scholarly journals The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Education for Preventing and Treating Non-Specific Low Back Pain in the Hispanic Cultural Setting: A Systematic Review

2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 825
Author(s):  
Francisco M. Kovacs ◽  
Natalia Burgos-Alonso ◽  
Ana María Martín-Nogueras ◽  
Jesús Seco-Calvo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
School Setting ◽  
Active Management ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Cultural Setting

A systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of education programs to prevent and treat low back pain (LBP) in the Hispanic cultural setting. Electronic and manual searches identified 1148 unique references. Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Back Pain Review Group. Education programs which were assessed focused on active management (3 studies), postural hygiene (7), exercise (4) and pain neurophysiology (1). Comparators were no intervention, usual care, exercise, other types of education, and different combinations of these procedures. Five RCTs had a low risk of bias. Results show that: (a) education programs in the school setting can transmit potentially useful knowledge for LBP prevention and (b) education programs for patients with LBP improve the outcomes of usual care, especially in terms of disability. Education on pain neurophysiology improves the results of education on exercise, and education on active management is more effective than “sham” education and education on postural hygiene. Future studies should assess the comparative or summatory effects of education on exercise, education on pain neurophysiology and education on active management, as well as explore their efficiency.

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.

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

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.

What is usual care for low back pain? A systematic review of health care provided to patients with low back pain in family practice and emergency departments

Pain ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 161 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Kamper ◽  
Gabrielle Logan ◽  
Bethan Copsey ◽  
Jacqueline Thompson ◽  
Gustavo C. Machado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Family Practice ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Randomized Clinical Trials on Acupuncture in Korean Literature: A Systematic Review

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae Cheol Kong ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee ◽  
Byung-Cheul Shin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Premenstrual Syndrome ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Korean Literature

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture as published in Korean literature. Systematic searches were conducted on eight Korean medical databases. Manual searches were also conducted through eight major Korean medical journals. The methodological quality was assessed using a Jadad score. Studies evaluating needle acupuncture or auricular acupuncture (AA) with or without electrical stimulation were considered if they were sham or placebo-controlled or controlled against a comparative intervention. We also excluded acupuncture as an adjuvant to other treatments and other forms of acupuncture were excluded. Seven hundred and nine possibly relevant studies were identified and 10 RCTs were included. The methodological quality of the trials was generally poor. Manual acupuncture was compared to placebo acupuncture in four studies of patients with chronic low back pain, shoulder pain, premenstrual syndrome and allergic rhinitis. Three studies tested AA (two trials) and electroacupuncture (one trial) against no treatment, while three trials compared acupuncture with other active therapeutic controls. The methodological limitations of the included trials make their contribution to the current clinical evidence of acupuncture somewhat limited. The trial for premenstrual syndrome, shoulder pain and chronic low back pain added a limited contribution among those included RCTs. However, well-designed RCTs of acupuncture with a rigorous methodology are in progress or have been completed in Korea and will contribute to establish or contribute to the current progress of research in this field.

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 Drug Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 6;16 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E685-E704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne WY Chung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cox 2 ◽  
The Impact

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common health problems in adults. The impact of LBP on the individual can cause loss of health status in the form of symptoms and loss of function related to pain in the back; limitation of daily, leisure, and/or strenuous activities, and disability. LBP also poses an economic burden to society, mainly in terms of one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care (direct treatment costs), and accounts for the large number of work days lost (indirect costs). To reduce the impact of LBP on adults, drug therapy is the most frequently recommended intervention. Over the last decade, a substantial number of randomized clinical trials of drug therapy for LBP have been published. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of drug therapy for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP). Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, CAJ Full-text Database, and Cochrane databases) were searched for articles published from 2002 to 2012. The eligibility criteria were randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of oral or injection drug therapy for CNLBP in subjects who were aged at least 18 years old, published in English or Chinese. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Results: A total of 25 drug therapy trials were included. cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, and opioids were commonly used. Only 5 trials studied the efficacy of adjuvant analgesics of antiepileptics (n = 1) and antidepressants (n = 4) for CNLBP. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for COX-2 NSAIDs in pain relief was -12.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -15.00 to -9.06). The SMD for tramadol in pain relief was -1.72 (95% CI: -3.45 to 0.01). As the 95% CI crossed 0, this effect size was not considered statistically significant. The SMD for the overall effects of opioids in pain relief was -5.18 (95% CI: -8.30 to -2.05). The SMD for the partial opioid agonist drug in pain relief was -7.46 (95% CI: -11.87 to -3.04). Limitations: The follow-up periods of these included trials in the meta-analysis ranged from 4 to 24 weeks. The difference of follow-up periods influenced how study outcomes were recorded. These included trials also had significant differences in patient selections. Some trials may actually include CNLBP patients with neuropathic pain, as not having focal neurological findings or signs does not mean that the pain is not neuropathic. Consequently, different pain conditions may influence patients who responded to the same drug and then influence pooled estimates of treatment effect size. Conclusion: This review endorses the use of COX-2 NSAIDs as the first-line drugs for CNLBP. Tramadol shows no statistically significant effect on pain relief, but has small effect sizes in improving functioning. Among included opioid therapy studies, the overall effects of opioids and the partial opioids agonist drug had statistically significant treatment effects in pain relief for CNLBP patients. Key words: NSAIDs, opioids, antidepressants, drug therapy, low back pain, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized clinical trials

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document