Meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa O. Soares ◽  
Giovanni E. Ferreira ◽  
Leonardo O. P. Costa ◽  
Leandro C. Nogueira ◽  
Ney Meziat-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Minimal Intervention ◽  
Better Than

Abstract Objectives We aim to determine the effectiveness of meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of meditation in adults with non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers rated risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Results We included eight trials with a total of 1,234 participants. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that meditation is better than usual care for disability at short-term (SMD = −0.22; 95% CI = −0.42 to −0.02). We also found that meditation is better than usual care for pain intensity at long-term (SMD = −0.28; 95% CI = −0.54 to −0.02). There is no significant difference for pain intensity between meditation and minimal intervention or usual care at short and intermediate-term. We did not find differences between meditation and minimal intervention for disability at intermediate-term or usual care in any follow-up period. Conclusions We found small effect sizes and moderate-certainty evidence that meditation is slightly better than minimal intervention in the short-term for disability. Low-certainty of evidence suggests that meditation is slightly better than usual care for pain in the long-term. Meditation appears to be safe with most trials reporting no serious adverse events.

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 Efficacy of Mobile Health in Patients with Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingrong Chen ◽  
Tingting Wu ◽  
Meina Lv ◽  
Zongwei Fang ◽  
Zhiwei Zeng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Numeric Rating Scale ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Back

BACKGROUND Low back pain is one of the most common health problems and a main cause of disability, which imposes a great burden on patients. Mobile health (mHealth) affects many aspects of people's lives, and it has progressed rapidly, showing promise as an effective intervention for patients with low back pain. However, the efficacy of mHealth interventions for patients with low back pain remains unclear; thus, further exploration is necessary. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mHealth interventions in patients with low back pain, compared to usual care. METHODS We searched for studies published in English before October 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently scanned the literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We used RevMan 5.4 software to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS A total of 10 studies with 1003 participant, met the inclusion criteria. The simultaneous use of mHealth and usual care showed a greater reduction in pain intensity than usual care alone, as measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (mean difference [MD] -0.85, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.40; P<.001), and greater efficacy in reducing disability, as measured by the Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.33 to -0.83; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS The simultaneous interventions of mHealth and usual care has greater efficacy than usual care alone in reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain.

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 Graded Activity and Graded Exposure for Persistent Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (6) ◽  
pp. 860-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana G. Macedo ◽  
Rob J.E.M. Smeets ◽  
Christopher G. Maher ◽  
Jane Latimer ◽  
James H. McAuley
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Minimal Intervention ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Graded Exposure ◽  
Graded Activity

Background Graded activity and graded exposure are increasingly being used in the management of persistent low back pain; however, their effectiveness remains poorly understood. Purpose The aim of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of graded activity or graded exposure for persistent (&gt;6 weeks in duration or recurrent) low back pain. Data Sources Trials were electronically searched and rated for quality by use of the PEDro scale (values of 0–10). Study Selection Randomized controlled trials of graded activity or graded exposure that included pain, disability, global perceived effect, or work status outcomes were included in the study. Data Extraction Outcomes were converted to a scale from 0 to 100. Trials were pooled with software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Data Synthesis Fifteen trials with 1,654 patients were included. The trials had a median quality score of 6 (range=3–9). Pooled effects from 6 trials comparing graded activity with a minimal intervention or no treatment favored graded activity, with 4 contrasts being statistically significant: mean values (95% confidence intervals) for pain in the short term, pain in the intermediate term, disability in the short term, and disability in the intermediate term were −6.2 (−9.4 to −3.0), −5.5 (−9.9 to −1.0), −6.5 (−10.1 to −3.0), and −3.9 (−7.4 to −0.4), respectively. None of the pooled effects from 6 trials comparing graded activity with another form of exercise, from 4 trials comparing graded activity with graded exposure, and from 2 trials comparing graded exposure with a waiting list were statistically significant. Limitations Limitations of this review include the low quality of the studies, primarily those that evaluated graded exposure; the use of various types of outome measures; and differences in the implementation of the interventions, adding to the heterogeneity of the studies. Conclusions The available evidence suggests that graded activity in the short term and intermediate term is slightly more effective than a minimal intervention but not more effective than other forms of exercise for persistent low back pain. The limited evidence suggests that graded exposure is as effective as minimal treatment or graded activity for persistent low back pain.

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 Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Complications of Adhesiolysis in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: An Update

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
Andrea M Trescot
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

Background: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis are interventional pain management techniques used to treat patients with refractory low back pain due to epidural scarring. Standard epidural steroid injections are often ineffective, especially in patients with prior back surgery. Adhesions in the epidural space can prevent the flow of medicine to the target area; lysis of these adhesions can improve the delivery of medication to the affected areas, potentially improving the therapeutic efficacy of the injected medications. Study Design: A systematic review utilizing the methodologic quality criteria of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials and the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials. Objective: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to radiculopathy, with or without prior lumbar surgery, since the 2005 systematic review. Methods: Basic search identified the relevant literature, in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BioMed databases (November 2004 to September 2006). Manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years were reviewed. Randomized and non-randomized studies are included in the review based on criteria established. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and endoscopic adhesiolysis are analyzed separately. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was significant pain relief (50% or greater). Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term relief was defined as less than 3 months, and long-term relief was defined as 3 months or longer. Results: Studies regarding the treatment of epidural adhesions for the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain were sought and reviewed. The evidence from the previous systematic review was combined with new studies since November 2004. There is strong evidence for short term and moderate evidence for long term effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy. Conclusion: Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy may be effective interventions to treat low back and lower extremity pain caused by epidural adhesions. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, percutaneous adhesiolysis, spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, spinal stenosis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, epidural fibrosis, epidural adhesions, caudal neuroplasty.

scholarly journals A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Electroacupuncture versus Medium-Frequency Electrotherapy for Discogenic Sciatica

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue Zhang ◽  
Yang Wang ◽  
Zhao Wang ◽  
Chao Wang ◽  
Wentao Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Medium Frequency

Objective. To investigate the short- and long-term effects of electroacupuncture (EA) compared with medium-frequency electrotherapy (MFE) on chronic discogenic sciatica.Methods. One hundred participants were randomized into two groups to receive EA (n=50) or MFE (n=50) for 4 weeks. A 28-week follow-up of the two groups was performed. The primary outcome measure was the average leg pain intensity. The secondary outcome measures were the low back pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), patient global impression (PGI), drug use frequency, and EA acceptance.Results. The mean changes in the average leg pain numerical rating scale (NRS) scores were 2.30 (1.86–2.57) and 1.06 (0.62–1.51) in the EA and MFE groups at week 4, respectively. The difference was significant (P<0.001). The long-term follow-up resulted in significant differences. The average leg pain NRS scores decreased by 2.12 (1.70–2.53) and 0.36 (−0.05–0.78) from baseline in the EA and MFE groups, respectively, at week 28. However, low back pain intensity and PGI did not differ significantly at week 4. No serious adverse events occurred.Conclusions. EA showed greater short-term and long-term benefits for chronic discogenic sciatica than MFE, and the effect of EA was superior to that of MFE. The study findings warrant verification. This trial was registered under identifierChiCTR-IPR-15006370.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document