Dataset Information

The effectiveness of shoe insoles for the prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health problem in Western industrialised countries and has been reported to affect up to 80% of adults at some stage in their lives. It is associated with high health care utilisation costs, disability, work loss and restriction of social activities. An intervention of foot orthoses or insoles has been suggested to reduce the risk of developing LBP and be an effective treatment strategy for people suffering from LBP. However, despite the common usage of orthoses and insoles, there is a lack of clear guidelines for their use in relation to LBP. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of foot orthoses and insoles in the prevention and treatment of non specific LBP.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was conducted in May 2013. Two authors independently reviewed and selected relevant randomised controlled trials. Quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Downs and Black Checklist. Meta-analysis of study data were conducted where possible.

Results

Eleven trials were included: five trials investigated the treatment of LBP (n=293) and six trials examined the prevention of LBP (n=2379) through the use of foot orthoses or insoles. Meta-analysis showed no significant effect in favour of the foot orthoses or insoles for either the treatment trials (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, CI 95%: -1.5 to 0.03) or the prevention trials (relative risk (RR) 0.78, CI 95%: 0.50 to 1.23).

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of insoles or foot orthoses as either a treatment for LBP or in the prevention of LBP. The small number, moderate methodological quality and the high heterogeneity of the available trials reduce the strength of current findings. Future research should concentrate on identification of LBP patients most suited to foot orthoses or insole treatment, as there is some evidence that trials structured along these lines have a greater effect on reducing LBP.

SUBMITTER: Chuter V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4107719 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effectiveness of shoe insoles for the prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Chuter Vivienne V Spink Martin M Searle Angela A Ho Alan A

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20140429

<h4>Background</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health problem in Western industrialised countries and has been reported to affect up to 80% of adults at some stage in their lives. It is associated with high health care utilisation costs, disability, work loss and restriction of social activities. An intervention of foot orthoses or insoles has been suggested to reduce the risk of developing LBP and be an effective treatment strategy for people suffering from LBP. However, despite ...[more]

PMID: 24775807

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ?4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.Prospero registration numberCRD42018094412.

Project description:ObjectiveMeta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method.MethodsWe identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0-100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges.ResultsTwelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0-100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-10 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-10 scale and 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-4 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher).ConclusionRescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included.Study registration/data availabilityOpen Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).

Project description:ObjectiveAcupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during the pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during the pregnancy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe PubMed, EMBASE databases, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 15 January 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during the pregnancy were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe data extraction and study quality assessment were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. We assessed the confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were pain, functional status and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 10 studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women. Overall, acupuncture significantly relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%) and improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%) and quality of life (MD=-8.89, 95% CI: (-11.90 to -5.88), p<0.00001, I2 = 57%). There was a significant difference for overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2 = 7%). However, there was no significant difference for analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2 = 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during he study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks). Thus, prospective randomised clinical studies or clinical follow-up studies were hence desirable to further evaluate these outcomes.ConclusionsAcupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.Prospero registration numberCRD42021241771.

Project description:BackgroundNon-specific low back pain in children and adolescents has increased in recent years. The purpose of this study was to upgrade the evidence of the most effective preventive physiotherapy interventions to improve back care in children and adolescents.MethodsThe study settings were children or adolescents aged 18 years or younger. Data were obtained from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro, Web of Science, LILACS, IBECS, and PsycINFO databases and the specialized journals BMJ and Spine. The included studies were published between May 2012 and May 2020. Controlled trials on children and adolescents who received preventive physiotherapy for back care were considered. Data on all the variables gathered in each individual study were extracted by two authors separately. Two authors assessed risk of bias of included studies using the RoB2 and quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Data were described according to PRISMA guidelines. To calculate the effect size, a standardized mean difference "d" was used and a random-effects model was applied for the following outcome variables: behaviour, knowledge, trunk flexion muscle endurance, trunk extension muscle endurance, hamstring flexibility and posture.ResultsTwenty studies were finally included. The most common physiotherapy interventions were exercise, postural hygiene and physical activity. The mean age of the total sample was 11.79 years. When comparing the change from baseline to end of intervention in treatment and control groups, the following overall effect estimates were obtained: behaviour d+ = 1.19 (95% CI: 0.62 and 1.76), knowledge d+ = 1.84 (0.58 and 3.09), trunk flexion endurance d+ = 0.65 (-0.02 and 1.33), trunk extension endurance d+ = 0.71 (0.38 and 1.03), posture d+ = 0.65 (0.24 and 1.07) and hamstrings flexibility d+ = 0.46 (0.36 and 0.56). At follow-up, the measurement of the behaviour variable was between 1 and 12 months, with an effect size of d+ = 1.00 (0.37 and 1.63), whereas the knowledge variable obtained an effect size of d+ = 2.08 (-0.85 and 5.02) at 3 months of follow-up.ConclusionsRecent studies provide strong support for the use of physiotherapy in the improvement of back care and prevention of non-specific low back pain in children and adolescents. Based on GRADE methodology, we found that the evidence was from very low to moderate quality and interventions involving physical exercise, postural hygiene and physical activity should be preferred.

