Comparison of three different approaches in the treatment of chronic low back pain

Comparison of the efficacy of auricular vagus nerve stimulation and conventional low back rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

In recent years, human and animal studies have provided increasing evidence that vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) can produce analgesic effects as well as alleviating resistant epilepsy and depression. Our study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation with conventional low back rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

Sixty patients with LBP were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 received conventional rehabilitation and home exercise, and Group 2 received transcutaneous auricular VNS and home exercise. Both groups received treatment five days a week for three weeks. Trunk mobility (Modified Schober test, fingertip-to-floor test), muscle strength (CSMI-Cybex Humac-Norm isokinetic dynamometer and Lafayette manual muscle strength measuring device), trunk endurance, balance tests, Visual Analog Scale, Beck Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Oswestry Disability Index were evaluated.

RESULTS

At the end of three weeks, within-group assessment results showed positive effects on mobility, functional status, depression and sleep in all groups (p < 0.05). Pain level, endurance time and flexion trunk muscle strength results showed more improvement in Group 2 (p < 0.05). Some parameters of isokinetic lower extremity quadriceps muscle strength and fall risk scores showed a significant improvement in Group 1 (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

VNS has been observed to be more effective on pain, trunk muscle strength and endurance duration and sleep status. Auricular VNS may be included in the treatment of patients with CLBP in whom conventional physical therapy is inadequate or not applicable.

Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally from somatic and psychosocial factors. While non-pharmacological management, and in particular physiotherapy, has been recommended as a first-line treatment for cLBP, it is not clear what type of physiotherapeutic approach is the most effective in terms of pain reduction and function improvement. This analysis is rendered more difficult by the vast number of available therapies and a lack of a widely accepted classification that can effectively highlight the differences in the outcomes of different management options. This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In January 2024, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of physiotherapy programs in patients with cLBP were accessed. Studies reporting on non-specific or mechanical cLPB were included. Data concerning the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data from 12,773 patients were collected. The mean symptom duration was 61.2 ± 51.0 months and the mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 5.9 months. The mean age was 44.5 ± 9.4 years. The mean BMI was 25.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest pain score, followed by Multidisciplinary and Adapted Training Exercise/Complementary Medicine. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest RMQ score followed by Therapeutic Exercises and Multidisciplinary. The Multidisciplinary group evidenced the lowest ODI score, followed by Adapted Physical Exercise and Physical Agent modalities. Within the considered physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches to manage nonspecific and/or mechanic cLBP, adapted physical exercise, physical agent modalities, and a multidisciplinary approach might represent the most effective strategy to reduce pain and disability.

Comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) can seriously impair the quality of life of patients and has a remarkable comorbidity with psychological symptoms, which, in turn, can further exacerbate the symptoms of CLBP. Psychological treatments are critical and nonnegligent for the management of CLBP, and thus, should attract sufficient attention. However, current evidence does not suggest the superiority and effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP.Thus, this study was designed to compare the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP and to recommend preferred strategies for attenuating psychological symptoms in clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), PubMed, Embase Database, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception until March 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare different nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP were eligible. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was used. Four reviewers in pairs and divided into two groups independently performed literature selection, data extraction, and risk of bias, and certainty of evidence assessments. This NMA was conducted with a random effects model under a frequentist framework. The major outcomes were depression, anxiety, and mental health presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with the corresponding 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 66 RCTs that randomized 4806 patients with CLBP met the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was typically low or some risks of bias (47 out of 66 trials, 71.3%), and the precision of summary estimates for effectiveness varied substantially. In addition, 7 categories of interventions with 26 specific treatments were evaluated. For depression, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.63 to -0.78), biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.12), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.02) exhibited remarkable effectiveness in reducing depression compared with the control group. For managing anxiety, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.35, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.80), multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.06), and a biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.14) were substantially superior to the control group. For improving mental health, multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.39), exercise (pooled SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.11), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.02-0.92) demonstrated statistically substantial effectiveness compared with the control group. The rank probability indicated that mind body therapy achieved the highest effectiveness in reducing depression and anxiety among patients with CLBP. Besides, the combined results should be interpreted cautiously based on the results of analyses evaluating the inconsistency and certainty of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

This systemic review and NMA suggested that nonpharmacological interventions show promise for reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP. In particular, mind body therapy and a biopsychosocial approach show considerable promise, and mind body therapy can be considered a priority choice in reducing depression and anxiety. These findings can aid clinicians in assessing the potential risks and benefits of available treatments for CLBP comorbidity with psychological symptoms and provide evidence for selecting interventions in clinical practice. More RCTs involving different interventions with rigorous methodology and an adequate sample size should be conducted in future research.

Evaluation of effectiveness of osteopathic visceral manipulation in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain: A multi-center, single-blind, randomized-controlled study

Objectives

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of osteopathic visceral manipulation (OVM) combined with physical therapy in pain, depression, and functional impairment in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP).

Patients and methods

A total of 118 patients with chronic mechanical LBP were assessed, and 86 who met the inclusion criteria were included in the randomized-controlled study between January 2021 and August 2022. The patients were randomized to either Group 1 (n=43), which underwent physical therapy (5 days/week, for a total of 15 sessions) combined with OVM (2 days/week with three-day intervals), or Group 2 (n=43), which underwent physical therapy (5 days/week, for a total of 15 sessions) combined with sham OVM (2 days/week with three-day intervals). Both groups were assessed before and after treatment and at the fourth week post-treatment.

Results

Seven patients were lost to follow-up, and the study was completed with 79 patients (25 males, 54 females; mean age: 46.87±14.12 years; range, 19 to 75 years). Pain, depression, and functional impairment scores were all improved in both groups (p=0.001 for all). This improvement was sustained at week four after the end of treatment. However, improvement in the pain, depression, and functional impairment scores was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p=0.001 for all).

Conclusion

The results suggest that OVM combined with physical therapy is useful to improve pain, depression, and functional impairment in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain. We believe that OVM techniques should be combined with other physical therapy modalities in this patient population.

Exercise intervention for patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is an aging and public health issue that is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has a significant economic impact on a global scale. Treatments for CLBP are varied, and there is currently no study with high-quality evidence to show which treatment works best. Exercise therapy has the characteristics of minor harm, low cost, and convenient implementation. It has become a mainstream treatment method in clinics for chronic low back pain. However, there is insufficient evidence on which specific exercise regimen is more effective for chronic non-specific low back pain. This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of different exercise therapies on chronic low back pain and provide a reference for exercise regimens in CLBP patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to 10 May 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for selection. We collected information from studies to compare the effects of 20 exercise interventions on patients with chronic low back pain.

Results

This study included 75 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5,254 participants. Network meta-analysis results showed that tai chi [standardized mean difference (SMD), -2.11; 95% CI, -3.62 to -0.61], yoga (SMD, -1.76; 95% CI -2.72 to -0.81), Pilates exercise (SMD, -1.52; 95% CI, -2.68, to -0.36), and sling exercise (SMD, -1.19; 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.30) showed a better pain improvement than conventional rehabilitation. Tai chi (SMD, -2.42; 95% CI, -3.81 to -1.03) and yoga (SMD, -2.07; 95% CI, -2.80 to -1.34) showed a better pain improvement than no intervention provided. Yoga (SMD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.53) and core or stabilization exercises (SMD, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.28) showed a better physical function improvement than conventional rehabilitation. Yoga (SMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.78 to -0.83) and core or stabilization exercises (SMD, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.59) showed a better physical function improvement than no intervention provided.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional rehabilitation and no intervention provided, tai chi, toga, Pilates exercise, sling exercise, motor control exercise, and core or stabilization exercises significantly improved CLBP in patients. Compared with conventional rehabilitation and no intervention provided, yoga and core or stabilization exercises were statistically significant in improving physical function in patients with CLBP. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of the included studies, it is difficult to make a definitive recommendation before more large-scale and high-quality RCTs are conducted.

The effectiveness of different aerobic exercises to improve pain intensity and disability in chronic low back pain patients: a systematic review

Background: Physical activity, including aerobic exercise, is highly recommended for chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients to improve pain intensity and functional disability. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of different aerobic exercises to reduce pain intensity and functional disability in patients with CLBP. Methods: A computer-aided search was performed to find Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of different aerobic exercises in CLBP. Articles published between January 2007 to December 2020 were included in the review. Quality assessment using the PEDro scale, extraction of relevant information, and evaluation of outcomes were done by two reviewers independently. Results: A total of 17 studies were included that involved 1146 participants. Outcomes suggested that aerobic exercise combined with other interventions was more effective than aerobic exercise alone. Aerobic exercise with higher frequency (≥ 5 days/week) and longer duration (≥ 12 weeks) were effective to gain clinically significant (≥ 30%) improvements. Environment and using pedometer did not seem to influence the outcomes. Conclusions: Pain intensity and functional disability in CLBP patients can be minimized by prescribing aerobic exercise. However, to get better improvements, aerobic exercise should be done in combination with other interventions and at optimum frequency and duration. Further studies should emphasize examining the optimal doses and duration of different aerobic exercises.

An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management

We aimed to determine the recommendation level for the treatment of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). A systematic review (SR) of the literature was performed and all English-language articles that discuss acute and chronic LBP, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched. Of the 873 searched literature reports, 259 articles, including 131 clinical trials, 115 SRs, nine meta-analyses, and four clinical guidelines were analyzed. In these articles, high-quality randomized controlled trials, SRs, and used well-written clinical guidelines were reviewed. The results indicated multiple acute and chronic LBP treatment methods in the literature, and these reports when reviewed included general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, specific exercise, active rehabilitation and educational interventions, manual therapy, physical modalities, and invasive procedures. The Trial conclusions and SRs were classified into four categories of A, B, C, and D. If there were not enough high-quality articles, it was designated as "I" (insufficient). This review and summary of guidelines may be beneficial for physicians to better understand and make recommendations in primary care.

Relationship between body composition indices and changes in body temperature due to hot pack use

Background

Hot pack application is used to reduce pain and muscle stiffness at the treated site. However, the effects of hot pack application on the whole body have not been clarified. We investigated the relationship between body composition indices and the hot pack-induced increase in body temperature.

Methods

We recruited 17 healthy men (age, 22.0 ± 3.3 years) who participated in the study on five different days and applied “dry” hot packs at four different sites (the most frequently used sites): right shoulder, lower back, both popliteal areas, and lower back plus popliteal areas. The study protocol involved the measurement of body composition followed by 10 min of bed rest, 15 min of warming with a hot pack, and 20 min of subsequent rest. Heart rate and body temperature were measured continuously, and blood pressure was recorded at 5-min intervals. Body temperature was measured at the right upper arm, precordium, abdomen, lumbus, right hallux, right femur, and right auditory canal.

Results

Skin temperature increased significantly at and near the hot pack application site, but this finding showed no relationship with body composition indices. The warmability distal to the application site was negatively correlated with the body water content index. The auditory canal temperature did not change in any of the sessions.

Conclusions

Hot pack usage alone did not increase the deep-body temperature and only increased the temperature around the application area. Moreover, higher body water content may allow for easier dissipation of heat from the peripheral extremities.

Best Exercise Options for Reducing Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: Pilates, Strength, Core-Based, and Mind-Body. A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine which type of exercise is best for reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

LITERATURE SEARCH

Six electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs testing the effects of exercise on reducing self-perceived pain or disability in adults (aged 18-65 years) with chronic LBP.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We followed the PRISMA-NMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, incorporating NMAs of health care interventions) statement when reporting our NMA. A frequentist NMA was conducted. The probability of each intervention being the most effective was conducted according to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

We included 118 trials (9710 participants). There were 28 head-to-head comparisons, 7 indirect comparisons for pain, and 8 indirect comparisons for disability. Compared with control, all types of physical exercises were effective for improving pain and disability, except for stretching exercises (for reducing pain) and the McKenzie method (for reducing disability). The most effective interventions for reducing pain were Pilates, mind-body, and core-based exercises. The most effective interventions for reducing disability were Pilates, strength, and core-based exercises. On SUCRA analysis, Pilates had the highest likelihood for reducing pain (93%) and disability (98%).

CONCLUSION

Although most exercise interventions had benefits for managing pain and disability in chronic LBP, the most beneficial programs were those that included (1) at least 1 to 2 sessions per week of Pilates or strength exercises; (2) sessions of less than 60 minutes of core-based, strength, or mind-body exercises; and (3) training programs from 3 to 9 weeks of Pilates and core-based exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):505-521. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10671.

12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility.

METHODS

Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT.

RESULTS

Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64].

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.

Walking, Cycling, and Swimming for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of walking/running, cycling, or swimming for treating or preventing nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Intervention systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Five databases were searched to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials evaluating walking/running, cycling, or swimming to treat or prevent LBP were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

No trials assessed LBP prevention or addressed acute LBP. Nineteen trials (2362 participants) assessed treatment of chronic/recurrent LBP. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking/running was less effective than alternate interventions in reducing pain in the short term (8 trials; SMD, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.28, 1.34) and medium term (5 trials; SMD, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.10, 1.49). High-certainty evidence suggests that walking/running was less effective than alternate interventions at reducing disability in the short term (8 trials; SMD, 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.38) and medium term (4 trials; SMD, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.51). There was high-certainty evidence of a small effect in favor of walking/running compared to minimal/no intervention for reducing pain in the short term (10 trials; SMD, -0.23; 95% CI: -0.35, -0.10) and medium term (6 trials; SMD, -0.26; 95% CI: -0.40, -0.13) and disability in the short term (7 trials; SMD, -0.19; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.06). Scarcity of trials meant few conclusions could be drawn regarding cycling and swimming.

CONCLUSION

Although less effective than alternate interventions, walking/running was slightly more effective than minimal/no intervention for treating chronic/recurrent LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):85-99. Epub 16 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10612.

Physiotherapy combined with therapeutic neuroscience education versus physiotherapy alone for patients with chronic low back pain: A pilot, randomized-controlled trial

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of therapeutic neuroscience education (TNE) combined with physiotherapy on pain, kinesiophobia, endurance, and disability in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients.

Patients and methods

Between November 2016 and December 2017, a total of 31 patients with CLBP (5 males, 26 females; mean age: 42.3±10.8 years; range, 20 to 58 years) were randomly allocated to receive physiotherapy combined with TNE (experimental group, EG, n=16) and physiotherapy alone (control group, CG, n=15). All participants received physiotherapy consisting of five sessions per week for a total of three weeks. In addition to physiotherapy, the EG received TNE sessions consisting of two sessions per week for a total of three weeks. The primary outcomes were pain intensity as assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and kinesiophobia by Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), while and the secondary outcomes were trunk muscle endurance as assessed by the partial curl-up test (trunk flexor endurance [TFE]) and modified Sorensen test (trunk extensor endurance [TEE]) and disability by Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).

Results

All patients completed the study. The median VAS, TSK, TFE, TEE, and RMDQ scores for the EG significantly improved after three weeks, while there was only significant improvement in the VAS, TSK, and RMDQ scores in the CG. The TSK decreased more in the EG than in the CG. The significant difference was evident in TSK and TFE in favor of the EG (p<0.05).

Conclusion

These results suggest that the combination of TNE with physiotherapy can improve kinesiophobia and trunk flexor muscle endurance of patients with CLBP in the short-term.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Effect of Home Exercise Training in Patients with Nonspecific Low-Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Exercise therapy is recommended to treat non-specific low back pain (LBP). Home-based exercises are promising way to mitigate the lack of availability of exercise centers. In this paper, we conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis on the effects of home-based exercise on pain and functional limitation in LBP.

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and ScienceDirect were searched until April 20th, 2021. In order to be selected, studies needed to report the pain and functional limitation of patients before and after home-based exercise or after exercise both in a center and at-home. Random-effect meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

We included 33 studies and 9588 patients. We found that pain intensity decreased in the exclusive home exercise group (Effect size = -0.89. 95% CI -0.99 to -0.80) and in the group which conducted exercise both at-home and at another setting (-0.73. -0.86 to -0.59). Similarly, functional limitation also decreased in both groups (-0.75. -0.91 to -0.60, and -0.70, -0.92 to -0.48, respectively). Relaxation and postural exercise seemed to be ineffective in decreasing pain intensity, whereas trunk, pelvic or leg stretching decreased pain intensity. Yoga improved functional limitation. Supervised training was the most effective method to improve pain intensity. Insufficient data precluded robust conclusions around the duration and frequency of the sessions and program.

CONCLUSION

Home-based exercise training improved pain intensity and functional limitation parameters in LBP.

The Effectiveness of Matrix Rhythm Therapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical study.

OBJECTIVE

Our study was planned to determine the effect of matrix rhythm therapy (MRT) on pain, level of disability, and quality of life in chronic low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Low back pain is a complex and heterogeneous disorder. Different therapy options can be applied in the treatment of low back pain. In the literature, there are very few studies showing the effect of MRT in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 32 participants with a mean age of 36.41 ± 8.91 years were randomly divided into two groups (intervention group and control group). Each participant was treated with ten sessions a combined physiotherapy program (hot pack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, therapeutic ultrasound, home exercise and patient education program). Additionally, intervention group received six sessions of MRT. Pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire), level of disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and quality of life (Short Form-36) were measured before and after the treatment programme.

RESULTS

When pre- and post-treatment results were compared in the intervention group, a statistically significant difference was found in total pain level, disability level, and all subdimensions except the "Emotional Role" subdimension of Short Form-36 (SF-36) and total SF-36 scores (P ≤ 0.05). In the control group, statistically significant differences were found in disability level, the "Vitality" and "Bodily Pain" subdimensions of SF-36 and total SF-36 scores (P ≤ 0.05). When the delta values were compared between groups, there was a statistically significant difference only in the "general health perceptions" subdimension of SF-36 (P ≤ 0.05) in favor of the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

It was determined that both the combined physiotherapy program and the MRT application in addition to the combined physiotherapy program have a positive effect on pain, disability level, and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain.Level of Evidence: 2.

Effectiveness of Ultrasound Therapy on the Management of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Non-specific chronic low back pain is the most common self-reported kind of musculoskeletal ache associated with substantial health and socioeconomic problem and responsible for most years lived with a disability as compared with any other medical condition. So treating chronic non-specific low back pain is one of the main problems faced among physical therapists in the rehabilitation area. The effects of ultrasound for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain remain unknown, however it is commonly used to treat clients with low back pain in rehabilitation setting. Therefore, the main aim of this review was to evaluate the up-to-date confirmation in the efficacy of ultrasound therapy on the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain. A comprehensive search of four computerized electronic databases was performed to identify the effectiveness of ultrasound therapy on the management of chronic non-specific low back pain. Searching was done through the Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Physiotherapy Evidence Databases (PEDro) and reported using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The qualities of articles were appraised by the PEDro scale. The primary outcome measure visual analog scale was used. Six randomized clinical trials with a total sample size of 699 patients from the electronic database published in English were identified. In this review, the effect of UST in five articles was statically significant in reducing the visual analog scale (p<0.05) score. So this systematic review found ultrasound therapy could be an alternative treatment to reduce the intensity of pain in subjects with non-specific chronic LBP.

Integrated Meditation and Exercise Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Pilot of a Combined Nonpharmacological Intervention Focused on Reducing Disability and Pain in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

This pilot trial examined the effects of a combined intervention of mindfulness meditation followed by aerobic walking exercise compared with a control condition in chronic low back pain patients. We hypothesized that meditation before exercise would reduce disability, pain, and anxiety by increasing mindfulness prior to physical activity compared with an audiobook control group.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight adults completed either meditation and exercise treatment (MedExT) (n=18) or an audiobook control condition (n=20).

SETTING

Duquesne University Exercise Physiology Laboratory.

DESIGN

A pilot, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Over a 4-week period, participants in the MedExT group performed 12-17 minutes of guided meditation followed by 30 minutes of moderate-intensity walking exercise 5 days per week. Measures of disability, pain, mindfulness, and anxiety were taken at baseline and postintervention. Pain perception measurements were taken daily.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, we observed larger improvements in disability in the MedExT intervention, although the changes were modest and not statistically significant (mean between-group difference, -1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to 0.6). For secondary outcome measures, MedExT increased mindfulness (within-group) from pre-intervention to postintervention (P=0.0141). Additionally, mean ratings of low back pain intensity and unpleasantness significantly improved with time for the MedExT group compared with that of the control group, respectively (intensity P=0.0008; unpleasantness P=0.0022).

CONCLUSION

. Overall, 4 weeks of MedExT produced suggestive between-group trends for disability, significant between-group differences for measures of pain, and significant within-group increases in mindfulness.

The short-term effects of balneotherapy on pain, disability and fatigue in patients with chronic low back pain treated with physical therapy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare whether there are positive effects of balneotherapy(BT) on pain, quality of life and disability of individuals receiving physical therapy(PT) for chronic low back pain and to examine the effect of body mass index(BMI) on treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This prospective, controlled, single blind study was conducted. Patients were randomized into two groups through a simple randomization in a 1:1 ratio. The clinician and biostatistics expert were blinded. PT group was applied PT, BT + PT group was applied PT + BT. All patients were included in the study for 3 weeks (total of 15 sessions, 5 days per week). All patients applied hot pack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and ultrasound. Patients in the BT + PT group applied BT in thermo mineralized water pool (20 min at 38-40 °C). Assessments were made using Pain-Visual Analog Scale(VAS), EQ-5D-3 L Scale(EQ5), EQ-VAS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue(FACIT-F), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire(RMDQ) and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale(QBPDS) at the beginning (W0) and end (W3) of treatment. While performing statistical analysis, patients were divided into 3 categories of BMI1(18.5-24.9 kg/m²), BMI2 (25.0-29.9 kg/m²) and BMI3(≥30.0 kg/m²).

RESULTS

270 patients were randomized. 129 patients in PT group and 133 patients in PT + BT group completed the study. In the BT + PT group, there were increases in the EQ5 and EQ-VAS variables and decreases in all other variables compared to the PT group which were found to be statistically significant (for QBPDS p < 0.05, the others p < 0.01). The differences in all variables W0 and W3 were at least half reductions and increases which were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). In terms of BMI, there were significant differences for all groups, especially BMI3 had higher means for all variables apart from EQ5 and EQ-VAS than the other two categories. BMI1 was the BMI category with highest means for EQ5 and EQ-VAS. The Group × Time interaction was found to be statistically significant for Pain-VAS, EQ5, EQ-VAS, FACIT-F, QBPDS and RMDQ(p < 0.01). For Pain-VAS, the effect of the Group × Time × BMI interaction was found to be statistically significant(p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BT plus PT was more effective than PT. BT may have positive contributions to reducing pain, functionality of patients, quality of life, fatigue and disability status.

Effectiveness of walking versus mind-body therapies in chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Walking and mind-body therapies (MBTs) are commonly recommended to relieve pain and improve function in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of walking and MBTs in CLBP.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing walking or MBTs to any other intervention or control in adults with CLBP. Studies were identified through PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. The research was limited to studies published in English and French between January 2008 and December 2018. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed studies quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Statistical analyses were performed under a random-effects model. We analyzed pain and activity limitation, with the calculation of standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for the different treatment effects.

RESULTS

Thirty one randomized controlled trials involving 3193 participants were analyzed. Walking was as effective as control interventions in the short-term and slightly superior in the intermediate term with respect to pain (Standardized mean differences (SMD)  = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.03; P = .03) and activity limitation (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.10; P = .003). In contrast, yoga was more effective than control interventions in the short term in terms of pain (SMD = -1.47; 95% CI, -2.26 to -0.68; P = .0003) and activity limitation (SMD = -1.17; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.55; P = .0002). Yoga was no longer superior to the control interventions for pain at the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

MBTs, especially yoga, seem to be more effective in the short term, and walking seems to be more effective in the intermediate term, for the relief of pain and activity limitation in patients with CLBP. A combination of walking and MBTs fits the biopsychosocial model and might be valuable therapy for CLBP throughout follow-up due to combined effects.

Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.

A comparison of application frequency of physical therapy modalities in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the effects of physical therapy modalities five days a week versus twice a week with a three-day interval on pain, depression, and functional disability in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2018 and November 2018, a total of 60 patients (39 females, 21 males; mean age 41.0±6.8 years; range, 25 to 55 years) with chronic mechanical low back pain were included. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (n=30) received physical therapy five days a week for a total of 15 sessions, while Group 2 (n=30) received physical therapy twice a week with a three-day interval for a total of six sessions. Per protocol, all patients were applied hot pack for 20 min, followed by conventional transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for 20 min and therapeutic ultrasound (US) for 10 min in each session. All patients were given exercise training and were instructed to do twice a day up to four weeks after the completion of physical therapy sessions. The severity of low back pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), the severity of depression using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and functional disability using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). All patients were evaluated before and after physical therapy and at four weeks. The results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the age, gender, body mass index, occupation, VAS, BDI, and ODI scores at the time of randomization (p>0.05). Intra-group analysis showed a significant improvement in all parameters after physical therapy compared to pre-treatment values and at four weeks compared to the post-treatment values (p<0.001). The differences of changes were used for the inter- group analysis which revealed a difference of change in favor of improvement was significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1 (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the post-treatment values and values at four weeks (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study results suggest that both physical therapy modalities applied five days week and twice a week are effective in pain, depression, and functional disability. However, physical therapy protocol applied twice a week yields more improvement, indicating that it is more advantageous with less cost and lost workdays.

Comparison of Physiotherapy Approaches in Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches in individuals with low back pain (LBP) on pain, spinal mobility, disability, and muscular strength.

METHODS

Ninety volunteers were included and divided into four groups depending on the rehabilitation approach: group 1, soft tissue mobilization techniques and stabilization exercises (n=24; 11 females [F], 13 males [M]); group 2, Kinesio Taping and stabilization exercises (n=24; 12F, 12M); group 3, stabilization exercises (n=22; 11F, 11M); and group 4, reflex therapy and stabilization exercises (n=20; 10F, 10M). Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity, an isokinetic evaluation for strength at 60°/s and a side-plank position test for trunk stabilization were measured before and assessed at the beginning, after a 4-week treatment and during 4 weeks of follow-up. The functional status was evaluated with the Oswestry Disability Index.

RESULTS

Individuals in all groups showed similar decrease in pain after the treatment and at 1-month follow-up, but there were no significant differences in pain levels between the groups (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

All therapeutic approaches were found to be effective in diminishing pain and thus helpful in increasing strength and stabilization in patients with LBP.

Digital Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: 10,000 Participant Longitudinal Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal pain has a vast global prevalence and economic burden. Conservative therapies are universally recommended but require patient engagement and self-management to be effective.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a 12-week digital care program (DCP) in a large population of patients with chronic knee and back pain.

METHODS

A longitudinal observational study was conducted using a remote DCP available through a mobile app. Subjects participated in a 12-week multimodal DCP incorporating education, sensor-guided exercise therapy (ET), and behavioral health support with 1-on-1 remote health coaching. The primary outcome was pain measured by the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary measures included engagement levels, program completion, program satisfaction, condition-specific pain measures, depression, anxiety, and work productivity.

