scholarly journals Low-Level Laser Therapy for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 328-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Glazov ◽  
Michael Yelland ◽  
Jon Emery
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Laser Treatment ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Global Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Level Laser

Objective The efficacy of low-level laser treatment (LLLT) for chronic back pain remains controversial due to insufficient trial data. We aimed to conduct an updated review to determine if LLLT (including laser acupuncture) has specific benefits in chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). Methods Electronic databases were searched for randomised trials using sham controls and blinded assessment examining the intervention of LLLT in adults with CNLBP. Primary outcomes were pain and global assessment of improvement with up to short-term follow-up. Secondary outcomes were disability, range of back movement, and adverse effects. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Subgroup analyses were based on laser dose, duration of baseline pain, and whether or not laser therapy used an acupuncture approach. Results 15 studies were selected involving 1039 participants. At immediate and short-term follow-up there was significant pain reduction of up to WMD (weighted mean difference) −1.40 cm (95% CI −1.91 to −0.88 cm) in favour of laser treatment, occurring in trials using at least 3 Joules (J) per point, with baseline pain <30 months and in non-acupuncture LLLT trials. Global assessment showed a risk ratio of 2.16 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.90) in favour of laser treatment in the same groups only at immediate follow-up. Conclusions We demonstrated moderate quality of evidence (GRADE) to support a clinically important benefit in LLLT for CNLBP in the short term, which was only seen following higher laser dose interventions and in participants with a shorter duration of back pain. Rigorously blinded trials using appropriate laser dosage would provide greater certainty around this conclusion.

scholarly journals Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (21) ◽  
pp. 1277-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill A Hayden ◽  
Maria N Wilson ◽  
Samuel Stewart ◽  
Jennifer L Cartwright ◽  
Andrea O Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Individual Participant

BackgroundLow back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.MethodsIn parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.ResultsWe received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.ConclusionsThis study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.Protocol publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64

scholarly journals Individualised exercise in chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effects of exercise alone or in combination with psychological interventions on pain and disability

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Fleckenstein ◽  
Philipp Floessel ◽  
Tilman Engel ◽  
Laura Klewinghaus ◽  
Josefine Stoll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Objective To investigate the effects of individualised exercise interventions consisting with or without combined psychological intervention on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Data sources Five databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Clarivate Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched up to 31 March 2021. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included participants with chronic non-specific low back pain, compared at least one individualised/personalised/stratified exercise intervention with or without psychological treatment to any control / comparator group, and if they assessed at least pain intensity or disability as outcome measure. Results Fifty-eight studies (n = 9099 patients, 44.3 years, 56% female) compared individualised to other types of exercise (n = 44; 62%), usual care (n = 16; 23%), advice to stay active, or true controls. The remaining studies had passive controls. At short-term follow-up, low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.33 [95%CI -0.47 to -0.18]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.16 [-0.30 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualised exercise compared to other exercises. Very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.35; [-0.53 to -0.17])) and low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.12; [-0.22 to -0.02]) indicates effects compared to passive controls. At long-term follow-up, moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.14 [-0.23 to -0.06]) and disability (-0.23 [-0.33 to -0.12]) indicates effects compared to passive controls exercises. All findings stayed below the threshold for minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Sub-group analysis of pain outcomes suggested that individualised exercise treatment is probably more effective in combination with psychological interventions (-0.32 [-0.51 to -0.14]), a clinically important difference Conclusion We found very low to moderate-certainty evidence that individualised exercise is effective for treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain. Individualised exercise seems superior to other active treatments and sub-group analysis suggests that some forms of individualised exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) combined with behavioural therapy interventions enhances the treatment effect. Certainty of evidence was higher for long-term follow-up. In summary, individualised exercise can be recommended from a clinical point of view.

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.

scholarly journals Short-term clinical efficacy of the pulsed Nd:YAG laser therapy on chronic nonspecific low back pain

Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (36) ◽  
pp. e22098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walid Kamal Abdelbasset ◽  
Gopal Nambi ◽  
Shereen H. Elsayed ◽  
Saud M. Alrawaili ◽  
Nahla N. Ataalla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Nd:Yag Laser ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Pulsed Nd:Yag Laser

Systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of acupuncture on pain and function in non-specific low back pain

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-243
Author(s):  
Yun-xia Li ◽  
Su-e Yuan ◽  
Jie-qiong Jiang ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
Yue-jiao Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of acupuncture for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) through systematic review of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Studies were identified in electronic databases from their inception to February 2018, and were grouped according to the control interventions. The outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist. The review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results: 25 trials (n=7587 participants) were identified and included in a meta-analysis. The results showed that acupuncture was more effective at inducing pain relief than: no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.69, 95% CI −0.99 to −0.38); sham acupuncture in the immediate term (SMD −0.33, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.18), short term (SMD −0.47, 95% CI −0.77 to −0.17), and intermediate term (SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.05); and usual care in the short term (SMD −1.07, 95% CI −1.81 to −0.33) and intermediate term (SMD −0.43, 95% CI −0.77 to −0.10). Also, adjunctive acupuncture with usual care was more effective than usual care alone at all time points studied. With regard to functional improvement, the analysis showed a significant difference between acupuncture and no treatment (SMD −0.94, 95% CI −1.57 to −0.30), whereas the other control therapies could not be assessed. Conclusion: We draw a cautious conclusion that acupuncture appears to be effective for NSLBP and that acupuncture may be an important supplement to usual care in the management of NSLBP.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy, Cost-Effectiveness, and Safety of Selected Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Neck and Low-Back Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea D. Furlan ◽  
Fatemeh Yazdi ◽  
Alexander Tsertsvadze ◽  
Anita Gross ◽  
Maurits Van Tulder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term

Background. Back pain is a common problem and a major cause of disability and health care utilization.Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy, harms, and costs of the most common CAM treatments (acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, and mobilization) for neck/low-back pain.Data Sources. Records without language restriction from various databases up to February 2010.Data Extraction. The efficacy outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability.Data Synthesis. Reports of 147 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies were included. CAM treatments were more effective in reducing pain and disability compared to no treatment, physical therapy (exercise and/or electrotherapy) or usual care immediately or at short-term follow-up. Trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended towards statistically nonsignificant results. In several studies, acupuncture caused bleeding on the site of application, and manipulation and massage caused pain episodes of mild and transient nature.Conclusions. CAM treatments were significantly more efficacious than no treatment, placebo, physical therapy, or usual care in reducing pain immediately or at short-term after treatment. CAM therapies did not significantly reduce disability compared to sham. None of the CAM treatments was shown systematically as superior to one another. More efforts are needed to improve the conduct and reporting of studies of CAM treatments.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Auricular Acupressure for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Hua Yang ◽  
Pei-Bei Duan ◽  
Qing-Mei Hou ◽  
Shi-Zheng Du ◽  
Jin-Fang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Auricular Acupressure

Objectives. To identify the efficacy of auricular acupressure on pain and disability for chronic LBP by systematic review.Methods. A search of randomized controlled trials was conducted in four English medical electronic databases and three Chinese databases. Two reviewers independently retrieved related studies, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted data with a standardized data form. Meta-analyses were performed using all time-points meta-analysis.Results. A total of 7 trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 4 had the low risk of bias. The findings of this study showed that, for the immediate effect, auricular acupressure had large, significant effects in improving pain within 12 weeks. As for the follow-up effect, the pooled estimates also showed promising effect at 4-week follow-up after 4-week intervention (standardized mean difference = −1.13, 95% CI (-1.70,-0.56),P<0.001). But, for the disability level, the therapeutic effect was not significant (mean difference = −1.99, 95% CI (-4.93, 0.95),P=0.18). No serious adverse effects were recorded.Conclusions. The encouraging evidence of this study indicates that it is recommended to provide auricular acupressure to patients with chronic low back pain. However, a more accurate estimate of the effect will require further rigorously designed large-scale RCTs on chronic LBP for improving pain and disability.

scholarly journals Low-Level Laser Therapy including Laser Acupuncture for Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-19
Author(s):  
Hyewon Yeum ◽  
Yejin Hong ◽  
Dongwoo Nam
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Laser Acupuncture ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Significant Positive Effect ◽  
Level Laser ◽  
Positive Effect

Low-level laser therapy including laser acupuncture (LLLT/LA) has been widely used for non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP). However, there is no critically appraised evidence of its potential benefits. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LLLT/LA for NCLBP. There were 12 databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, KoreaMed, KMBASE, KISS, NDSL, KISTI, OASIS, CNKI, CiNII, J-stage) searched for randomized controlled trials using LLLT/LA for NCLBP up until June 2019. The primary outcome was pain intensity and functional status/disability due to NCLBP. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on 20 studies involving 1,323 participants. LLLT/LA showed a significant positive effect on pain relief scores compared with sham treatments (SMD -0.51, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.13; χ<sup>2</sup> = 31.12, I<sup>2</sup> = 74%). Alone, the therapy showed a significant positive effect on function/disability scores (30 participants, MD -11.90, 95% CI: -17.37 to -6.43). As an add-on treatment, it showed a significant positive effect on pain relief (80 participants, MD -5.10, 95% CI: -9.31 to -0.88; χ<sup>2</sup> = 28.99, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%) and improved function/disability scores (120 participants, MD 5.44, 95% CI: 2.19 to 8.68; χ<sup>2</sup> = 4.07, I<sup>2</sup> = 75%). Among 20 studies, 9 studies reported no adverse events and 1 study reported mild adverse events. LLLT/LA may be an alternative or add-on treatment for NCLBP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document