Project description:PurposeWalking and mind-body therapies (MBTs) are commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of walking and MBTs in CLBP.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing walking or MBTs to any other intervention or control in adults with CLBP. Studies were identified through PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. The research was limited to studies published in English and French between January 2008 and December 2018. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed studies quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Statistical analyses were performed under a random-effects model. We analyzed pain and activity limitation, with the calculation of standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for the different treatment effects.ResultsThirty one randomized controlled trials involving 3193 participants were analyzed. Walking was as effective as control interventions in the short-term and slightly superior in the intermediate term with respect to pain (Standardized mean differences (SMD) = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.03; P = .03) and activity limitation (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.10; P = .003). In contrast, yoga was more effective than control interventions in the short term in terms of pain (SMD = -1.47; 95% CI, -2.26 to -0.68; P = .0003) and activity limitation (SMD = -1.17; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.55; P = .0002). Yoga was no longer superior to the control interventions for pain at the 6-month follow-up.ConclusionMBTs, especially yoga, seem to be more effective in the short term, and walking seems to be more effective in the intermediate term, for the relief of pain and activity limitation in patients with CLBP. A combination of walking and MBTs fits the biopsychosocial model and might be valuable therapy for CLBP throughout follow-up due to combined effects.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We assessed the effectiveness of three interventions that were aimed to reduce non-acute low back pain (LBP) related symptoms in the occupational health setting. METHODS:Based on a survey (n =?2480; response rate 71%) on LBP, we selected a cohort of 193 employees who reported moderate LBP (Visual Analogue Scale VAS >?34 mm) and fulfilled at least one of the following criteria during the past 12 months: sciatica, recurrence of LBP???2 times, LBP???2 weeks, or previous sickness absence. A random sample was extracted from the cohort as a control group (Control, n =?50), representing the natural course of LBP. The remaining 143 employees were invited to participate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of three 1:1:1 allocated parallel intervention arms: multidisciplinary rehabilitation (Rehab, n =?43); progressive exercises (Physio, n?=?43) and self-care advice (Advice, n =?40). Seventeen employees declined participation in the intervention. The primary outcome measures were physical impairment (PHI), LBP intensity (Visual Analogue Scale), health related quality of life (QoL), and accumulated sickness absence days. We imputed missing values with multiple imputation procedure. We assessed all comparisons between the intervention groups and the Control group by analysing questionnaire outcomes at 2 years with ANOVA and sickness absence at 4 years by using negative binomial model with a logarithmic link function. RESULTS:Mean differences between the Rehab and Control groups were?-?3 [95% CI -5 to -?1] for PHI, -?13 [-?24 to -?1] for pain intensity, and 0.06 [0.00 to 0.12] for QoL. Mean differences between the Physio and Control groups were?-?3 [95% CI -5 to -?1] for PHI, -?13 [-?29 to 2] for pain intensity, and 0.07 [0.01 to 0.13] for QoL. The main effects sizes were from 0.4 to 0.6. The interventions were not effective in reducing sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS:Rehab and Physio interventions improved health related quality of life, decreased low back pain and physical impairment in non-acute, moderate LBP, but we found no differences between the Advice and Control group results. No effectiveness on sickness absence was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Number NCT00908102 Clinicaltrials.gov.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness of shoe insoles for the prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effectiveness of shoe insoles for the prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets