Dataset Information

Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

ACCESS DATA

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]

PMID: 31517832

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundVibration therapy (VT), a treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, has been developed for clinical applications in the past decade. However, its effect on relieving chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improving lumbar function is still illusive, lacking sufficient evidence-based medical data.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of vibration therapy on pain and function in people with CLBP.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Date, VIP, and CBM were applied to search for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vibration therapy for people with CLBP. The electronic databases were searched from the establishment of the database until July 1, 2023. Two researchers assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted data. The outcome indicators included the pain intensity index, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score, and Roland-Morris dysfunction questionnaire (RMDQ) score. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence of each outcome indicator. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsFourteen papers met the inclusion criteria with 860 subjects (VT group n = 432 and control group n = 428). VT for patients with CLBP reduced the pain intensity index [SMD = - 0.71, 95% CI (- 1.02, - 0.39), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001], the ODI score value [MD = - 4.24, 95% CI (- 8.10, - 0.38), I2 = 88%, P = 0.03], and the RMDQ score value [MD = - 2.21, 95% CI (- 3.41, - 1.01), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0003]. Subgroup analysis displayed that the pain intensity index was lower in the whole-body vibration (WBV) group than in the control group [SMD = - 0.49, 95% CI (- 0.79, - 0.19), I2 = 58%, P = 0.001] and the local vibration (LV) group [SMD = - 1.07, 95% CI (- 1.60, - 0.53), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001]. The ODI scores in the WBV group were lower than those in the control group [MD = - 3.30, 95% CI (- 5.76, - 0.83), I2 = 36%, P = 0.009]. There was no statistically significant difference in ODI scores between the LV group and the control group [MD = - 5.78, 95% CI (- 16.23, 4.66), I2 = 97%, P = 0.28].ConclusionThe data from this study suggest that VT can reduce pain and improve lumbar function in patients with CLBP. However, we still need to carefully interpret the results of this study, as the certainty of evidence was low, and the clinical relevance of the results is questionable. Further RCTs are needed in the future to ascertain this.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Effectiveness of spa therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets