Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ibrahim T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2219937 | biostudies-other | 2008 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:To provide an overview and a critical appraisal of the use of responder analyses in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for chronic low back pain (LBP). The methodology used for the analyses, including the justification, as well as the implications of responder analyses on the conclusions was explored.A convenience sample of four systematic reviews evaluating 162 RCTs of interventions for chronic LBP was used to identify individual trials. Randomised trials were screened by two reviewers and included if they performed and reported a responder analysis (i.e. the proportion of participants achieving a pre-defined level of improvement). The cutoff value for responders, the period of follow-up, and the outcome measure used were extracted. Information on how RCT authors justified the methodology of their responder analyses was also appraised.Twenty-eight articles (17%) using 20 different definitions of responders were included in this appraisal. Justification for the definition of responders was absent in 80% of the articles. Pain was the most frequently used domain for the definition of response (50%), followed by back-specific function (30%) and a combination of pain and function (20%). A reduction in pain intensity ?50% was the most common threshold used to define responders (IQR 33-60%).Few RCTs of interventions for chronic LBP report responder analyses. Where responder analyses are used, the methods are inconsistent. When performing responder analyses authors are encouraged to follow the recommended guidelines, using empirically derived cutoffs, and present results alongside mean differences.
| S-EPMC3960418 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo ascertain whether the use of oral glucosamine influences symptoms or functional outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) thought to be related to spinal osteoarthritis (OA).DesignSystematic review of randomised control trials. Searches were performed up to March 2011 on Medline, AMED, CINHAL, Cochrane and EMBASE with subsequent reference screening of retrieved studies. In addition, the grey literature was searched via opensigle. Included studies were required to incorporate at least one of the Cochrane Back Pain Review Group's outcome measures as part of their design. Trials with participants over 18 years with a minimum of 12 weeks of back pain, in combination with radiographic changes of OA in the spine, were included. Studies were rated for risk-of-bias and graded for quality.Results148 studies were identified after screening and meeting eligibility requirements, and three randomised controlled trials (n=309) were included in the quantitative synthesis. The review found that there was low quality but generally no evidence of an effect from glucosamine on function, with no change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score in all studies. Conflicting evidence was demonstrated with pain scores with two studies showing no difference and one study with a high risk-of-bias showing both a statistically and clinically significant improvement from taking glucosamine.ConclusionsOn the basis of the current research, any clinical benefit of oral glucosamine for patients with chronic LBP and radiographic changes of spinal OA can neither be demonstrated nor excluded based on insufficient data and the low quality of existing studies.
| S-EPMC3686234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if infrared laser acupuncture (LA) may have a specific effect in reducing pain and disability in treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP).MethodsThis was a double-blind sham laser controlled trial performed in general practices in Perth, Western Australia. The participants were 144 adults with chronic non-specific LBP. They were randomised to receive eight once-weekly treatments. Laser machines (20 mW, 840 nm diode, power density 0.1 W/cm(2)) stimulated points in three treatment groups: sham (0 joules/point), low dose (0.2 J/point) and high dose (0.8 joules/point). Participants were followed-up at 1 and 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months post treatment. Primary outcomes were pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)) and disability (Oswestry Disability Inventory (ODI)) at 6 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes included numerical rating scale for limitation of activity, global assessment of improvement, analgesic usage and adverse effects after treatment.ResultsThe analysis showed no difference between sham and the laser groups at 6 weeks for pain or disability. There was a significant reduction in mean pain and disability in all groups at 6 weeks (p<0.005); NPRS: sham (-1.5 (95% CI -2.1 to -0.8)), low dose (-1.3 (-2.0 to -0.8)), high dose (-1.1 (-1.7 to -0.5)). ODI: sham (-4.0 (-7.1 to -1.0)), low dose (-4.1, (-6.7 to -1.5)), high dose (-2.6 (-5.7 to 0.5)). All secondary outcomes also showed clinical improvement over time but with no differences between groups.ConclusionsLA using energy density range (0-4 J/cm(2)) for the treatment of chronic non-specific LBP resulted in clinical improvement unrelated to laser stimulation.Trial registrationhttp://www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12610000043033.
