-
European Spine Journal : Official... Feb 2023Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).
RESULTS
Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
CONCLUSION
Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.
Topics: Humans; Sciatica; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 36580149
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07356-y -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Neuropathic pain (NP), a severe and disruptive symptom following many diseases, normally restricts patients' physical functions and leads to anxiety and depression. As...
Neuropathic pain (NP), a severe and disruptive symptom following many diseases, normally restricts patients' physical functions and leads to anxiety and depression. As an economical and effective therapy, exercise may be helpful in NP management. However, few guidelines and reviews focused on exercise therapy for NP associated with specific diseases. The study aimed to summarize the effectiveness and efficacy of exercise for various diseases with NP supported by evidence, describe expert recommendations for NP from different causes, and inform policymakers of the guidelines. A systematic review and expert consensus. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed. We included systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which assessed patients with NP. Studies involved exercise intervention and outcome included pain intensity at least. Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of the included RCTs and systematic reviews, respectively. The final grades of recommendation were based on strength of evidence and a consensus discussion of results of Delphi rounds by the Delphi consensus panel including 21 experts from the Chinese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine. Eight systematic reviews and 21 RCTs fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were included, which were used to create the 10 evidence-based consensus statements. The 10 expert recommendations regarding exercise for NP symptoms were relevant to the following 10 different diseases: spinal cord injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, cervical radiculopathy, sciatica, diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, HIV/AIDS, and surgery, respectively. The exercise recommended in the expert consensus involved but was not limited to muscle stretching, strengthening/resistance exercise, aerobic exercise, motor control/stabilization training and mind-body exercise (Tai Chi and yoga). Based on the available evidence, exercise is helpful to alleviate NP intensity. Therefore, these expert consensuses recommend that proper exercise programs can be considered as an effective alternative treatment or complementary therapy for most patients with NP. The expert consensus provided medical staff and policymakers with applicable recommendations for the formulation of exercise prescription for NP. This consensus statement will require regular updates after five-ten years.
PubMed: 34901069
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.756940 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30-50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 49 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdisectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Sciatica; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19445754
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2023To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).
RESULTS
24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).
CONCLUSION
Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021269997.
Topics: Humans; Sciatica; Quality of Life; Back Pain; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Steroids; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37076169
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070730 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2019To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored.
RESULTS
47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT.
CONCLUSION
SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Spinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30867144
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l689 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Aug 2022To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.
METHODS
The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison.
CONCLUSION
The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.
Topics: Acute Pain; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Sciatica; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 35067217
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2021.2024677 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Nov 2023To Identify evidence-based rehabilitation interventions for persons with non-specific low back pain (LBP) with and without radiculopathy and to develop recommendations... (Review)
Review
A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Persons With Non-specific Low Back Pain With and Without Radiculopathy: Identification of Best Evidence for Rehabilitation to Develop the WHO's Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
To Identify evidence-based rehabilitation interventions for persons with non-specific low back pain (LBP) with and without radiculopathy and to develop recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR).
DATA SOURCE
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, PEDro, the Trip Database, the Index to Chiropractic Literature and the gray literature.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible guidelines were (1) published between 2009 and 2019 in English, French, Italian, or Swedish; (2) included adults or children with non-specific LBP with or without radiculopathy; and (3) assessed the benefits of rehabilitation interventions on functioning. Pairs of independent reviewers assessed the quality of the CPGs using AGREE II.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We identified 4 high-quality CPGs. Recommended interventions included (1) education about recovery expectations, self-management strategies, and maintenance of usual activities; (2) multimodal approaches incorporating education, exercise, and spinal manipulation; (3) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs combined with education in the acute stage; and (4) intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation that includes exercise and cognitive/behavioral interventions for persistent pain. We did not identify high-quality CPGs for people younger than 16 years of age.
CONCLUSION
We developed evidence-based recommendations from high-quality CPGs to inform the WHO PIR for people with LBP with and without radiculopathy. These recommendations emphasize the potential benefits of education, exercise, manual therapy, and cognitive/behavioral interventions.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Radiculopathy; Low Back Pain; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; World Health Organization
PubMed: 36963709
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.02.022 -
Atencion Primaria Jan 2022This SR aims to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin on pain and disability caused by acute sciatica and the adverse events associated with their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
This SR aims to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin on pain and disability caused by acute sciatica and the adverse events associated with their clinical use.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATABASES
Electronic databases of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from their inception until March 1st of 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials (RCT) with adults>18 years old with acute sciatica for a minimum of 1 week and a maximum of 1 year (at least moderate pain).
DATA TREATMENT
The outcomes were pain, disability and adverse events. Data was summarized using odds ratio and mean difference. GRADE was used to calculate the level of evidence.
RESULTS
Eight RCT involving 747 participants were included. The effect of pregabalin was assessed in 3 RCT and in one three-arm trial (pregabalin vs limaprost vs a combination of limaprost and pregabalin). Two trials assessed the effect of gabapentin compared with placebo and one compared with tramadol. One study assessed the effect of gabapentin vs pregabalin in a crossover head-to-head trial. A statistically significant improvement on leg pain at 2 weeks and leg pain with movement at 3 and 4 months was found in a RCT comparing gabapentin with placebo. There were no statistically differences on the remaining time periods assessed for leg pain, low back pain and functional disability.
CONCLUSIONS
This SR provides clear evidence for lack of effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin for sciatica pain management. In view of this, its routine clinical use cannot be supported.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Gabapentin; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pregabalin; Sciatica
PubMed: 34637958
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2021.102144 -
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative... Feb 2023Low back pain can present with radicular pain caused by lumbosacral nerve root pathology. Neural mobilization (NM) is a treatment technique used to treat low back and...
BACKGROUND
Low back pain can present with radicular pain caused by lumbosacral nerve root pathology. Neural mobilization (NM) is a treatment technique used to treat low back and radicular pain (LBRP).
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness of NM interventions in improving pain, disability, and function in adults with LBRP.
DATA SOURCES
CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE (Ovid), Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Cochrane databases were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of NM on pain, disability, and/or function in adults with LBRP.
DATA EXTRACTION
Authors reviewed studies and used the PEDro scale and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess methodological quality and risk of bias.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Eight studies were included. Six of the eight studies found the addition of NM to conservative treatment improved all measured outcomes. One study found improvements in some but not all functional measures, and delayed improvements in pain. One study found improvements in measures of neural sensitivity, but not overall pain and disability.
CONCLUSIONS
NM may be an effective tool for short-term improvements in pain, function, and disability associated with LBRP. Additional high quality research is needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
: This systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020192338).
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Musculoskeletal Pain
PubMed: 35583521
DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2022.2065599 -
PloS One 2022Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively).
RESULTS
27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Patient Education as Topic; Quality of Life; Sciatica
PubMed: 36223377
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274527