scholarly journals Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 11806
Author(s):  
Beatriz Brea-Gómez ◽  
Irene Torres-Sánchez ◽  
Araceli Ortiz-Rubio ◽  
Andrés Calvache-Mateo ◽  
Irene Cabrera-Martos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Back

Virtual reality (VR) can present advantages in the treatment of chronic low back pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the effectiveness of VR in chronic low back pain. This review was designed according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020222129). Four databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched up to August 2021. Inclusion criteria were defined following PICOS recommendations. Methodological quality was assessed with the Downs and Black scale and the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and eleven in the meta-analysis. Significant differences were found in favor of VR compared to no VR in pain intensity postintervention (11 trials; n = 569; SMD = −1.92; 95% CI = −2.73, −1.11; p < 0.00001) and followup (4 trials; n = 240; SDM = −6.34; 95% CI = −9.12, −3.56; p < 0.00001); and kinesiophobia postintervention (3 trials; n = 192; MD = −8.96; 95% CI = −17.52, −0.40; p = 0.04) and followup (2 trials; n = 149; MD = −12.04; 95% CI = −20.58, −3.49; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in disability. In conclusion, VR can significantly reduce pain intensity and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic low back pain after the intervention and at followup. However, high heterogeneity exists and can influence the consistency of the results.

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 EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE THERAPY (ESWT) IN CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Karolina Walewicz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave

Background: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) has become a popular tool to treat musculoskeletal disorders and chronic low back pain. Aim of the study: To review the current scientific literature and assess the utility of ESWT in treating chronic low back pain. Methods: This systematic review was conducted from November 2019 to January 2020. Its purpose was to determine what the effectiveness is of the various forms of ESWT for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The critical review of the literature on the use of ESWT in chronic low back was made using the scientifically recognized medical databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Web of Science Core Collection. There was no restriction by date. Exclusion criteria were experimental, in vitro, animal, review, case reports, non-randomized clinical trials or studies with healthy participants. All articles written in languages other than English have also been excluded. Results: Six studies were included in the final analysis. According to the applied PEDro classification, the average scoring for the studies was 4.83, which indicates overall low quality of the presented reports. However, this result appeared closer to the moderate (acceptable) quality range (6-8 points) than to the unacceptable range (0-2 points). Conclusion: Based on the findings in the analyzed articles, ESWT promises to be an efficient and useful procedure in chronic low back pain treatment. Unfortunately, the level of evidence is relatively weak because there are a limited number of published studies related to ESWT and the final score in the PEDro classification was low. Together, these results indicate the need for further high quality randomized clinical trials.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effective for chronic low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 127 (9) ◽  
pp. 1257-1270
Author(s):  
Mohammad Alwardat ◽  
Antonio Pisani ◽  
Mohammad Etoom ◽  
Roberta Carpenedo ◽  
Elisabetta Chinè ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

scholarly journals Effectiveness of ozone therapy compared to other therapies for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 493-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raul Ribeiro de Andrade ◽  
Olavo Barbosa de Oliveira-Neto ◽  
Luciano Timbó Barbosa ◽  
Isabelle Oliveira Santos ◽  
Célio Fernando de Sousa-Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Ozone Therapy

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034996
Author(s):  
Emma Ho ◽  
Manuela Ferreira ◽  
Lingxiao Chen ◽  
Milena Simic ◽  
Claire Ashton-James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Fear Avoidance

IntroductionPsychological factors such as fear avoidance beliefs, depression, anxiety, catastrophic thinking and familial and social stress, have been associated with high disability levels in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Guidelines endorse the integration of psychological interventions in the management of chronic LBP. However, uncertainty surrounds the comparative effectiveness of different psychological approaches. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows comparison and ranking of numerous competing interventions for a given outcome of interest. Therefore, we will perform a systematic review with a NMA to determine which type of psychological intervention is most effective for adults with chronic non-specific LBP.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL) from inception until 22 August 2019 for randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions to any comparison interventions in adults with chronic non-specific LBP. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcomes will include physical function and pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, intervention compliance and safety. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. We will conduct a random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach to estimate relative effects for all comparisons between treatments and rank treatments according to the mean rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. All analyses will be performed in Stata.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019138074.

The effectiveness of walking versus exercise on pain and function in chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 622-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Vanti ◽  
Simone Andreatta ◽  
Silvia Borghi ◽  
Andrew Anthony Guccione ◽  
Paolo Pillastrini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
And Function

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 Neuromuscular adaptations to experimentally induced pain in the lumbar region: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valter Devecchi ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Hélio V. Cabral ◽  
Alessio Gallina
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Pain ◽  
Neuromuscular Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Lumbar Region ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Experimentally Induced

Abstract Background Numerous studies report changes in neuromuscular control in people with low back pain (LBP). However, the relationship between pain and altered neuromuscular control is challenging to unravel given the heterogeneity that exists in clinical populations. One approach commonly adopted to overcome this issue is the use of experimental pain models, but it is currently unclear if the effects of experimental pain are consistent between studies. Therefore, this planned study will systematically evaluate and summarise the effect of experimentally induced pain in the lumbar region on neuromuscular control at sites both locally and remote to the low back. Methods This protocol has been developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, and grey literature will be searched up to August 31, 2021. Screening processes (title/abstract and full-text), data extraction, and risk of bias assessment will be conducted by two independent reviewers. Studies investigating the effects of exogenous pain models delivered to the low back region on neuromuscular control in healthy individuals will be included. Muscle activity and body kinematics will be the outcomes of interest. The comparisons of interest will be between baseline or control conditions and the experimental pain condition, as well as between the experimental pain and post-pain conditions. Randomised crossover and non-randomised studies of interventions will be included and their risk of bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool or with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, respectively. A random-effect meta-analysis will be conducted for quantitative synthesis when clinical and methodological consistency is ensured. Quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Discussion The current review will provide new insights to understand if and what neuromuscular adaptations are caused by pain experimentally induced in the lumbar region. Our findings will reveal which experimental pain model is able to better reproduce adaptations similar to those identified in people with low back pain, possibly contributing to improving our understanding of motor adaptation to low back pain in the long term. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220130

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document