| S-EPMC3995277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the effects of core stability exercise or general exercise for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).Summary of background dataExercise therapy appears to be effective at decreasing pain and improving function for patients with chronic LBP in practice guidelines. Core stability exercise is becoming increasingly popular for LBP. However, it is currently unknown whether core stability exercise produces more beneficial effects than general exercise in patients with chronic LBP.MethodsPublished articles from 1970 to October 2011 were identified using electronic searches. For this meta-analysis, two reviewers independently selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating core stability exercise versus general exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. Data were extracted independently by the same two individuals who selected the studies.ResultsFrom the 28 potentially relevant trials, a total of 5 trials involving 414 participants were included in the current analysis. The pooling revealed that core stability exercise was better than general exercise for reducing pain [mean difference (-1.29); 95% confidence interval (-2.47, -0.11); P?=?0.003] and disability [mean difference (-7.14); 95% confidence interval (-11.64, -2.65); P?=?0.002] at the time of the short-term follow-up. However, no significant differences were observed between core stability exercise and general exercise in reducing pain at 6 months [mean difference (-0.50); 95% confidence interval (-1.36, 0.36); P?=?0.26] and 12 months [mean difference (-0.32); 95% confidence interval (-0.87, 0.23); P?=?0.25].ConclusionsCompared to general exercise, core stability exercise is more effective in decreasing pain and may improve physical function in patients with chronic LBP in the short term. However, no significant long-term differences in pain severity were observed between patients who engaged in core stability exercise versus those who engaged in general exercise.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001717.
| S-EPMC3524111 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6396088 | biostudies-other
Project description:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most prevalent of the painful musculoskeletal conditions. CLBP is a heterogeneous condition with many causes and diagnoses, but there are few established therapies with strong evidence of effectiveness (or cost effectiveness). CLBP for which it is not possible to identify any specific cause is often referred to as non-specific chronic LBP (NSCLBP). One type of NSCLBP is continuing and recurrent primarily nociceptive CLBP due to vertebral joint overload subsequent to functional instability of the lumbar spine. This condition may occur due to disruption of the motor control system to the key stabilizing muscles in the lumbar spine, particularly the lumbar multifidus muscle (MF).This review presents the evidence for MF involvement in CLBP, mechanisms of action of disruption of control of the MF, and options for restoring control of the MF as a treatment for NSCLBP.Imaging assessment of motor control dysfunction of the MF in individual patients is fraught with difficulty. MRI or ultrasound imaging techniques, while reliable, have limited diagnostic or predictive utility. For some patients, restoration of motor control to the MF with specific exercises can be effective, but population results are not persuasive since most patients are unable to voluntarily contract the MF and may be inhibited from doing so due to arthrogenic muscle inhibition.Targeting MF control with restorative neurostimulation promises a new treatment option.
| S-EPMC5814909 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5294833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sensorimotor training (SMT) is popularly applied as exercise in rehabilitation settings, particularly for musculoskeletal pain. With insufficient evidence on its effect on pain and function, this exploratory randomised controlled trial investigated the potential effects of SMT in rehabilitation of chronic non-specific low back pain. Two arms received 9x30 minutes physiotherapy with added interventions: The experimental arm received 15 minutes of postural SMT while the comparator arm performed 15 minutes of added sub-effective low-intensity training. A treatment blinded tester assessed outcomes at baseline 2-4 days prior to intervention, pre- and post-intervention, and at 4-week follow-up. Main outcomes were pain and functional status assessed with a 0-100mm visual analogue scale and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Additionally, postural control was analysed using a video-based tracking system and a pressure plate during perturbed stance. Robust, nonparametric multivariate hypothesis testing was performed. 22 patients (11 females, aged 32 to 75 years) with mild to moderate chronic pain and functional limitations were included for analysis (11 per arm). At post-intervention, average values of primary outcomes improved slightly, but not to a clinically relevant or statistically significant extent. At 4-week follow-up, there was a significant improvement by 12 percentage points (pp) on the functional status questionnaire in the SMT-group (95% confidence intervall (CI) = 5.3pp to 17.7pp, p < 0.001) but not in the control group (4 pp improvement, CI = 11.8pp to 19.2pp). However, group-by-time interaction effects for functional status (Q = 3.3, 19 p = 0.07) and pain (Q = 0.84, p = 0.51) were non-significant. Secondary kinematic outcomes did not change over time in either of the groups. Despite significant improvement of functional status after SMT, overall findings of this exploratory study suggest that SMT provides no added benefit for pain reduction or functional improvement in patients with moderate chronic non-specific low back pain.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02304120 and related study protocol, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-382.
| S-EPMC5844549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe Stand Back study evaluated the feasibility and effects of a multicomponent intervention targeting reduced prolonged sitting and pain self-management in desk workers with chronic low back pain (LBP).MethodsThis randomised controlled trial recruited 27 individuals with chronic LBP, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) >10% and desk jobs (sitting ≥20 hours/week). Participants were randomised within strata of ODI (>10%-<20%, ≥20%) to receive bimonthly behavioural counselling (in-person and telephone), a sit-stand desk attachment, a wrist-worn activity-prompting device and cognitive behavioural therapy for LBP self-management or control. Self-reported work sitting time, visual analogue scales (VAS) for LBP and the ODI were assessed by monthly, online questionnaires and compared across intervention groups using linear mixed models.ResultsBaseline mean (SD) age was 52 (11) years, 78% were women, and ODI was 24.1 (10.5)%. Across the 6-month follow-up in models adjusted for baseline value, work sitting time was 1.5 hour/day (P<0.001) lower comparing intervention to controls. Also across follow-up, ODI was on average 8 points lower in intervention versus control (P=0.001). At 6 months, the relative decrease in ODI from baseline was 50% in intervention and 14% in control (P=0.042). LBP from VAS was not significantly reduced in intervention versus control, though small-to-moderate effect sizes favouring the intervention were observed (Cohen's d ranged from 0.22 to 0.42).ConclusionAn intervention coupling behavioural counselling targeting reduced sedentary behaviour and pain self-management is a translatable treatment strategy that shows promise for treating chronic LBP in desk-bound employees.Trial registration numberNCT0224687; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC8283944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMany patients deemed inoperable for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have been treated successfully by transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR). This meta-analysis is designed to evaluate the performance of TAVR in comparison with SAVR.MethodsA systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, the Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Web of Science. Original data were abstracted from each study and used to calculate a pooled OR and 95% CI.ResultsAmong three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), differences between the two cohorts were not statistically significant for the frequency of stroke (OR=1.94, 95% CI=0.813 to 4.633), incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), (OR=0.765, 95% CI=0.05 to 11.76) 30-day mortality rate, 1-year mortality rate (0.82, 95% CI=0.62 to 1.09) and acute kidney injury incidence rate. The non-RCTs demonstrated that the TAVR group had an amplified frequency aortic regurgitation at discharge (OR=5.465, 95% CI=3.441 to 8.680). While differences between the two cohorts were not statistically significant for the incidence of MI (OR=0.697, 95% CI=0.22 to 2.21), stroke (OR=0.575, 95% CI=0.263 to 1.259), acute renal failure requiring haemodialysis (OR=0.943, 95% CI=0.276 to 3.222), 30-day mortality (OR=0.869, 95% CI=0.621 to 1.216) and the need for a pacemaker (OR=1.832, 95% CI=0.869 to 3.862), a lower incidence of patients needing transfusion (OR=0.349, 95% CI=0.121 to 1.005) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR=0.296, 95% CI=0.124 to 0.706) was seen in the TAVR group.ConclusionsRandomised and observational evidence adjusted on the baseline patient's characteristics finds a similar risk for 30?days mortality, 1-year mortality, stroke, MI and acute kidney injury in TAVR and SAVR.
| S-EPMC4189306 | biostudies-literature