Dataset Information

An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or 'core stability') exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physiotherapy treatment within the UK there is a lack of positive evidence to support its use. The aims of this systematic review update is to investigate the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises for the treatment of NSLBP, and compare any effectiveness to other forms of exercise. METHODS: A systematic review published in 2008 was updated with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Pedro and The Cochrane Library, October 2006 to October 2013. Two authors independently selected studies, and two authors independently extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was carried out when appropriate. RESULTS: 29 studies were included: 22 studies (n?=?2,258) provided post treatment effect on pain and 24 studies (n?=?2,359) provided post treatment effect on disability. Pain and disability scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Meta-analysis showed significant benefit for stabilisation exercises versus any alternative treatment or control for long term pain and disability with mean difference of -6.39 (95% CI -10.14 to -2.65) and -3.92 (95% CI -7.25 to -0.59) respectively. The difference between groups was clinically insignificant. When compared with alternative forms of exercise, there was no statistical or clinically significant difference. Mean difference for pain was -3.06 (95% CI -6.74 to 0.63) and disability -1.89 (95% CI -5.10 to 1.33). CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence stabilisation exercises are not more effective than any other form of active exercise in the long term. The low levels of heterogeneity and large number of high methodological quality of available studies, at long term follow-up, strengthen our current findings, and further research is unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Smith BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4295260 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Smith Benjamin E BE Littlewood Chris C May Stephen S

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20141209

<h4>Background</h4>Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or 'core stability') exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physio ...[more]

PMID: 25488399

Similar Datasets

Project description:Stabilization exercise (SE) is evident for the management of chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). The optimal dose-response-relationship for the utmost treatment success is, thus, still unknown. The purpose is to systematically review the dose-response-relationship of stabilisation exercises on pain and disability in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. A systematic review with meta-regression was conducted (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane). Eligibility criteria were RCTs on patients with chronic non-specific LBP, written in English/German and adopting a longitudinal core-specific/stabilising/motor control exercise intervention with at least one outcome for pain intensity and/or disability. Meta-regressions (dependent variable?=?effect sizes (Cohens d) of the interventions (for pain and for disability), independent variable?=?training characteristics (duration, frequency, time per session)), and controlled for (low) study quality (PEDro) and (low) sample sizes (n) were conducted to reveal the optimal dose required for therapy success. From the 3,415 studies initially selected, 50 studies (n?=?2,786 LBP patients) were included. N?=?1,239 patients received SE. Training duration was 7.0?±?3.3 weeks, training frequency was 3.1?±?1.8 sessions per week with a mean training time of 44.6?±?18.0 min per session. The meta-regressions' mean effect size was d?=?1.80 (pain) and d?=?1.70 (disability). Total R2 was 0.445 and 0.17. Moderate quality evidence (R2?=?0.231) revealed that a training duration of 20 to 30 min elicited the largest effect (both in pain and disability, logarithmic association). Low quality evidence (R2?=?0.125) revealed that training 3 to 5 times per week led to the largest effect of SE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP (inverted U-shaped association). In patients with non-specific chronic LBP, stabilization exercise with a training frequency of 3 to 5 times per week (Grade C) and a training time of 20 to 30 min per session (Grade A) elicited the largest effect on pain and disability.

Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.

Project description:BackgroundTrials on sling exercise (SE), commonly performed to manage chronic low back pain (LBP), yield conflicting results. This study aimed to review the effects of SE on chronic LBP.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials comparing SE with other treatments or no treatment, published up to August 2013, were identified by electronic searches. Primary outcomes were pain, function, and return to work. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, using a random-effects model.ResultsRisk of bias was rated as high in 9 included trials, where some important quality components such as blinding were absent and sample sizes were generally small. We found no clinically relevant differences in pain or function between SE and other forms of exercise, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture. Based on two trials, SE was more effective than thermomagnetic therapy at reducing pain (short-term: WMD -13.90, 95% CI -22.19 to -5.62; long-term: WMD -26.20, 95% CI -31.32 to -21.08) and improving function (short-term: WMD -10.54, 95% CI -14.32 to -6.75; long-term: WMD -25.75, 95% CI -30.79 to -20.71). In one trial we found statistically significant differences between SE and physical agents combined with drug therapy (meloxicam combined with eperisone hydrochloride) but of borderline clinical relevance for pain (short-term: WMD -15.00, 95% CI -19.64 to -10.36) and function (short-term: WMD -10.00; 95% CI -13.70 to -6.30). There was substantial heterogeneity among the two trials comparing SE and thermomagnetic therapy; both these trials and the trial comparing SE with physical agents combined with drug therapy had serious methodological limitations.InterpretationBased on limited evidence from 2 trials, SE was more effective for LBP than thermomagnetic therapy. Clinically relevant differences in effects between SE and other forms of exercise, physical agents combined with drug therapy, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture could not be found. More high-quality randomized trials on the topic are warranted.

Project description:Background: 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. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. Methods: 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. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 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), I 2 = 46%, P = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), I 2 = 44%, P = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), I 2 = 53%, P = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), I 2 = 82%, P = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), I 2 = 92%, P = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.88]. Conclusions: 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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Exercise is considered as an effective intervention in the management of patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). However, the relative effectiveness as well as the hierarchy of exercise interventions have not been well established, although various exercise options are available. Therefore, the present protocol proposes to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of exercise for treatment of cLBP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database will be searched to identify all randomised controlled trials that evaluate the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of cLBP. There will be no restrictions on date or language. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data independently based on predesigned rules, and evaluate the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or consultation with a senior reviewer. The primary outcomes of this study will be pain relief and improvement in function or disability for all interventions. Traditional pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA will be conducted to compare the effectiveness of different exercise interventions. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarised as surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation instrument. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval and informed consent are not required since this is a protocol for a meta-analysis with no confidential personal data to be collected. The results of this NMA will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018090576.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Dataset Information

An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Publications

An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets