Alteration of lumbar muscle morphology and composition in relation to low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahere Seyedhoseinpoor ◽  
Mohammad Taghipour ◽  
Mahdi Dadgoo ◽  
Mohamad Ali Sanjari ◽  
Ismail Ebrahimi Takamjani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Muscle Morphology ◽  
Lumbar Muscle

scholarly journals The effect of chronic, non-specific low back pain on superficial lumbar muscle activity: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Alison B Rushton ◽  
Eduardo Martinez Valdes ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Alessio Gallina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Muscle Activity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Lumbar Muscle

IntroductionChronic, non-specific low back pain is a major global cause of disability. One factor which might potentially contribute to ongoing pain is maladaptive variation in the level of activity in the lumbar musculature. Several studies have investigated this activity using surface electromyography, in varied muscles and during a number of functional activities. Due to differences in the applied methodology, the results have been difficult to compare, and previous reviews have been limited in scope. In this protocol, we aim to perform a comprehensive review of the effect of chronic low back pain on lumbar muscle activity.Methods and analysisThis protocol was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and results will be reported in line with the PRISMA. Searches will be conducted on the Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ZETOC and CINAHL databases, along with a comprehensive review of grey literature and key journals. One reviewer will conduct the searches, but two independent reviewers will screen potential studies and assess the risk of bias within studies which meet the inclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines will be used to assess the quality of the data. Meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate on groups of studies with homogenous methodology. Where studies are too heterogeneous to allow for meta-analysis, meta-synthesis will instead be completed, comparing results in terms of net increases or decreases of activity.Ethics and disseminationThis review aims to identify common adaptations of muscle activity in people with low back pain and it is expected that the results will influence future research directions and future rehabilitation approaches. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42019125156

Efficacy of conservative therapy in older people with nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and GRADE recommendations

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 104177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorena K.B. Amaral ◽  
Mateus B. Souza ◽  
Mariana G.M. Campos ◽  
Vanessa A. Mendonça ◽  
Alessandra Bastone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Older People ◽  
Conservative Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Tibetan herbal pain-relieving plaster for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 111727
Author(s):  
Mingxiao Yang ◽  
Susan Q. Li ◽  
Colleen M. Smith ◽  
Yi Lily Zhang ◽  
Ting Bao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Effects of low back pain on balance performance in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Ge ◽  
Chuhuai Wang ◽  
Haohan Zhou ◽  
Qiuhua Yu ◽  
Xin Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Elderly People ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Centre Of Pressure ◽  
Balance Performance

Abstract Background Research suggests that individuals with low back pain (LBP) may have poorer motor control compared to their healthy counterparts. However, the sample population of almost 90% of related articles are young and middle-aged people. There is still a lack of a systematic review about the balance performance of elderly people with low back pain. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the effects of LBP on balance performance in elderly people. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for full-text articles published before January 2020. We included the articles that 1) investigated the elderly people with LBP; 2) assessed balance performance with any quantifiable clinical assessment or measurement tool and during static or dynamic activity; 3) were original research. Two independent reviewers screened the relevant articles, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results Thirteen case-control studies comparing balance performance parameters between LBP and healthy subjects were included. The experimental group (LBP group) was associated with significantly larger area of centre of pressure movement (P < 0.001), higher velocity of centre of pressure sway in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), longer path length in the anteroposterior direction (P < 0.001), slower walking speed (P = 0.05), and longer timed up and go test time (P = 0.004) than the control group. Conclusion The results showed that balance performance was impaired in elderly people with LBP. We should pay more attention to the balance control of elderly people with LBP.

The relationships between low back pain and lumbar lordosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1180-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se-Woong Chun ◽  
Chai-Young Lim ◽  
Keewon Kim ◽  
Jinseub Hwang ◽  
Sun G. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Intervertebral disc therapies for non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2110280
Author(s):  
Camille Daste ◽  
Stéphanie Laclau ◽  
Margaux Boisson ◽  
François Segretin ◽  
Antoine Feydy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Intervertebral Disc ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Limitations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term

Objectives: We aim to evaluate the benefits and harms of intervertebral disc therapies (IDTs) in people with non-specific chronic low back pain (NScLBP). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of IDTs versus placebo interventions, active comparators or usual care. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and CINHAL databases and conference abstracts were searched from inception to June 2020. Two independent investigators extracted data. The primary outcome was LBP intensity at short term (1 week–3 months), intermediate term (3–6 months) and long term (after 6 months). Results: Of 18 eligible trials (among 1396 citations), five assessed glucocorticoids (GCs) IDTs and were included in a quantitative synthesis; 13 assessed other products including etanercept ( n = 2), tocilizumab ( n = 1), methylene blue ( n = 2), ozone ( n = 2), chymopapaine ( n = 1), glycerol ( n = 1), stem cells ( n = 1), platelet-rich plasma ( n = 1) and recombinant human growth and differentiation factor-5 ( n = 2), and were included in a narrative synthesis. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) for GC IDTs for LBP intensity and activity limitations were −1.33 (−2.34; −0.32) and −0.76 (−1.85; 0.34) at short term, −2.22 (−5.34; 0.90) and −1.60 (−3.51; 0.32) at intermediate term and −1.11 (−2.91; 0.70) and −0.63 (−1.68; 0.42) at long term, respectively. Odds ratios (95% CI) for serious and minor adverse events with GC IDTs were 1.09 (0.25; 4.65) and 0.97 (0.49; 1.91). Conclusion: GC IDTs are associated with a reduction in LBP intensity at short term in people with NScLBP. Positive effects are not sustained. IDTs have no effect on activity limitations. Our conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity and a limited methodological quality across studies. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42019106336.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document