Dataset Information

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Acupressure on Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupressure on low back pain (LBP).

Methods

We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registries through December 28, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupressure on LBP were considered for meta-analysis with Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to quantify the statistical reliability. HETRED analysis and GRADE were used to determine the heterogeneity and quality of the results, respectively.

Results

Twenty-three RCTs representing 2400 participants were included. Acupressure was superior to tuina massage on response rate (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.35; P < 0.00001) and in the standardized mean difference (SMD) for pain reduction [SMD -1.92; 95% CI, -3.09 to -0.76; P=0.001]. Likewise, acupressure was superior to physical therapy [SMD, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.65; P < 0.00001] and to usual care [SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.02; P=0.04] in pain reduction. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly improved by acupressure compared with usual care [SMD, -0.55; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.25; P=0.0003]. The combination of acupressure with either manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture showed significant improvements over the adjuvant therapies alone in response rate [RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.26; P < 0.00001], pain reduction, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA). However, each study displayed substantial heterogeneity. Through subgroup sensitivity analysis and -HETRED analysis, the heterogeneity of acupressure compared with manual acupuncture decreased while the results maintained significance with respect to pain reduction [SMD -0.9; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.6; P < 0.00001] and JOA [SMD, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.98; P < 0.00001]. Similar results were obtained comparing acupressure with electro-acupuncture with respect to pain [SMD, -1.07; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.81; P < 0.00001] and JOA [SMD, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.27, P < 0.00001]. TSA demonstrated the effectiveness of acupressure as a standalone or as a combinative treatment (with manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture) for LBP.

Conclusion

Acupressure is an effective treatment for LBP. However, GRADE assessments downgraded the evidence in the trials, indicating that additional investigations are needed to confirm these observations.

SUBMITTER: Li T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7932783 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Acupressure on Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li Tao T Li Xiaohui X Huang Fan F Tian Qiang Q Fan Z Y ZY Wu S S

Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM 20210224

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupressure on low back pain (LBP).<h4>Methods</h4>We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registries through December 28, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupressure on LBP were considered for meta-analysis with Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to quantify the statistical reliability. HETRED a ...[more]

PMID: 33708260

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason.ResultsWe included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33 points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo.ConclusionsTreatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP.Trial registrationWe prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).Results49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.ConclusionsConsiderable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improve lumbar function is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies to comprehensively analyse and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for chronic low back pain.MethodsFour databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ESWT for CLBP. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic review criteria, relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability status, and mental health. The data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. If I2 ≥ 50%, a random effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.ResultsTwelve RCTs involving 632 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ESWT group reported significantly more pain relief than the control group at 4 weeks (WMD = - 1.04; 95% CI = - 1.44 to - 0.65; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD = - 0.85; 95% CI = - 1.30 to - 0.41; P < 0.001). Regarding the dysfunction index, ESWT led to significant improvement in lumbar dysfunction compared with the control group at 4 weeks (WMD = - 4.22; 95% CI = - 7.55 to - 0.89; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD = - 4.51; 95% CI = - 8.58 to - 0.44; P = 0.03). For mental health, there was no significant difference between the ESWT group and the control group after 4 weeks of intervention (SMD = 1.17; 95% CI = - 0.10 to 2.45; P = 0.07).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that ESWT provided better pain relief and improved lumbar dysfunction compared with the other interventions included, and no serious adverse effects were found. There was no significant effect of ESWT on the mental health of patients, but we hope to obtain more RCTs for further analysis in the future. Based on the pooled results, we suggest that ESWT is effective and safe for treating chronic low back pain.

Project description:BackgroundFacet joint pain is a common cause of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Radiofrequency (RF) denervation is an effective treatment option.PurposeA systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and effectiveness of different RF denervation treatments in managing facet joint-derived CLBP.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and China Biology Medicine were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from January 1966 through December 2021. Interventions included conventional radiofrequency denervation (CRF), pulsed radiofrequency denervation (PRF), pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the dorsal root ganglia (PRF-DRG), radiofrequency facet capsule denervation (RF-FC), and radiofrequency ablation under endoscopic guidance (ERFA). The outcome was the mean change in visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline. A random-effects NMA was used to compare the pain relief effects of the interventions over the short term (≤6 months) and long term (12 months). The rank of effect estimation for each intervention was computed using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs with 715 patients met the inclusion criteria. Moderate evidence indicated that CRF denervation had a greater effect on pain relief than sham control in the short term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.58, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -2.98 to -0.18) and the long term (SMD -4.90, 95% CI, -5.86 to -3.94). Fair evidence indicated that PRF denervation was more effective than sham control for pain over the long term (SMD -1.30, 95% CI, -2.17 to -0.43). Fair evidence showed that ERFA denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the short term (SMD -3.07, 95% CI, -5.81 to -0.32) and the long term (SMD -4.00, 95% CI, -4.95 to -3.05). Fair evidence showed that RF-FC denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the long term (SMD -1.11, 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.15). A fair level of evidence indicated that PRF-DRG denervation was more effective for pain relief than sham control in the short term (SMD -5.34, 95% CI, -8.30 to -2.39).ConclusionRF is an effective option for patients diagnosed with facet joint-derived CLBP.Systematic Review Registration: Identifier: CRD42022298238.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most people with LBP receive the diagnosis of nonspecific LBP or sciatica. Medications are commonly prescribed but have limited analgesic effects and are associated with adverse events. A novel treatment approach is to target neurotrophins such as nerve growth factor (NGF) to reduce pain intensity. NGF inhibitors have been tested in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in recent years, showing promise for the treatment of chronic LBP; however, their efficacy and safety need to be evaluated to guide regulatory actions.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medicines targeting neurotrophins in patients with LBP and sciatica.MethodsIn this systematic review, we will include published and unpublished records of parallel RCTs and the first phase of crossover RCTs that compare the effects of medicines targeting neurotrophins with any control group. We will search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, and WHO International Clinical Registry Platform databases from inception. Pairs of authors will independently screen the records for eligibility, and we will independently extract data in duplicate. We will conduct a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) with the studies that report sufficient data and compare the medicines of interest versus placebo. We will use random-effects models and calculate estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We will assess the risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and form judgments of confidence in the evidence according to GRADE recommendations. We will use the PRISMA statement to report the findings. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses by condition, type of medication, and time point. We will also assess the impact of a potential new trial on an existing meta-analysis. Data from studies that meet inclusion criteria but cannot be included in the meta-analysis will be reported narratively.ResultsThe protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on May 19, 2020. As of December 2020, we have identified 1932 records.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of NGF inhibitors for pain in patients with nonspecific LBP and sciatica. The inclusion of new studies and unpublished data may improve the precision of the effect estimates and guide regulatory actions of the medications for LBP and sciatica.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework; https://osf.io/b8adn/.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/22905.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.Results33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.ConclusionModerate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020158521.

Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.

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.

Dataset Information

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Acupressure on Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Acupressure on Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets