Dataset Information

Placebo effects in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

The current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.

Databases and data treatment

The study protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews Prospero (CRD42019148745). A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO) up to 2021 February 16th yielded 2,423 studies. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias.

Results

Eighteen studies were eligible for the systematic review and 5 for the meta-analysis. Fourteen of the 18 studies were clinical treatment studies, and 4 were experimental studies specifically assessing placebo effects. The clinical treatment studies provided varying evidence for placebo effects in chronic LBP but insufficient evidence for acute and subacute LBP. Most experimental studies investigating chronic LBP revealed significant placebo effects. The meta-analysis of 5 treatment studies investigating chronic LBP depicted a significant moderate effect size of placebo for pain intensity (SMD = 0.57) and disability (SMD = 0.52).

Conclusions

This review shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief in clinical and experimental conditions. The meta-analysis revealed that placebo effects can influence chronic LBP intensity and disability. However, additional studies are required for more supporting evidence and evidence for placebo effects in acute or subacute LBP.

Significance

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of true placebo effects in low back pain (LBP). It shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief. The results highlight the importance of patient- and context-related factors in fostering treatment effects in this patient group. New studies could provide insight into the potential value of actively making use of placebo effects in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: van Lennep JHPA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8518410 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Placebo effects in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

van Lennep Johan Hans Peter Alexander JHPA Trossèl Faye F Perez Roberto Silvio Giovanni Maria RSGM Otten René Hubert Joseph RHJ van Middendorp Henriët H Evers Andrea Walburga Maria AWM Szadek Karolina Maria KM

European journal of pain (London, England) 20210621 9

<h4>Background and objective</h4>The current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.<h4>Databases and data treatment</h4>The study protocol was registered in the international pros ...[more]

PMID: 34051018

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious systematic reviews have reported positive associations between Modic changes (MCs) and low back pain (LBP), but due to their narrow scope and new primary studies, there is a need for a comprehensive systematic review. Our objectives were to investigate if MCs are associated with non-specific LBP and/or activity limitation and if such associations are modified by other factors.MethodsA protocol for this review was registered at PROSPERO prior to commencing the work (PROSPERO record: CRD42015017350). The MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant studies from first record to June 15th 2016. Prospective or retrospective cross-sectional cohort studies and case-control studies including people of all ages from general, working and clinical study populations were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction for associations and potential modifiers were completed independently by pairs of reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed for homogeneous studies and presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI.ResultsIn all, 5210 citations were identified and 31 studies were included. One study had low risk of bias. Fifteen studies (48%) reported statistically significant positive associations between MCs and LBP and one study found a statistically significant negative association. Meta-analysis performed for studies using concordant pain with provocative discography as the clinical outcome resulted in an OR of 4.01 (1.52-10.61). One of seven studies reported a statistically significant positive association between MCs and activity limitation. Lumbar disc level and disc degeneration were found to modify the association between MCs and LBP.ConclusionsThe results from this comprehensive systematic review indicate that the associations between MCs and LBP-related outcomes are inconsistent. The high risk of bias and the heterogeneity in terms of study samples, clinical outcomes and prevalence estimates of MCs and LBP may explain these findings. It is likely that new studies with low risk of bias will affect the direction and strength of these associations.

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:Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP treatment is very challenging, and more effective treatment methods are needed. Myofascial release may be an effective therapy for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It is widely used clinically to treat CLBP, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. Methods: We selected PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database articles published until April 5, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of myofascial release for CLBP were included. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, quality of life, balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, and mental health. For each outcome, Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 375) were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the overall efficacy of myofascial release for CLBP was significant, including two aspects: pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.08), I 2 = 46%, P = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), I 2 = 44%, P = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), I 2 = 53%, P = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), I 2 = 82%, P = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), I 2 = 92%, P = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.88]. Conclusions: In this study, we systematically reviewed and quantified the efficacy of myofascial release in treating CLBP. The meta-analysis results showed that myofascial release significantly improved pain and physical function in patients with CLBP but had no significant effects on balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, mental health, and quality of life. However, due to the low quality and a small number of included literature, more and more rigorously designed RCTs should be included in the future to verify these conclusions.

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.

Project description:BackgroundMost patients in the secondary care sector consulting for low back pain (LBP) seem to have a more or less constant course of pain during the ensuing year. Fewer patients with LBP in the primary care sector report continual pain over a one-year period. However, not much is known about the long-term course of LBP in the general population. A systematic critical literature review was undertaken in order to study the natural course of LBP over time in the general population.MethodsA search of articles was performed in Pubmed, Cinahl and Psychinfo using the search terms 'epidemiology'; 'low back pain' or 'back pain'; 'prospective study' or 'longitudinal study'; 'follow-up', 'natural course', 'course' or 'natural history'; 'general population' or 'working population'. Inclusion criteria were that one of the objectives was to study the course of (L)BP in the adult population, that the period of follow-up was at least 3 months, and that there were three points of observation or more. The review was undertaken by two independent reviewers using three checklists relating to description of studies, quality and outcomes. The course of LBP was established in relation to those who, at baseline, were reported not to have LBP or to have LBP. Would this course be stable, fluctuating, worsening, or improving over time? A synthesis of results in relation to common patterns was presented in a table and interpreted in a narrative form.ResultsEight articles were included. Articles were different on time span, the number of surveys, and the definition of LBP. In six of the seven relevant studies, for those with no LBP at baseline, relatively substantial stable subgroups of people who continued to be LBP free were identified. In six of the seven relevant studies, definite stable subgroups of continued LBP were noted and improvement (becoming pain free) was never reported to be a common finding.ConclusionThe status of LBP in individuals of the general population appears to be relatively stable over time, perhaps particularly so for those without LBP at baseline.

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.

Dataset Information

Placebo effects in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Background and objective

Databases and data treatment

Results

Conclusions

Significance

Publications

Placebo effects in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets