Tuina for low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common symptoms prompting patients to seek treatment. In China, tuina is a common treatment for LBP, but its effects and safety remain uncertain. This protocol is to provide the methods used to assess the effectiveness and safety of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.Methods
We will search the following databases by electronic methods: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data (WAN FANG), and VIP Information (VIP). The time limit for retrieving studies is set to be built in and before July 2018 for each database. The therapeutic effects according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) will be accepted as the primary outcomes. We will use RevMan V.5.3 software as well to compute the data synthesis carefully when a meta-analysis is allowed.Results
This study will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.Conclusion
The conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether tuina is an effective intervention for patient with LBP.Prospero registration number
PROSPERO CRD 42018096762.
SUBMITTER: Fan Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6113039 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Tuina for low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fan Zhiyong Z Tian Qiang Q Guo Rusong R Zhang Yu Y Wu Shan S
Medicine 20180801 34
<h4>Background</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common symptoms prompting patients to seek treatment. In China, tuina is a common treatment for LBP, but its effects and safety remain uncertain. This protocol is to provide the methods used to assess the effectiveness and safety of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.<h4>Methods</h4>We will search the following databases by electronic methods: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain. METHODS:We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6?weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12?weeks), and chronic (greater than 12?weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology. DISCUSSION:This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019145257.
| S-EPMC7643321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.
| S-EPMC8634013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe association between occupational mechanical exposures and chronic low back pain (LBP) has been widely studied, however, few systematic reviews have evaluated the evidence of an association. Furthermore, little is known of the impact of occupational psychosocial exposures on chronic LBP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP.MethodsThe study will be conducted as a systematic review using another systematic review published in 2014 as basis and has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42021281996. A systematic literature search will be performed in 6 scientific databases to identified potential relevant studies published after 2014. Studies will systematically be excluded through a screening process performed independently by 2 reviewers. Exposures will include occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures, and outcome will include chronic LBP (LBP ≥3 months, "degenerative" diseases, and lumbosacral radiculopathy). Study population will include persons in or above working age, and study designs will comprise cohort and case-control studies. The quality of each included study will be methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers and level of evidence of an association will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. In meta-analyses, effect sizes will be addressed using random-effect models, sensitivity analyses will explore the robustness of the meta-analysis, and heterogeneity assessed.DiscussionThis systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence available of the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. The review can provide essential knowledge on the association, exposure-response relationships, thresholds, which may pave the way for political decisions on the occupational environment and the labour market insurance policy.
| S-EPMC10162539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPsychological factors such as fear avoidance beliefs, depression, anxiety, catastrophic thinking and familial and social stress, have been associated with high disability levels in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Guidelines endorse the integration of psychological interventions in the management of chronic LBP. However, uncertainty surrounds the comparative effectiveness of different psychological approaches. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows comparison and ranking of numerous competing interventions for a given outcome of interest. Therefore, we will perform a systematic review with a NMA to determine which type of psychological intervention is most effective for adults with chronic non-specific LBP.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL) from inception until 22 August 2019 for randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions to any comparison interventions in adults with chronic non-specific LBP. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcomes will include physical function and pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, intervention compliance and safety. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. We will conduct a random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach to estimate relative effects for all comparisons between treatments and rank treatments according to the mean rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. All analyses will be performed in Stata.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42019138074.
| S-EPMC7500308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPregnancy-related low back pain (PLBP) affects the daily living activities of pregnant women, even leading to fetal agitation and threatened abortion. Kinesio taping (KT) can improve the circulation of blood and provide elastic supports, which is a reliable method to treat low back pain. At present, although many studies have been published on the effects of KT on PLBP, the results are inconsistent, and some studies even report that KT does not affect PLBP. there is still a lack of high-level clinical evidence for the treatment of PLBP with KT. Therefore, this study proposes a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of KT for PLBP.MethodsThis protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. We will search the following database sources of the RCTs: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Chinese Science, and the Wanfang Database. From the establishment of the database to April 2021. The retrieval word adopts the combination of theme words and free words. Take "Kinesiotape, Tape Athletic, Orthotic Tape, Athletic Tape, Pregnancy, Pregnancies, Gestation, low back pain" as a term for retrieval. Two independent investigators will conduct an electronic literature search, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment to summarize and evaluate the efficacy of KT in the treatment of PLBP. Retrospective trials are not included, and the risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane bias risk tool. All data analysis will be conducted using Revman5.3 software.ResultsQuality outcomes in systematic review studies depend on inclusion and search criteria to obtain high-quality data, as well as how the data are processed and interpreted. Among the results, this study will objectively and comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of the randomized controlled trial of KT in the treatment of PLBP, and make a detailed analysis of the effect of KT in the treatment of PLBP. The results will be analyzed by the Visual Analogue Scale of Pain and the Roland Morris Dysfunction Questionnaire. If applicable, a subgroup analysis will also be performed, which will be grouped according to the duration of pregnancy, grade of pain, etc. Finally, the results are submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.ConclusionBased on the results, this study will analyze and summarize the effect of KT on improving PLBP. It includes whether KT can improve the pain and lumbar function of PLBP, or it has adverse effects and reactions on pregnant women, then analysis and interpretation of other related issues. It is expected that the results of this study will provide a reference to the method and time of taping for clinical staff, as well as high-quality evidence to resolve the effect of KT on low back pain and provide corresponding guidance for pregnant women with low back pain. It aims to improve the status of low back pain in pregnant women and improve their physical health.Protocol registration numberPROSPERO CRD42021250373; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
| S-EPMC8775207 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9254726 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4053356 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8355621 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6500323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSpasticity is a common complication of poststroke, tuina is a widely used rehabilitation treatment, although there is a lack of supportive evidence on efficacy and safety for patients with poststroke spasticity. The aim of this systematic review is to assess and synthesis evidence of efficacy and safety of tuina for spasticity of poststroke.Methods and analysisA comprehensive electronic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wiley, Springer, PEDro, Chinese Science Citation Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific and Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database (Wanfang), Japanese medical database (CiNii), Korean Robotics Institute Summer Scholars and Thailand Thai-Journal Citation Index Centre will be conducted to search literatures of randomised controlled trials of tuina for spasticity of poststroke survivors range from the establishment to 1 January 2020.There is no time of publication limitations. The primary outcome will be measured with the Modified Ashworth Scale, and the second outcome will include Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale, surface electromyogram RMS value, the Modified Barthel Index, Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale, quality of life 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and Visual Analogue Scale. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions will be used to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE will be used to access the confidence in cumulative evidence. The protocol will be conducted according to approach and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required, for no primary data of individual patients were collected. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020163384.
| S-EPMC7733218 | biostudies-literature