Addition of specific hip strengthening exercises to conventional rehabilitation therapy for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 1368-1377
Author(s):  
Fabio Luciano Arcanjo de Jesus ◽  
Thiago Yukio Fukuda ◽  
Camila Souza ◽  
Janice Guimarães ◽  
Leticia Aquino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Rehabilitation Therapy ◽  
Strengthening Exercises ◽  
Hip Strengthening

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of hip strengthening exercises in reducing pain and disability in persons with low back pain. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials on MEDLINE, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Scielo and CINAHL from the earliest date available to June 2020. Studies that included hip strengthening exercises for persons with low back pain and included pain and/or disability as an outcome measure were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by random effect models. Results: Five studies met the eligibility criteria (309 patients). Four studies included hip strengthening in conjunction with other interventions, while one study evaluated hip strengthening as a standalone intervention. Hip strengthening exercises improved pain (MD −5.4 mm, 95% CI: −8.9 to −1.8 mm), and disability (MD −2.9; 95% CI: −5.6 to −0.1) in persons with low back pain compared to interventions in which hip strengthening was not utilized. The quality of evidence for the pain outcome, was assessed as being moderate. The quality of evidence for the outcome of self-reported disability, was assessed as being low. Conclusion: Addition of specific hip strengthening exercises to conventional rehabilitation therapy may be beneficial for improving pain and disability in persons with low back pain.

Effects of Pilates and trunk strengthening exercises on health-related quality of life in women with chronic low back pain

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Kofotolis ◽  
Eleftherios Kellis ◽  
Symeon P. Vlachopoulos ◽  
Iraklis Gouitas ◽  
Yannis Theodorakis
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Strengthening Exercises ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

scholarly journals Spinal manipulative therapy and acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Yue ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Jiaman Yang ◽  
Dehui Fan
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) and acupuncture are commonly used for low back pain (LBP) among complementary and alternative therapies. However, it remains unclear which of the two therapies is more effective for LBP. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of SMT and acupuncture on LBP. Methods Four electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (all years until July 2021), including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the quality of evidence. The primary outcome was pain; secondary outcomes included functional status and adverse events. Review Manager 5.3 software and Stata 12.0 were used for all statistical analyses. Results 9 RCTs with a total of 714 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (39-60 years) without signs of radiating pain. These trials included patients with mild to moderate pain. Overall, moderate quality of evidence suggested that SMT had better effects for pain relief (MD: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.09 to 0.55, I2=34%) and similar effects in function (MD: 0.24, 95%CI: -0.45 to 0.94, I2=21%) when compared to acupuncture. Moderate quality of evidence showed SMT reduced pain better than acupuncture at month 2 (MD: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.08 to 1.14, I2=0%) and at month 12 (MD: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.28 to 1.75, I2=42%). In addition, Low quality of evidence showed SMT may provide better improvement in pain at month 3 (MD: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.39, I2=42%) and in function at month 4 (MD: 3.50, 95%CI: 0.71 to 6.29). Adverse events associated with SMT and acupuncture were rare and mild. Conclusions SMT showed better effects than acupuncture for chronic low back pain, while SMT and acupuncture had similar effects in functional improvement. Although SMT and acupuncture were tolerable and safe, patients should be informed about the potential risks of adverse events before starting therapy.

scholarly journals Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e039530
Author(s):  
Bradley Furlong ◽  
Kris Aubrey-Bassler ◽  
Holly Etchegary ◽  
Andrea Pike ◽  
Georgia Darmonkow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Negative Beliefs ◽  
Subacute Low Back Pain

IntroductionLow back pain accounts for more disability than any other musculoskeletal condition and is associated with severe economic burden. Patients commonly present with negative beliefs about low back pain and this can have detrimental effects on their health outcomes. Providing evidence-based, patient-centred education that meets patient needs could help address these negative beliefs and alleviate the substantial low back pain burden. The primary aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of patient education materials on immediate process, clinical and health system outcomes.Methods and analysisThe search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian and systematic searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus. We will also search trial registries and grey literature through the OpenGrey database. Study selection will include a title and abstract scan and full-text review by two authors. Only randomised controlled trials will be included in this review. Trials must include patients with low back pain or sciatica and investigate educational interventions with at least one of the following contrasts: (1) education alone versus no intervention; (2) education alone versus another intervention; (3) education in addition to another intervention versus the same intervention with no education. Data extraction, risk of bias and grading of the quality of evidence will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the PEDro scale, and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A random-effects model will be used for each contrast, and results will be pooled if the participants, interventions, and outcomes are homogeneous. If heterogeneity is high (I2 >75%), we will evaluate the magnitude and direction of the differences in effect sizes across studies to determine if it remains reasonable to pool the results. Analyses of acute and subacute low back pain (less than 12 weeks duration) will be performed separately from chronic low back pain (12 weeks or greater duration). Likewise, analyses of short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (6 months or greater) follow-up will be performed separately. Subgroup analyses will be performed on non-specific low back pain, sciatica and mixed populations.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. This study, along with its results, will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Physical Activity for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 1023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianluca Vadalà ◽  
Fabrizio Russo ◽  
Sergio De Salvatore ◽  
Gabriele Cortina ◽  
Erika Albo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects nearly 20–25% of the population older than 65 years, and it is currently the main cause of disability both in the developed and developing countries. It is crucial to reach an optimal management of this condition in older patients to improve their quality of life. This review evaluates the effectiveness of physical activity (PA) to improve disability and pain in older people with non-specific CLBP. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to improve the reporting of the review. Individual risk of bias of single studies was assessed using Rob 2 tool and ROBINS-I tool. The quality of evidence assessment was performed using GRADE analysis only in articles that presents full data. The articles were searched in different web portals (Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL). All the articles reported respect the following inclusion criteria: patients > 65 years old who underwent physical activities for the treatment of CLBP. A total of 12 studies were included: 7 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 3 non-randomized controlled trials (NRCT), 1 pre and post intervention study (PPIS), and 1 case series (CS). The studies showed high heterogeneity in terms of study design, interventions, and outcome variables. In general, post-treatment data showed a trend in the improvement for disability and pain. However, considering the low quality of evidence of the studies, the high risk of bias, the languages limitations, the lack of significant results of some studies, and the lack of literature on this argument, further studies are necessary to improve the evidences on the topic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document