Dataset Information

Efficacy of Mobile Health in Patients With Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low back pain is one of the most common health problems and a main cause of disability, which imposes a great burden on patients. Mobile health (mHealth) affects many aspects of people's lives, and it has progressed rapidly, showing promise as an effective intervention for patients with low back pain. However, the efficacy of mHealth interventions for patients with low back pain remains unclear; thus, further exploration is necessary.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mHealth interventions in patients with low back pain compared to usual care.

Methods

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials designed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement standard. We searched for studies published in English before October 2020 in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two researchers independently scanned the literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Bias risks were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used RevMan 5.4 software to perform the meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 9 studies with 792 participants met the inclusion criteria. The simultaneous use of mHealth and usual care showed a better reduction in pain intensity than usual care alone, as measured by the numeric rating scale (mean difference [MD] -0.85, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.40; P<.001), and larger efficacy in reducing disability, as measured by the Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (MD -1.54, 95% CI -2.35 to -0.73; P<.001). Subgroup analyses showed that compared with usual care, mHealth using telephone calls significantly reduced pain intensity (MD -1.12, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.53; P<.001) and disability score (MD -1.68, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.63; P<.001). However, without the use of telephone calls, mHealth had no obvious advantage over usual care in improving pain intensity (MD -0.48, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.20; P=.16) and the disability score (MD -0.41, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.05; P=.58). The group that received a more sensitive feedback intervention showed a significantly reduced disability score (MD -4.30, 95% CI -6.95 to -1.69; P=.001).

Conclusions

The use of simultaneous mHealth and usual care interventions has better efficacy than usual care alone in reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain. Moreover, the results of subgroup analysis revealed that mHealth using telephone calls might play a positive role in improving pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain.

SUBMITTER: Chen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8235295 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Nonspecific low back pain (NLBP) is the diagnosis for individuals with back pain that has no underlying medical cause (eg, tumor, infection, fracture, herniated disc, spinal stenosis). The American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Pain Society (APS) recommend multidisciplinary treatments for NLBP that lasts more than 4 weeks. This approach, however, is impractical for many physicians to implement, and relatively few providers offer NLBP treatment that meets the joint ACP-APS guidelines.This study evaluated the efficacy of a mobile-Web intervention called "FitBack" to help users implement self-tailored strategies to manage and prevent NLBP occurrences.A total of 597 adults were recruited, screened, consented, and assessed online at baseline, at 2 months (T2), and at 4 months (T3). After baseline assessments, participants were randomized into three groups: FitBack intervention, alternative care group that received 8 emails urging participants to link to six Internet resources for NLBP, and control group. The FitBack group also received weekly email reminder prompts for 8 weeks plus emails to do assessments. The control group was only contacted to do assessments.Users of the FitBack program showed greater improvement compared to the control group in every comparison of the critical physical, behavioral, and worksite outcome measures at 4-month follow-up. In addition, users of the FitBack program performed better than the alternative care group on current back pain, behavioral, and worksite outcomes at 4-month follow-up. For example, subjects in the control group were 1.7 times more likely to report current back pain than subjects in the FitBack group; subjects in the alternative care group were 1.6 times more likely to report current back pain at 4-month follow-up. Further, the users of the FitBack program showed greater improvement compared to both the control and alternative care groups at 4-month follow-up on patient activation, constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior, and attitudes toward pain.This research demonstrated that a theoretically based stand-alone mobile-Web intervention that tailors content to users' preferences and interests can be an effective tool in self-management of low back pain. When viewed from the RE-AIM perspective (ie, reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation fidelity, and maintenance), this study supports the notion that there is considerable value in this type of intervention as a potentially cost-effective tool that can reach large numbers of people. The results are promising considering that the FitBack intervention was neither supported by professional caregivers nor integrated within a health promotion campaign, which might have provided additional support for participants. Still, more research is needed on how self-guided mobile-Web interventions will be used over time and to understand factors associated with continuing user engagement.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01950091; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01950091 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6TwZucX77).

Project description:Background and objectiveChronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is very common, with a lifetime prevalence between 51% and 80%. In majority, it is nonspecific in nature and multifactorial in etiology. Pregabalin (PG) and Gabapentin (GB) are gabapentinoids that have demonstrated benefit in neuropathic pain conditions. Despite no clear rationale, they are increasingly used for nonspecific CLBP. They necessitate prolonged use and are associated with adverse effects and increased cost. Recent guidelines from the National Health Service (NHS), England, expressed concerns on their off-label use, in addition to the risk of misuse. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of gabapentinoids in adult CLBP patients.MethodsElectronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched from their inception until December 20th, 2016. We included randomized control trials reporting the use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of CLBP of >3 months duration, in adult patients. Study selection and data extraction was performed independently by paired reviewers. Outcomes were guided by Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines, with pain relief and safety as the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 in percentage representing the percentage variability in effect estimates that could be explained by heterogeneity. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsOut of 1,385 citations, eight studies were included. Based on the interventions and comparators, studies were analyzed in 3 different groups. GB compared with placebo (3 studies, n = 185) showed minimal improvement of pain (MD = 0.22 units, 95% CI [-0.5 to 0.07] I2 = 0%; GRADE: very low). Three studies compared PG with other types of analgesic medication (n = 332) and showed greater improvement in the other analgesic group (MD = 0.42 units, 95% CI [0.20 to 0.64] I2 = 0; GRADE: very low). Studies using PG as an adjuvant (n = 423) were not pooled due to heterogeneity, but the largest of them showed no benefit of adding PG to tapentadol. There were no deaths or hospitalizations reported. Compared with placebo, the following adverse events were more commonly reported with GB: dizziness-(RR = 1.99, 95% CI [1.17 to 3.37], I2 = 49); fatigue (RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.12 to 3.05], I2 = 0); difficulties with mentation (RR = 3.34, 95% CI [1.54 to 7.25], I2 = 0); and visual disturbances (RR = 5.72, 95% CI [1.94 to 16.91], I2 = 0). The number needed to harm with 95% CI for dizziness, fatigue, difficulties with mentation, and visual disturbances were 7 (4 to 30), 8 (4 to 44), 6 (4 to 15), and 6 (4 to 13) respectively. The GRADE evidence quality was noted to be very low for dizziness and fatigue, low for difficulties with mentation, and moderate for visual disturbances. Functional and emotional improvements were reported by few studies and showed no significant improvements.Conclusions and relevanceExisting evidence on the use of gabapentinoids in CLBP is limited and demonstrates significant risk of adverse effects without any demonstrated benefit. Given the lack of efficacy, risks, and costs associated, the use of gabapentinoids for CLBP merits caution. There is need for large high-quality trials to more definitively inform this issue.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016034040.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search.Study selectionPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients.SynthesisA total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria.ConclusionExercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.

Project description:PurposeWalking and mind-body therapies (MBTs) are commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of walking and MBTs in CLBP.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing walking or MBTs to any other intervention or control in adults with CLBP. Studies were identified through PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. The research was limited to studies published in English and French between January 2008 and December 2018. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed studies quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Statistical analyses were performed under a random-effects model. We analyzed pain and activity limitation, with the calculation of standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for the different treatment effects.ResultsThirty one randomized controlled trials involving 3193 participants were analyzed. Walking was as effective as control interventions in the short-term and slightly superior in the intermediate term with respect to pain (Standardized mean differences (SMD) = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.03; P = .03) and activity limitation (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.10; P = .003). In contrast, yoga was more effective than control interventions in the short term in terms of pain (SMD = -1.47; 95% CI, -2.26 to -0.68; P = .0003) and activity limitation (SMD = -1.17; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.55; P = .0002). Yoga was no longer superior to the control interventions for pain at the 6-month follow-up.ConclusionMBTs, especially yoga, seem to be more effective in the short term, and walking seems to be more effective in the intermediate term, for the relief of pain and activity limitation in patients with CLBP. A combination of walking and MBTs fits the biopsychosocial model and might be valuable therapy for CLBP throughout follow-up due to combined effects.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is considered the leading cause of people living with years of disability worldwide. Notably, thunder-fire moxibustion (TFM) is a new type of moxibustion, which has been widely applied to treat pain syndromes for thousands of years. This study aims to provide evidence to evaluate the effect and safety of TFM in treating LBP.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, and VIP (until April 2021) was used to identify studies reporting pain intensity, disability, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and quality of life in patients with LBP. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared TFM and other therapies in LBP, were included. Meanwhile, methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias, and the level of evidence was rated utilizing the GRADE approach.ResultsTwenty-one RCTs, including 2198 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Compared with other therapies, the effect of TFM was statistically significant, pain intensity decreased (SMD = 0.94; 95% CI (0.74, 1.14); p < 0.00001), disability improved (SMD = 1.39; 95% CI (0.19, 2.59); p=0.02), and the JOA score increased (SMD = -1.34; 95% CI (-1.88, -0.80); p < 0.00001). It was also reported that the patient's quality of life improved after treatment for a period of 4 weeks (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI (-0.42, -0.16); p < 0.0001) and after a follow-up of 1 month (SMD = -0.20; 95% CI (-0.34, -0.07); p=0.003). The evidence level of the results was determined to be very low to low.ConclusionsBased on the existing evidence, it can be concluded that TFM may have a better effect than other treatments on LBP. However, it is not yet possible to assess the safety level of TFM therapy. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, rigorously designed large-scale RCTs must be conducted in order to further confirm the results in this review.