Dataset Information

Sustainability effects of motor control stabilisation exercises on pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:We systematically reviewed and delineated the existing evidence on sustainability effects of motor control exercises on pain intensity and disability in chronic low back pain patients when compared with an inactive or passive control group or with other exercises. Secondary aims were to reveal whether moderating factors like the time after intervention completion, the study quality, and the training characteristics affect the potential sustainability effects. METHODS:Relevant scientific databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane) were screened. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: All RCTs und CTs on chronic (≥ 12/13 weeks) nonspecific low back pain, written in English or German and adopting a longitudinal core-specific/stabilizing sensorimotor control exercise intervention with at least one pain intensity and disability outcome assessment at a follow-up (sustainability) timepoint of ≥ 4 weeks after exercise intervention completion. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:From the 3,415 studies that were initially retrieved, 10 (2 CTs & 8 RCTs) on N = 1081 patients were included in the review and analyses. Low to moderate quality evidence shows a sustainable positive effect of motor control exercise on pain (SMD = -.46, Z = 2.9, p < .001) and disability (SMD = -.44, Z = 2.5, p < .001) in low back pain patients when compared to any control. The subgroups' effects are less conclusive and no clear direction of the sustainability effect at short versus mid versus long-term, of the type of the comparator, or of the dose of the training is given. Low quality studies overestimated the effect of motor control exercises.

SUBMITTER: Niederer D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6961919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundNon-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.MethodsA 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.Results29 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).ConclusionThere 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.

Project description:Background:Researchers are highly interested in the study of nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). However, few have attempted to collect global data, analyze the emerging trends, and conduct reviews from the perspectives of visualization and bibliometrics. Purpose:We aimed to evaluate research situation and capture subsequent developmental dynamics regarding NSLBP via CiteSpace. Methods:Publications on NSLBP in recent 19 years were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). We used CiteSpace to analyze publication outputs, document types, countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords. Knowledge foundation, hot topics, and future direction were then stated. Results:A total of 1099 papers were collected, and the trend of annual publications maintained growth with small fluctuations. Australia (188) and the University of Sydney (76) were the most prolific country and institution, respectively. The Netherlands (0.84) and the University of Sydney (0.47) had the maximum centrality, thus indicating that they have importance in this field. The journal Spine (publication: 87, cocitation counts: 942) ranked first in terms of the volume of publications and cocitation counts. Maher CG (52) who published the most papers and Waddell G (286) who was cited most frequently were the leading authors, thus making strong academic influences. "Motor control exercise" was the largest cluster, which contained most related research articles. 14 references with the strongest citation counts were cited until 2018, thus implying the future development trend. Current hotspots were treatment, meta-analysis, method, and risk factors. Spine, efficacy, adult, and meta-analysis can be regarded as research frontiers. Conclusion:This study offers insights into the trend of NSLBP to determine major research countries and institutions, core journals, pivotal authors, overall development tendency, hot topics, and research frontiers. Moreover, it will help researchers extract hidden valuable information for further study.

Project description:IntroductionNonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) became a public health and economic problem. Acupoint injection was used widely for patients with NCLBP. However, there were inconsistent results on the efficacy for these people. Therefore, this review was performed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection.Materials and methodsThe literature sources were collected via EMBASE, Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and Sino-Med Database from their inception to October 13, 2019. Endnote X7, widely used document management software, was used to manage and screen the literature sources. Each record was screened according to the predetermined inclusion criteria by two review authors independently. Quality assessment tool, "Risk of table," was used to assess the quality of the included studies according to the recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer. Any disagreement was addressed via consulting with a third reviewer in the abovementioned processes. All procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ResultsThis review included 13 studies involving 1381 patients with NCLBP. Quantitative analysis results indicated that there is no sufficient evidence that acupoint injection can improve the pain of patients with low back pain based on two trails: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS: MD = -1.33, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.30 to 0.64, P=0.18, random-effect model). When assessing the effectiveness of acupoint injection therapy, the results indicated that acupoint injection can improve the effective rate for nonspecific chronic low back pain (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.21, P < 0.0001, fixed-effect model).ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate that acupoint injection therapy could improve the pain for patients with NCLBP. However, the level of evidence was downgraded to "very low quality" because of the poor methodological quality and clinical heterogeneity. The results should be interpreted with caution. Higher quality RCTs with more appropriate comparison, more objective outcome instruments, and adequate follow-up periods are necessary to assess the efficacy of acupoint injection for NCLBP. The PROSPERO Research registration identifying number is CRD42019119158.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is a major cause of physical disability in the world. The origin of this condition can be due to differents causes, with a specific cause or of unknown mechanical origin,being characterized as unspecific. In this case a physical therapy treatment approach with manual therapy is relevant, which includes the muscle energy technique (MET) classified as a common conservative treatment for pathologies of the spine, mainly in LBP and disability. This study assessed the effectiveness of the muscle energy technique on nonspecific low back pain.Evidence acquisitionPatients with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. This study was designed by a systematic review and meta-analysis, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020219295). For the report and methodological definitions of this study, the recommendations of the PRISMA protocol and the Cochrane collaboration, were followed, respectively.Evidence synthesisThe search yielded 164 citations, which 19 were eligible randomised trials were included in the review (N.=609 patients with low back pain). The methodological quality of the studies averaged 4.2 points, with an interval of 2 to 7 points. Three RCTs showed satisfactory methodological quality (PEDro Score ≥6). For patients with chronic LBP, a significant result on pain (but with a small and clinically unimportant effect) in favor of MET versus other (MD=-0.51 [95% CI,-0.93 to -0.09] P=0.02, N.=376, studies=11, I2=80%). In patients with subacute LBP, MET enabled a significant and moderate effect to reduce pain intensity when compared to the control group (MD=-1.32 [95% CI,-2.57 to -0.06] P=0.04, N.=120, studies=3, I2=88%). No significant effects were observed for the disability.ConclusionsMET is not considered an efficient treatment to improve the incapacity of the lumbar spine, but it may be beneficial in reducing the intensity of LBP, although showing a small clinical effect in chronic LBP and a moderate effect in subacute LBP.

Dataset Information

Sustainability effects of motor control stabilisation exercises on pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets