Dataset Information

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

Search methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

Selection criteria

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

Main results

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

Authors' conclusions

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

SUBMITTER: Macedo LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734597 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressants are commonly used in the management of low-back pain. However, their use is controversial.ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to determine whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain.Search strategyRandomised controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE (to September 2007), PsycINFO to June 2006, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2006, issue 2, and previous systematic reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials that compared antidepressant medication and placebo for patients with non-specific low-back pain, and used at least one clinically relevant outcome measure.Data collection and analysisTwo blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the effect of antidepressants on pain, depression and function, and the effect of antidepressant type on pain. To account for studies that could not be pooled, additional qualitative analyses were performed using the levels of evidence recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.Main resultsTen trials that compared antidepressants with placebo were included in this review. The pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief (six trials; standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.16)) or depression (two trials; SMD 0.06 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.40)) between antidepressant and placebo treatments. The qualitative analyses found conflicting evidence on the effect of antidepressants on pain intensity in chronic low-back pain, and no clear evidence that antidepressants reduce depression in chronic low-back pain patients. Two pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief between different types of antidepressants and placebo. Our findings were not altered by the sensitivity analyses which varied the level of methodological quality required for inclusion in the meta-analyses to allow data from additional trials to be examined. Two additional trials were identified in September 2007 and await assessment.Authors' conclusionsThere is no clear evidence that antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the management of patients with chronic low-back pain. These findings do not imply that severely depressed patients with back pain should not be treated with antidepressants; furthermore, there is evidence for their use in other forms of chronic pain.

Project description:BackgroundAmong the most effective therapeutic interventions in non-specific chronic low back pain, clinical practice guidelines highlight exercise therapy and patient education. However, the variability in the type of exercise and its dosage means that there is no clear evidence regarding the most optimal form of therapeutic exercise.AimThe main objective of this study was to ascertain the effects produced by two different exercise interventions (supervised exercise therapy and laser-guided exercise therapy) and pain neuroscience education on postural control measured by the displacement center of pressure (CoP) and energy spectral density (ESD) in subjects with non-specific chronic low back pain.DesignThis is a single-blinded randomized clinical comparative controlled trial.SettingThe study was carried out in different private physiotherapy care centers.PopulationWe enrolled 60 subjects with non-specific chronic low back pain of at least 3-month duration, aged 18-45 years.MethodsBoth groups performed a total of 16 therapeutic exercise sessions and 8 pain neuroscience education sessions, with the laser-guided exercise therapy group performing laser-guided exercises. The main outcome measures evaluated were ESD and displacement of CoP measured at 3 different times (baseline, post-treatment, and 3 month follow-up).ResultsThe most important differences for ESD and displacement of CoP variables were obtained for eyes open, unstable surface anteroposterior axis (F(2,92)=7.36, P=0.001, d=0.71) and eyes closed, stable surface mediolateral axis (F(2,92)=3.24, P<0.001, d=0.76). Further, time × group interactions showed significant statistical differences in both cases as well as significant differences between baseline and 3 month's follow-up.ConclusionsBoth exercise modalities (supervised exercise therapy and laser-guided exercise therapy) showed changes in variables related to postural control (displacement of CoP and ESD). However, the laser-guided exercise therapy program showed greater improvements in ESD.Clinical rehabilitation impactAnalysis of a new approach for the quantification of data obtained from postural control assessment relying on widely used devices (accelerometers and pressure platforms).