mostly low risk of bias were included. 17 (47.2%) were from Europe, and 14 (38.9%) North America. 30 (83.3%) investigated cancer populations. 31 (86.1%) investigated physical interventions, finding no significant difference in 16 (51.6%) and significant improvement in 14 (45.2%). Nine (25%) investigated psychological interventions: six (66.7%) found significant improvement, three (33.3%) found no significant difference. Five (13.9%) investigated nutritional interventions, finding no significant difference in three (60%), and significant improvement in two (40%).

Conclusions

Prehabilitation interventions showed mixed levels of effectiveness, and there is insufficient RCT evidence to suggest system-level delivery across General Surgery within standardized protocols. However, given potential benefits and non-inferiority to standard care, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.     

The Prevalence of low back pain in Africa: a systematic review

Background  

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition and one the most common causes of disability in the developed nations. Anecdotally, there is a general assumption that LBP prevalence in Africa is comparatively lower than in developed countries. The aim of this review was to systematically appraise the published prevalence studies conducted on the African continent to establish the prevalence of LBP in Africa.     

Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature

The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients’ expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline.     

Screening for malignancy in low back pain patients: a systematic review

To describe the accuracy of clinical features and tests used to screen for malignancy in patients with low back pain. A systematic review was performed on all available records on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL electronic databases. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated a cohort of low back pain patients, used an appropriate reference standard, and reported sufficient data on the diagnostic accuracy of tests. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data to calculate positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios. Six studies evaluating 22 different clinical features and tests were identified. The prevalence of malignancy ranged from 0.1 to 3.5%. A previous history of cancer (LR+ = 23.7), elevated ESR (LR+ = 18.0), reduced hematocrit (LR+ = 18.2), and overall clinician judgement (LR+ = 12.1) increased the probability of malignancy when present. A combination of age ≥50 years, a previous history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, and failure to improve after 1 month had a reported sensitivity of 100%. Overall, there was poor reporting of methodological quality items, and very few studies were performed in community primary care settings. Malignancy is rare as a cause of low back pain. The most useful features and tests are a previous history of cancer, elevated ESR, reduced hematocrit, and clinician judgement.     

Efficacy of radiofrequency procedures for the treatment of spinal pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of radiofrequency (RF) procedures in the peripheral nervous system to treat chronic spinal pain has been the subject of controversy. Publications concerned only uncontrolled studies, and irreversible nervous tissue damage was believed to be responsible for the effect, if any. In recent years, randomized, controlled studies have appeared, which have attested to an increasing use of these techniques. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on RF procedures for spinal pain. METHODS: We performed a standardized literature search for randomized, controlled trials. Three adjudicators independently registered trial methodology and outcome using validated and subject-related instruments. Interadjudicator disagreement was resolved by discussion. It was found necessary to devise additional parameters of study assessment. RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria. This small number, along with clinical and technical heterogeneity precluded statistical analysis. All studies, whether high or low quality, reported positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate evidence that RF lumbar facet denervation is more effective for chronic low back pain than placebo. Limited evidence exists for efficacy of RF neurotomy in chronic cervical zygapophyseal joint pain after flexion-extension injury. There is limited evidence that RF heating of the dorsal root ganglion is more effective than placebo in chronic cervicobrachialgia. We recommend the systematic application of our additional parameter assessments for future evaluations of RF studies. These additional parameters should also be used in the preparation of future trial protocols of RF procedures for the treatment of chronic pain.