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:ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).Results24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).ConclusionVery low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021269997.
| S-EPMC10498296 | biostudies-literature
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: Not available
| S-EPMC9673466 | 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: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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.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