-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias. Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.
Topics: Adult; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Mind-Body Therapies; Musculoskeletal Manipulations
PubMed: 34580864
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Jun 2021Patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the neck and upper back have active trigger points and may present with pain and decreased function. Dry needling (DN) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the neck and upper back have active trigger points and may present with pain and decreased function. Dry needling (DN) and trigger point manual therapy (TMPT) techniques are often used to manage MPS.
OBJECTIVE
To compare DN and TPMT for reducing pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) scores and improving function on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with neck and upper back MPS.
METHODS
PubMed, PEDro, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials within the last 10 years comparing a group receiving DN and the other receiving TPMT. Studies were assessed using PEDro scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model. Standardized mean differences (Cohen's d) and confidence intervals were calculated to compare DN to TPMT for effects on VAS, PPT, and NDI.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials with 241 participants total were included in this systematic review. The effect size of difference between DN and TPMT was non-significant for VAS [d = 0.41 (-0.18, 0.99)], for PPT [d = 0.64 (-0.19, 1.47)], and for NDI [d = -0.66 (-1.33, 0.02)].
CONCLUSIONS
Both DN and TPMT improve pain and function in the short to medium term. Neither is more superior than the other.
Topics: Dry Needling; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Neck Pain; Trigger Points
PubMed: 32962567
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2020.1822618 -
Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem Nov 2018to evaluate the evidence from the literature regarding the effects of cupping therapy on chronic back pain in adults, the most used outcomes to evaluate this condition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
to evaluate the evidence from the literature regarding the effects of cupping therapy on chronic back pain in adults, the most used outcomes to evaluate this condition, the protocol used to apply the intervention and to investigate the effectiveness of cupping therapy on the intensity of chronic back pain.
METHOD
systematic review and meta-analysis carried out by two independent researchers in national and international databases. Reference lists of systematic reviews were also explored. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the Jadad scale.
RESULTS
611 studies were identified, of which 16 were included in the qualitative analysis and 10 in the quantitative analysis. Cupping therapy has shown positive results on chronic back pain. There is no standardization in the treatment protocol. The main assessed outcomes were pain intensity, physical incapacity, quality of life and nociceptive threshold before the mechanical stimulus. There was a significant reduction in the pain intensity score through the use of cupping therapy (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION
cupping therapy is a promising method for the treatment of chronic back pain in adults. There is the need to establish standardized application protocols for this intervention.
Topics: Back Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Therapy, Soft Tissue; Vacuum
PubMed: 30462793
DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2888.3094 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2017Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization.
METHODS
A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR.
RESULTS
Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Spinal Stenosis; Spondylolisthesis
PubMed: 28499364
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2021BELAVY, D. L., J. Van Oosterwijck, M. Clarkson, E. Dhondt, N. L. Mundell, C. Miller and P. J. Owen. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2020. Exercise training is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BELAVY, D. L., J. Van Oosterwijck, M. Clarkson, E. Dhondt, N. L. Mundell, C. Miller and P. J. Owen. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2020. Exercise training is capable of reducing pain in chronic pain syndromes, yet its mechanisms are less well established. One mechanism may be via the impact of exercise on increasing a person's pain threshold. Here we show, via meta-analysis of fifteen exercise training studies in pain syndromes that exercise training leads to increased pressure pain thresholds (low to moderate quality evidence). We also find low to moderate quality evidence exists that exercise training was more effective than non-exercise interventions, such as pain education, massage and stress management for improving pain sensitivity. Further, the effect of exercise was greater locally at the site of pain and less so at remote regions. These finding suggest that adaptations in central inhibition occur over time with exercise training and, more widely, add to the mechanistic understanding of how effective interventions can improve pain in chronic pain syndromes.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 33253748
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.012 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Sep 2022Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a noninvasive manual therapy technique that has been employed for the treatment of MPS in past decades. However, little attention has been devoted to this topic.
OBJECTIVES
The present review was designed to explore the efficacy of ischemic compression for myofascial pain syndrome by performing a descriptive systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of ischemic compression on MPS.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with myofascial pain subjects who received ischemic compression versus placebo, sham, or usual interventions. Five databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid) were searched from the earliest data available to 2022.1.2. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistics. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of tool 2 (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For the pressure pain threshold (PPT) index, 11 studies and 427 subjects demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control at posttreatment (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.35, 0.98], P < 0.0001, I = 59%). For visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) indices, 7 studies and 251 subjects demonstrated that there was no significant difference between ischemic compression and controls posttreatment (SMD = - 0.22, 95% CI [- 0.53, 0.09], P = 0.16, I = 33%).
CONCLUSION
Ischemic compression, as a conservative and noninvasive therapy, only enhanced tolerance to pain in MPS subjects compared with inactive control. Furthermore, there was no evidence of benefit for self-reported pain. The number of currently included subjects was relatively small, so the conclusion may be changed by future studies. Big scale RCTs with more subjects will be critical in future.
