Dataset Information

Non-specific Low Back Pain and Postural Control During Quiet Standing-A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: There is a great number of people who require treatment for non-specific low back pain (LBP) yet the causes are still unclear. One proposed cause for LBP is impaired motor control and more specific an impaired postural control. Objective: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of postural control parameter differences in persons with and without non-specific LBP during quite standing. Methods: A literature search in five databases from January 2000 until January 2018 was performed and was followed by a hand search. Twenty-one articles comparing healthy adults and adults with non-specific LBP in neuromuscular and/or biomechanical parameters during bipedal stance without external perturbation in lab studies were examined. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two persons. Factors such as study population, outcome measures, and results were extracted from the articles and included in this analysis. Results: The results show that persons with and without non-specific LBP differed in several parameters of postural control such as the center of pressure displacement, postural control strategy, and muscle activation patterns. Conclusion: While the results show that none of the parameters alone lead to significant effects, the combination of neuromuscular and biomechanical parameters was associated with the impairment of postural control in individuals with LBP during standing. Since the studies included in this analysis used different methodological procedures a replication of these studies with standardized procedures is imperative for the acquisition of more conclusive evidence on the differences in postural control during standing.

SUBMITTER: Koch C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6440285 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-specific Low Back Pain and Postural Control During Quiet Standing-A Systematic Review.

Koch Cathrin C Hänsel Frank F

Frontiers in psychology 20190322

Background: There is a great number of people who require treatment for non-specific low back pain (LBP) yet the causes are still unclear. One proposed cause for LBP is impaired motor control and more specific an impaired postural control. Objective: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of postural control parameter differences in persons with and without non-specific LBP during quite standing. Methods: A literature search in five databases from January 2000 ...[more]

PMID: 30967811

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Project description:Reduced postural control is thought to contribute to the development and persistence of chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). It is therefore frequently assessed in affected patients and commonly reported as the average amount of postural sway while standing upright under a variety of sensory conditions. These averaged linear outcomes, such as mean centre of pressure (CP) displacement or mean CP surface areas, may not reflect the true postural status. Adding nonlinear outcomes and multi-segmental kinematic analysis has been reported to better reflect the complexity of postural control and may detect subtler postural differences. In this cross-sectional study, a combination of linear and nonlinear postural parameters were assessed in patients with CNLBP (n = 24, 24-75 years, 9 females) and compared to symptom-free controls (CG, n = 34, 22-67 years, 11 females). Primary outcome was postural control measured by variance of joint configurations (uncontrolled manifold index, UI), confidence ellipse surface areas (CEA) and approximate entropy (ApEn) of CP dispersion during the response phase of a perturbed postural control task on a swaying platform. Secondary outcomes were segment excursions and clinical outcome correlates for pain and function. Non-parametric tests for group comparison with P-adjustment for multiple comparisons were conducted. Principal component analysis was applied to identify patterns of segmental contribution in both groups. CNLBP and CG performed similarly with respect to the primary outcomes. Comparison of joint kinematics revealed significant differences of hip (P < .001) and neck (P < .025) angular excursion, representing medium to large group effects (r's = .36 - .51). Significant (P's < .05), but moderate correlations of ApEn (r = -.42) and UI (r = -.46) with the health-related outcomes were observed. These findings lend further support to the notion that averaged linear outcomes do not suffice to describe subtle postural differences in CNLBP patients with low to moderate pain status.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antidepressants are commonly used in the management of low-back pain. However, their use is controversial. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this review was to determine whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY:Randomised controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE (to September 2007), PsycINFO to June 2006, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2006, issue 2, and previous systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised controlled trials that compared antidepressant medication and placebo for patients with non-specific low-back pain, and used at least one clinically relevant outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the effect of antidepressants on pain, depression and function, and the effect of antidepressant type on pain. To account for studies that could not be pooled, additional qualitative analyses were performed using the levels of evidence recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. MAIN RESULTS:Ten trials that compared antidepressants with placebo were included in this review. The pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief (six trials; standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.16)) or depression (two trials; SMD 0.06 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.40)) between antidepressant and placebo treatments. The qualitative analyses found conflicting evidence on the effect of antidepressants on pain intensity in chronic low-back pain, and no clear evidence that antidepressants reduce depression in chronic low-back pain patients. Two pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief between different types of antidepressants and placebo. Our findings were not altered by the sensitivity analyses which varied the level of methodological quality required for inclusion in the meta-analyses to allow data from additional trials to be examined. Two additional trials were identified in September 2007 and await assessment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is no clear evidence that antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the management of patients with chronic low-back pain. These findings do not imply that severely depressed patients with back pain should not be treated with antidepressants; furthermore, there is evidence for their use in other forms of chronic pain.

Dataset Information

Non-specific Low Back Pain and Postural Control During Quiet Standing-A Systematic Review.

Publications

Non-specific Low Back Pain and Postural Control During Quiet Standing-A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets