Dataset Information

Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Psychological 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 ANALYSIS:We 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 DISSEMINATION:No ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019138074.

SUBMITTER: Ho E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7500308 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Ho Emma E Ferreira Manuela M Chen Lingxiao L Simic Milena M Ashton-James Claire C Comachio Josielli J Hayden Jill J Ferreira Paulo P

BMJ open 20200917 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Psychological 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 ...[more]

PMID: 32948543

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Chronic non-specific low back pain is a major public health problem. Evidence supports the effectiveness of exercise as an intervention. Due to a paucity of direct comparisons of different exercise categories, medical guidelines were unable to make specific recommendations regarding the type of exercise working best in improving chronic low back pain. This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials aims to investigate the comparative efficacy of different exercise interventions in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, SPORTDiscus, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were searched on November 2019 and without language restrictions. The search will be updated after data analysis. Studies on adults with non-specific low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration comparing exercise to either no specific intervention (ie, no treatment, wait-list or usual care at the treating physician's discretion) and/or functionally inert interventions (ie, sham or attention control interventions) will be eligible. Pain intensity and back-specific disability are defined as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include health-related physical and mental quality of life, work disability, frequency of analgesic use and adverse events. All outcomes will be analysed short-term, intermediate-term and long-term. Data will be extracted independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using the recommendations by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and be based on an adaptation of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This NMA will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses_NMA checklist. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, implemented in existing national and international guidelines and will be presented to health care providers and decision makers. The planned completion date of the study is 1 July 2021. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020151472.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. METHODS:We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. DISCUSSION:While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115.

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:BackgroundBack pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context.MethodsWe will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach.DiscussionThis systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021232469.

Project description:PurposeChronic low back pain (CLBP) is an aging and public health issue that is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has a significant economic impact on a global scale. Treatments for CLBP are varied, and there is currently no study with high-quality evidence to show which treatment works best. Exercise therapy has the characteristics of minor harm, low cost, and convenient implementation. It has become a mainstream treatment method in clinics for chronic low back pain. However, there is insufficient evidence on which specific exercise regimen is more effective for chronic non-specific low back pain. This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of different exercise therapies on chronic low back pain and provide a reference for exercise regimens in CLBP patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to 10 May 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for selection. We collected information from studies to compare the effects of 20 exercise interventions on patients with chronic low back pain.ResultsThis study included 75 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5,254 participants. Network meta-analysis results showed that tai chi [standardized mean difference (SMD), -2.11; 95% CI, -3.62 to -0.61], yoga (SMD, -1.76; 95% CI -2.72 to -0.81), Pilates exercise (SMD, -1.52; 95% CI, -2.68, to -0.36), and sling exercise (SMD, -1.19; 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.30) showed a better pain improvement than conventional rehabilitation. Tai chi (SMD, -2.42; 95% CI, -3.81 to -1.03) and yoga (SMD, -2.07; 95% CI, -2.80 to -1.34) showed a better pain improvement than no intervention provided. Yoga (SMD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.53) and core or stabilization exercises (SMD, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.28) showed a better physical function improvement than conventional rehabilitation. Yoga (SMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.78 to -0.83) and core or stabilization exercises (SMD, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.59) showed a better physical function improvement than no intervention provided.ConclusionCompared with conventional rehabilitation and no intervention provided, tai chi, toga, Pilates exercise, sling exercise, motor control exercise, and core or stabilization exercises significantly improved CLBP in patients. Compared with conventional rehabilitation and no intervention provided, yoga and core or stabilization exercises were statistically significant in improving physical function in patients with CLBP. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of the included studies, it is difficult to make a definitive recommendation before more large-scale and high-quality RCTs are conducted.

Dataset Information

Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Publications

Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets