-
European Journal of Pain (London,... Feb 2021This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines.
RESULTS
Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain.
CONCLUSIONS
This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe.
SIGNIFICANCE
Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.
Topics: Analgesics; Europe; Exercise Therapy; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Neck Pain
PubMed: 33064878
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1679 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep.
OBJECTIVES
To update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks' gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians' interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect. For low-back painResults from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two). For pelvic painResults from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two). For low-back and pelvic painResults from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two).The results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit.Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.Further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Back Pain; Braces; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sick Leave
PubMed: 26422811
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub4 -
Journal of Physiotherapy Oct 2021What are the effects of specific types of exercise treatments on pain intensity and functional limitation outcomes for adults with chronic low back pain? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
QUESTION
What are the effects of specific types of exercise treatments on pain intensity and functional limitation outcomes for adults with chronic low back pain?
DESIGN
Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with non-specific low back pain for ≥ 12 weeks.
INTERVENTION
Exercise treatments prescribed or planned by a health professional that involved conducting specific activities, postures and/or movements with a goal to improve low back pain outcomes.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Pain intensity (eg, visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) and back-related functional limitations (eg, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index), each standardised to range from 0 to 100.
RESULTS
This review included 217 randomised controlled trials with 20,969 participants and 507 treatment groups. Most exercise types were more effective than minimal treatment for pain and functional limitation outcomes. Network meta-analysis results were compatible with moderate to clinically important treatment effects for Pilates, McKenzie therapy, and functional restoration (pain only) and flexibility exercises (function only) compared with minimal treatment, other effective treatments and other exercise types. The estimated mean differences for these exercise types compared with minimal treatment ranged from -15 to -19 for pain and from -10 to -12 for functional limitation.
CONCLUSION
This review found evidence that Pilates, McKenzie therapy and functional restoration were more effective than other types of exercise treatment for reducing pain intensity and functional limitations. Nevertheless, people with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to perform the exercise that they enjoy to promote adherence.
REGISTRATION
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009790.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 34538747
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphys.2021.09.004 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2020Acute low back pain is associated with pain and disability, but symptoms are often self-healing. The effectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain remains... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute low back pain is associated with pain and disability, but symptoms are often self-healing. The effectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain remains uncertain with conflicting evidence from systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the effects of exercise therapy, compared with other interventions, on pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects in adult patients with acute low back pain.
METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, PEDro, Open Grey, Web of Science, and PROSPERO were searched for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors using AMSTAR. Meta-analyses were performed if possible, using data from the original studies. Data for pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects were analyzed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS
The searches retrieved 2602 records, of which 134 publications were selected for full-text screening. Twenty-four reviews were included, in which 21 randomized controlled trials (n = 2685) presented data for an acute population, related to 69 comparisons. Overlap was high, 76%, with a corrected covered area of 0.14. Methodological quality varied from low to high. Exercise therapy was categorized into general exercise therapy, stabilization exercise, and McKenzie therapy. No important difference in pain or disability was evident when exercise therapy was compared with sham ultrasound, nor for the comparators usual care, spinal manipulative therapy, advice to stay active, and educational booklet. Neither McKenzie therapy nor stabilization exercise yielded any important difference in effects compared with other types of exercise therapy. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest very low to moderate certainty of evidence that exercise therapy may result in little or no important difference in pain or disability, compared with other interventions, in adult patients with acute low back pain. A limitation of this systematic review is that some included reviews were of low quality. When implementing findings of this systematic review in clinical practice, patients' preferences and the clinician's expertise also should be considered, to determine if and when exercise therapy should be the intervention of choice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD46146, available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=46146 .
Topics: Adult; Humans; Chronic Pain; Exercise Therapy; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 32795336
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01412-8 -
Arthritis and Rheumatism Jun 2012To perform a systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain, and to examine the influence that case definition, prevalence period, and other variables have... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain, and to examine the influence that case definition, prevalence period, and other variables have on prevalence.
METHODS
We conducted a new systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain that included general population studies published between 1980 and 2009. A total of 165 studies from 54 countries were identified. Of these, 64% had been published since the last comparable review.
RESULTS
Low back pain was shown to be a major problem throughout the world, with the highest prevalence among female individuals and those aged 40-80 years. After adjusting for methodologic variation, the mean ± SEM point prevalence was estimated to be 11.9 ± 2.0%, and the 1-month prevalence was estimated to be 23.2 ± 2.9%.
CONCLUSION
As the population ages, the global number of individuals with low back pain is likely to increase substantially over the coming decades. Investigators are encouraged to adopt recent recommendations for a standard definition of low back pain and to consult a recently developed tool for assessing the risk of bias of prevalence studies.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Global Health; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Sex Factors
PubMed: 22231424
DOI: 10.1002/art.34347 -
Revista de Saude Publica 2015To estimate worldwide prevalence of chronic low back pain according to age and sex. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate worldwide prevalence of chronic low back pain according to age and sex.
METHODS
We consulted Medline (PubMed), LILACS and EMBASE electronic databases. The search strategy used the following descriptors and combinations: back pain, prevalence, musculoskeletal diseases, chronic musculoskeletal pain, rheumatic, low back pain, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic low back pain. We selected cross-sectional population-based or cohort studies that assessed chronic low back pain as an outcome. We also assessed the quality of the selected studies as well as the chronic low back pain prevalence according to age and sex.
RESULTS
The review included 28 studies. Based on our qualitative evaluation, around one third of the studies had low scores, mainly due to high non-response rates. Chronic low back pain prevalence was 4.2% in individuals aged between 24 and 39 years old and 19.6% in those aged between 20 and 59. Of nine studies with individuals aged 18 and above, six reported chronic low back pain between 3.9% and 10.2% and three, prevalence between 13.1% and 20.3%. In the Brazilian older population, chronic low back pain prevalence was 25.4%.
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic low back pain prevalence increases linearly from the third decade of life on, until the 60 years of age, being more prevalent in women. Methodological approaches aiming to reduce high heterogeneity in case definitions of chronic low back pain are essential to consistency and comparative analysis between studies. A standard chronic low back pain definition should include the precise description of the anatomical area, pain duration and limitation level.
Topics: Age Factors; Chronic Pain; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Pain Measurement; Prevalence; Sex Factors
PubMed: 26487293
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005874 -
The Journal of Pain Mar 2019The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS) are the most frequently used instruments to...
Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.
The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS) are the most frequently used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain. However, their measurement properties in this population have not been reviewed systematically. The goal of this study was to provide such systematic evidence synthesis. Six electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Google Scholar) were searched (July 2017). Studies assessing any measurement property in patients with nonspecific low back pain were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. For each measurement property, evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low (GRADE approach) and results were classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent. Ten studies assessed the VAS, 13 the NRS, 4 the BPI-PS. The 3 instruments displayed low or very low quality evidence for content validity. High-quality evidence was only available for NRS insufficient measurement error. Moderate evidence was available for NRS inconsistent responsiveness, BPI-PS sufficient structural validity and internal consistency, and BPI-PS inconsistent construct validity. All VAS measurement properties were underpinned by no, low, or very low quality evidence; likewise, the other measurement properties of NRS and BPI-PS. PERSPECTIVES: Despite their broad use, there is no evidence clearly suggesting that one among VAS, NRS, and BPI-PS has superior measurement properties in low back pain. Future adequate quality head-to-head comparisons are needed and priority should be given to assessing content validity, test-retest reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Psychometrics; Severity of Illness Index; Visual Analog Scale
PubMed: 30099210
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.009 -
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 -
The Journal of Pain Apr 2022Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is common among older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize: (1) the prevalence and incidence of CLBP in older adults, and (2)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Prevalence, Incidence, and Factors Associated With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Aged 60 Years and Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is common among older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize: (1) the prevalence and incidence of CLBP in older adults, and (2) demographic, psychological, and clinical factors positively/negatively associated with prevalence/incidence of CLBP among older adults. Four databases were searched to identify relevant publications. Ten studies (31,080 older adults) were included after being screened by 5 independent reviewers using predetermined criteria. The methodological quality of these studies was evaluated by standardized tools. The quality of evidence for all factors were appraised by modified GRADE for cohort studies. Twenty-eight and 1 factors were associated with a higher prevalence and a lower 5-year cumulative incidence of CLBP, respectively. No prognostic factor was identified. There was very limited to limited evidence that females, obesity, anxiety, depression, mental disorders, self-expectation of recovery, self-perceived health status, lifestyle (smoking, daily fluoride consumption), previous falls or lower body injury, retirement/disability due to ill health, family history of body pain, comorbidity (knee osteoarthritis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with/without hypertension), weak abdominal muscles, leg pain, leg pain intensity, widespread pain, pain interference on functioning, use of pain medication, occupational exposure (driving for >20 years, or jobs involving bending/twisting for >10 years), disc space narrowing and severe facet osteoarthritis were significantly related to a higher prevalence of CLBP in older adults. However, very limited evidence suggested that intermediate level of leisure-time physical activity was associated with a lower prevalence of CLBP in older adults. Given the aging population and limited information regarding risk factors for CLBP in older adults, future high-quality prospective studies should identify relevant risk factors to help develop proper preventive and treatment strategies. PERSPECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of non-specific chronic low back pain among older adults, there is only very limited to limited evidence regarding factors associated with a higher prevalence of chronic low back pain in this population. Given the aging population, high-quality prospective studies are warranted to address this gap.
Topics: Aged; Chronic Pain; Female; Humans; Incidence; Independent Living; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34450274
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2021.07.012 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Jun 2021The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to quantitatively examine the effects of myofascial release technique (MFR) on pain intensity, back disability, lumbar range... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to quantitatively examine the effects of myofascial release technique (MFR) on pain intensity, back disability, lumbar range of motion, and quality of life in patients with low back pain (LBP).
METHODS
Potential articles were retrieved using five electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang). The search period was from inception to January 27, 2021. Two researchers independently completed record retrieval and selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of MFR on pain intensity, back disability, lumbar range of motion, and quality of life in LBP patients were included. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random effects models and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI).
RESULTS
Data from eight RCTs (386 patients with back pain) meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted for meta-analysis with methodological quality assessment scores ranging from 6 to 10. Compared to the control intervention, MFR induced significant decrease in back disability (SMD = -0.35, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = -0.68, -0.02, P = 0.04, I² = 46 %, n = 284). MFR induced non-significant decrease in the pain intensity (SMD = -0.12, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.35, 0.11, P = 0.32, I² = 0%, n = 294), non-significant improvement in quality of life (SMD = -0.09, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = -0.46, 0.28, P = 0.62, I² = 0%, n = 114), and non-significant improvement in lumbar range of motion (Flexion SMD = 0.57,95 % confidence interval [CI] = -0.09, 1.24, P = 0.09, I² = 54 %, n = 80) (Extension SMD = 0.68, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.72, 2.08, P = 0.34, I² = 89 %, n = 80) (Right flexion SMD = 0.05, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.90, 0.99, P = 0.92, I² = 78 %, n = 80) (Left flexion SMD = 0.14, 95 % confidence interval[CI] = -0.59, 0.88, P = 0.70, I² = 64 %, n = 80).
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that MFR can improve the effect of physical therapy alone and exercise therapy alone, and that MFR can be an effective adjuvant therapy. Meta-analysis showed that MFR has a significant effect on reducing back disability in patients with low back pain, but no significant effect on reducing pain intensity, improving quality of life, and improving lumbar range of motion.
Topics: Back Pain; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Physical Therapy Modalities; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33984499
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2021.102737