Topics: Humans; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 36050701
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00441-5 -
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports... Mar 2017Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Background An increasing number of physical therapists in the United States and throughout the world are using dry... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Background An increasing number of physical therapists in the United States and throughout the world are using dry needling to treat musculoskeletal pain. Objective To examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of dry needling delivered by a physical therapist for any musculoskeletal pain condition. Methods Electronic databases were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials included those with human subjects who had musculoskeletal conditions that were treated with dry needling performed by a physical therapist, compared with a control or other intervention. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results The initial search returned 218 articles. After screening, 13 were included. Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale scores ranged from 4 to 9 (out of a maximum score of 10), with a median score of 7. Eight meta-analyses were performed. In the immediate to 12-week follow-up period, studies provided evidence that dry needling may decrease pain and increase pressure pain threshold when compared to control/sham or other treatment. At 6 to 12 months, dry needling was favored for decreasing pain, but the treatment effect was not statistically significant. Dry needling, when compared to control/sham treatment, provides a statistically significant effect on functional outcomes, but not when compared to other treatments. Conclusion Very low-quality to moderate-quality evidence suggests that dry needling performed by physical therapists is more effective than no treatment, sham dry needling, and other treatments for reducing pain and improving pressure pain threshold in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain in the immediate to 12-week follow-up period. Low-quality evidence suggests superior outcomes with dry needling for functional outcomes when compared to no treatment or sham needling. However, no difference in functional outcomes exists when compared to other physical therapy treatments. Evidence of long-term benefit of dry needling is currently lacking. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(3):133-149. Epub 3 Feb 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7096.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Needles; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Physical Therapy Modalities; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trigger Points
PubMed: 28158962
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7096 -
Nutrients Jan 2023Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is recognized for its difficulty to diagnose and its subjective symptomatology. There is neither a known cure nor a recommended therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is recognized for its difficulty to diagnose and its subjective symptomatology. There is neither a known cure nor a recommended therapeutic diet to aid in the multidisciplinary treatment. We conducted a systematic review to investigate if diets can improve pain symptoms of fibromyalgia. Through the PubMed search in March 2022, 126 abstracts were identified. We included both intervention and observational studies of diets and pain symptoms among patients with FMS. After screening titles, abstracts, and full-texts, 12 studies, including 11 intervention and one observational study, were selected. These studies included 546 participants and investigated plant-based diets ( = 3), anti-inflammatory diets ( = 1), gluten-free diets ( = 2), and elimination/restrictive diets ( = 6). These studies assessed pain symptoms through visual analogue scale for pain, fibromyalgia impact questionnaire/revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire, tender point count, pain pressure threshold, and/or total myalgic score. Nine studies, including all three plant-based diet studies, reported statistically significant beneficial effects of their respective diets on pain symptom measurements. Given the small sample size and short intervention duration of the included studies, limited evidence currently exists to recommend any specific diet to patients with FMS. Further research is warranted to clarify specific diets to recommend and explore their potential mechanisms.
Topics: Humans; Fibromyalgia; Pain Threshold; Diet, Gluten-Free; Pain Measurement; Myalgia; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36771421
DOI: 10.3390/nu15030716 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP...
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP treatment is very challenging, and more effective treatment methods are needed. Myofascial release may be an effective therapy for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It is widely used clinically to treat CLBP, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. We selected PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database articles published until April 5, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of myofascial release for CLBP were included. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, quality of life, balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, and mental health. For each outcome, Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Eight RCTs ( = 375) were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the overall efficacy of myofascial release for CLBP was significant, including two aspects: pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.08), = 46%, = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), = 44%, = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), = 53%, = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), = 82%, = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), = 73%, = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), = 92%, = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), = 73%, = 0.88]. In this study, we systematically reviewed and quantified the efficacy of myofascial release in treating CLBP. The meta-analysis results showed that myofascial release significantly improved pain and physical function in patients with CLBP but had no significant effects on balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, mental health, and quality of life. However, due to the low quality and a small number of included literature, more and more rigorously designed RCTs should be included in the future to verify these conclusions.
PubMed: 34395477
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.697986 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Nov 2015There is a lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) on subjects with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The aim of this systematic review is to... (Review)
Review
Manual therapy for the management of pain and limited range of motion in subjects with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorder: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
There is a lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) on subjects with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The aim of this systematic review is to synthetise evidence regarding the isolated effect of MT in improving maximum mouth opening (MMO) and pain in subjects with signs and symptoms of TMD. MEDLINE(®) , Cochrane, Web of Science, SciELO and EMBASE(™) electronic databases were consulted, searching for randomised controlled trials applying MT for TMD compared to other intervention, no intervention or placebo. Two authors independently extracted data, PEDro scale was used to assess risk of bias, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was applied to synthetise overall quality of the body of evidence. Treatment effect size was calculated for pain, MMO and pressure pain threshold (PPT). Eight trials were included, seven of high methodological quality. Myofascial release and massage techniques applied on the masticatory muscles are more effective than control (low to moderate evidence) but as effective as toxin botulinum injections (moderate evidence). Upper cervical spine thrust manipulation or mobilisation techniques are more effective than control (low to high evidence), while thoracic manipulations are not. There is moderate-to-high evidence that MT techniques protocols are effective. The methodological heterogeneity across trials protocols frequently contributed to decrease quality of evidence. In conclusion, there is widely varying evidence that MT improves pain, MMO and PPT in subjects with TMD signs and symptoms, depending on the technique. Further studies should consider using standardised evaluations and better study designs to strengthen clinical relevance.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Recovery of Function; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26059857
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12321