Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem around the world. Two previous meta-analyses showed that the spa therapy has a positive effect on reducing pain among patients with LBP based on studies published before 2006 and studies published between 2006 and 2013. In recent years, more studies reported the effect of spa therapy on treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). Our study aimed to update the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of spa therapy on treating CLBP and to examine the effect of spa therapy based on different interventions.Methods
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched until May 2018 to identify RCTs about spa therapy among patients with CLBP. Summary effect estimates were calculated by using a random-effects model. The quality of each eligible study was evaluated by Jadad checklist.Results
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and were included in meta-analysis. There was a significant decrease in pain based on visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference [MD] 16.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] [9.57, 22.57], P?ConclusionThis updated meta-analysis confirmed that spa therapy can benefit pain reliving and improve lumbar spine function among patients with CLBP. Physiotherapy of subgroup analysis indicated that it can improve lumbar spine function. However, these conclusions should be treated with caution due to limited studies. More high-quality RCTs with double-blind design, larger sample size, and longer follow-up should be employed to improve the validity of study results.
SUBMITTER: Bai R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6750337 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bai Ruixue R Li Chihua C Xiao Yangxue Y Sharma Manoj M Zhang Fan F Zhao Yong Y
Medicine 20190901 37
<h4>Background</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem around the world. Two previous meta-analyses showed that the spa therapy has a positive effect on reducing pain among patients with LBP based on studies published before 2006 and studies published between 2006 and 2013. In recent years, more studies reported the effect of spa therapy on treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). Our study aimed to update the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of spa t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundChronic low back pain is a common musculoskeletal disease. With the increasing number of patients, it has become a huge economic and social burden. It is urgent to relieve the burden of patients. There are many common rehabilitation methods, and aquatic physical therapy is one of them. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the existing literature and analyze the impact of aquatic physical therapy on pain intensity, quality of life and disability of patients with chronic low back pain.MethodsThrough 8 databases, we searched randomized controlled trials on the effect of aquatic physical therapy on patients with chronic low back pain. These trials published results on pain intensity, quality of life, and disability. This review is guided by Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE.ResultsA total of 13 articles involving 597 patients were included. The results showed that compared with the control group, aquatic physical therapy alleviated the pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale: SMD = -0.68, 95%CI:-0.91 to -0.46, Z = 5.92, P < 0.00001) and improved quality of life (physical components of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey or Short-Form 12: SMD = 0.63, 95%CI:0.36 to 0.90, Ζ = 4.57, P < 0.00001; mental components of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey or Short-Form 12: SMD = 0.59, 95%CI:0.10 to 1.08, Ζ = 2.35, P = 0.02), and reduced disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: SMD = -0.42, 95%CI:-0.66 to -0.17, Ζ = 3.34, P = 0.0008; Oswestry Disability Index or Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: SMD = -0.54, 95%CI:-1.07 to -0.01, Ζ = 1.99, P = 0.05). However, aquatic physical therapy did not improve patients' pain at rest (Visual Analogue Scale at rest: SMD = -0.60, 95%CI:-1.42 to 0.23, Ζ = 1.41, P = 0.16). We found very low or low evidence of effects of aquatic physical therapy on pain intensity, quality of life, and disability in patients with chronic low back pain compared with no aquatic physical therapy.ConclusionsOur systematic review showed that aquatic physical therapy could benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, because the articles included in this systematic review have high bias risk or are unclear, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify.
| S-EPMC9717486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit.
| S-EPMC2989278 | biostudies-other
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:BackgroundTo apply the Bio-Psych-Social (BPS) model into clinical practice, it is important not to focus on psychosocial domains only since biomedical factors can also contribute to chronic pain conditions. The cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is the management system based on the BPS model for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP).ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare CFT with the other interventions for CNSLBP regarding pain, disability/functional status, QoL and psychological factors.DesignThis study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of a randomised controlled trial.MethodLiterature Search was conducted in electronic search engines. Enrolled participants included 1) CNSLBP and 2) primary, secondary, or tertiary care patients. CFT was the interventions included. Comparisons were any types of treatment.ResultsThree studies met the eligibility criteria. The total number of participants was 336. For pain intensity, MD [95% CIs] was -1.38 [-2.78 - 0.02] and -1.01 [-1.92 - -0.10] at intermediate and long term for two studies, respectively. About disability/functional status, SMD [95% CIs] was -0.76 [-1.46 - -0.07] at the intermediate for three studies and MD [95% CIs] was -8.48 [-11.47 - -5.49] at long term for two studies. About fear of physical activity, MD [95% CIs] was -3.01 [-5.14 - -0.88] and -3.56 [-6.43 - -0.68] at intermediate and long term for two studies, respectively. No studies reported scores associated with QOL. All the quality of the evidence was very low.ConclusionsThree studies were included and the quality of all the evidence was very low. Although the study found statistically significant differences in some measures, the effectiveness of the CFT will need to be re-evaluated in the future.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42020158182 .
| S-EPMC9123771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS:Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS:Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION:Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.
| S-EPMC7069015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) through a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesA search for RCTs was undertaken using Medical Search Terms and synonyms for "Pilates" and "low back pain" within the maximal date range of 10 databases. Databases included the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Cochrane Library; Medline; Physiotherapy Evidence Database; ProQuest: Health and Medical Complete, Nursing and Allied Health Source, Dissertation and Theses; Scopus; Sport Discus; Web of Science.Study selectionTwo independent reviewers were involved in the selection of evidence. To be included, relevant RCTs needed to be published in the English language. From 152 studies, 14 RCTs were included.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers appraised the methodological quality of RCTs using the McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies. The author(s), year of publication, and details regarding participants, Pilates exercise, comparison treatments, and outcome measures, and findings, were then extracted.Data synthesisThe methodological quality of RCTs ranged from "poor" to "excellent". A meta-analysis of RCTs was not undertaken due to the heterogeneity of RCTs. Pilates exercise provided statistically significant improvements in pain and functional ability compared to usual care and physical activity between 4 and 15 weeks, but not at 24 weeks. There were no consistent statistically significant differences in improvements in pain and functional ability with Pilates exercise, massage therapy, or other forms of exercise at any time period.ConclusionsPilates exercise offers greater improvements in pain and functional ability compared to usual care and physical activity in the short term. Pilates exercise offers equivalent improvements to massage therapy and other forms of exercise. Future research should explore optimal Pilates exercise designs, and whether some people with CLBP may benefit from Pilates exercise more than others.
| S-EPMC4077575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP).MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement standard. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and websites up to April 30, 2021, and examining reference lists. We selected RCTs that compared ESWT, in unimodal or multimodal therapeutic approaches, with sham ESWT or other active therapies. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The main outcomes were pain intensity and disability status, examined as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool and Jadad score, and GRADE was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.ResultsTen RCTs, including a total of 455 young to middle-aged individuals (29.2-55.8 years), were identified. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42), as well as lower disability score at month 1 (SMD = -1.45, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.22) and at month 3 (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.31). No serious shockwave-related adverse events were reported.ConclusionThe use of ESWT in CLBP patients results in significant and quantifiable reductions in pain and disability in the short term. However, further well-conducted RCTs are necessary for building high-quality evidence and promoting the application of ESWT in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8617566 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4353283 | biostudies-literature