Dataset Information

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods and analysis

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

Results

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

Conclusions

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020198301.

SUBMITTER: Lavazza C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8098952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlinding aims to minimize biases from what participants and investigators know or believe. Randomized controlled trials, despite being the gold standard to evaluate treatment effect, do not generally assess the success of blinding. We investigated the extent of blinding in back pain trials and the associations between participant guesses and treatment effects.MethodsWe did a review with PubMed/OvidMedline, 2000-2019. Eligibility criteria were back pain trials with data available on treatment effect and participants' guess of treatment. For blinding, blinding index was used as chance-corrected measure of excessive correct guess (0 for random guess). For treatment effects, within- or between-arm effect sizes were used. Analyses of investigators' guess/blinding or by treatment modality were performed exploratorily.ResultsForty trials (3899 participants) were included. Active and sham treatment groups had mean blinding index of 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.41) and 0.01 (-0.11, 0.14), respectively, meaning 26% of participants in active treatment believed they received active treatment, whereas only 1% in sham believed they received sham treatment, beyond chance, that is, random guess. A greater belief of receiving active treatment was associated with a larger within-arm effect size in both arms, and ideal blinding (namely, "random guess," and "wishful thinking" that signifies both groups believing they received active treatment) showed smaller effect sizes, with correlation of effect size and summary blinding indexes of 0.35 (p = 0.028) for between-arm comparison. We observed uniformly large sham treatment effects for all modalities, and larger correlation for investigator's (un)blinding, 0.53 (p = 0.046).ConclusionParticipants in active treatments in back pain trials guessed treatment identity more correctly, while those in sham treatments tended to display successful blinding. Excessive correct guesses (that could reflect weaker blinding and/or noticeable effects) by participants and investigators demonstrated larger effect sizes. Blinding and sham treatment effects on back pain need due consideration in individual trials and meta-analyses.

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Index to Chiropractic Literature, and trial registries up to 4 May 2018, including reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults (≥18 years) with chronic low back pain with or without referred pain. Studies that exclusively examined sciatica were excluded, as was grey literature. No restrictions were applied to language or setting. REVIEW METHODS:Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The effect of SMT was compared with recommended therapies, non-recommended therapies, sham (placebo) SMT, and SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Main outcomes were pain and back specific functional status, examined as mean differences and standardised mean differences (SMD), respectively. Outcomes were examined at 1, 6, and 12 months. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. A random effects model was used and statistical heterogeneity explored. RESULTS:47 randomised controlled trials including a total of 9211 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (35-60 years). Most trials compared SMT with recommended therapies. Moderate quality evidence suggested that SMT has similar effects to other recommended therapies for short term pain relief (mean difference -3.17, 95% confidence interval -7.85 to 1.51) and a small, clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.41 to -0.09). High quality evidence suggested that compared with non-recommended therapies SMT results in small, not clinically better effects for short term pain relief (mean difference -7.48, -11.50 to -3.47) and small to moderate clinically better improvement in function (SMD -0.41, -0.67 to -0.15). In general, these results were similar for the intermediate and long term outcomes as were the effects of SMT as an adjuvant therapy. Evidence for sham SMT was low to very low quality; therefore these effects should be considered uncertain. Statistical heterogeneity could not be explained. About half of the studies examined adverse and serious adverse events, but in most of these it was unclear how and whether these events were registered systematically. Most of the observed adverse events were musculoskeletal related, transient in nature, and of mild to moderate severity. One study with a low risk of selection bias and powered to examine risk (n=183) found no increased risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.81) or duration of the event (1.13, 0.59 to 2.18) compared with sham SMT. In one study, the Data Safety Monitoring Board judged one serious adverse event to be possibly related to SMT. CONCLUSION:SMT produces similar effects to recommended therapies for chronic low back pain, whereas SMT seems to be better than non-recommended interventions for improvement in function in the short term. Clinicians should inform their patients of the potential risks of adverse events associated with SMT.

Project description:BackgroundA central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.ResultsFour high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.ConclusionsThe clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.