RESULTS

A total of 10,264 adults with either knee (n=3796) or low back (n=6468) pain for at least three months were included in the study. Participants experienced a 68.45% average improvement in VAS pain between baseline intake and 12 weeks. In all, 73.04% (7497/10,264) participants completed the DCP into the final month. In total, 78.60% (5893/7497) of program completers (7144/10,264, 69.60% of all participants) achieved minimally important change in pain. Furthermore, the number of ET sessions and coaching interactions were both positively associated with improvement in pain, suggesting that the amount of engagement influenced outcomes. Secondary outcomes included a 57.9% and 58.3% decrease in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, and 61.5% improvement in work productivity. Finally, 3 distinct clusters of pain response trajectories were identified, which could be predicted with a mean 76% accuracy using baseline measures.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the efficacy and scalability of a DCP for chronic low back and knee pain in a large, diverse, real-world population. Participants demonstrated high completion and engagement rates and a significant positive relationship between engagement and pain reduction was identified, a finding that has not been previously demonstrated in a DCP. Furthermore, the large sample size allowed for the identification of distinct pain response subgroups, which may prove beneficial in predicting recovery and tailoring future interventions. This is the first longitudinal digital health study to analyze pain outcomes in a sample of this magnitude, and it supports the prospect for DCPs to serve the overwhelming number of musculoskeletal pain sufferers worldwide.

Are Moderate and Vigorous Leisure-Time Physical Activity Associated With Musculoskeletal Pain? A Cross-Sectional Study Among 981 Physical Therapists

PURPOSE

Musculoskeletal pain (MP) is common among workers, especially for health-care professionals. Paradoxically, many of those rehabilitating patients for pain-that is, physical therapists (PTs)-also have pain. Adequate levels of physical activity are recommended for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health. However, the association between physical activity and MP among PTs remains unknown. This study aims to determine the association between moderate and vigorous leisure-time physical activity levels and MP in PTs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Workplace.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine hundred eighty-one PTs.

MEASURES

Data on MP and leisure-time physical activity were collected using an online survey.

ANALYSIS

The odds for having lower level of MP as a function of physical activity were estimated using binary logistic regression controlled for various confounders.

RESULTS

Performing ≥75 min/week of vigorous leisure-time physical activity increased the odds of experiencing lower levels of neck-shoulder pain (odds ratio = 1.43, 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.94). No association was found neither between vigorous nor between moderate leisure-time physical activity and MP in the arm-hand or back.

CONCLUSION

Performing ≥75 min/week of vigorous leisure-time physical activity is associated with lower levels of MP in neck and shoulders among PTs. No associations were found between vigorous or moderate leisure-time physical activity and MP in arm-hand and back.

Mechanical Traction for Lumbar Radicular Pain: Supine or Prone? A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of mechanical lumbar traction either in the supine or in the prone position with conventional physical therapy (PT) in patients with chronic low back pain and lumbosacral nerve root involvement in terms of disability, pain, and mobility.

DESIGN

Participants (N = 125) were randomly assigned to receive 15 sessions of PT with additional mechanical lumbar traction either in the supine position (supine traction group) or in the prone position (prone traction group) or only PT without traction (PT only group). Patients were assessed at baseline and at the end of the PT sessions in terms of disability, pain, and mobility. Disability was assessed using the modified Oswesty Disability Index; pain was assessed using a visual analog scale, and lumbar mobility was assessed using the modified lumbar Schober test.

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen patients completed the trial. All groups improved significantly in the Oswesty Disability Index, visual analog scale, and modified lumbar Schober test (P < 0.05). In the between-group analysis, improvements of Oswesty Disability Index and visual analog scale were found significantly better in the prone traction group compared with the PT only group (adjusted P = 0.031 and 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of traction in the prone position to other modalities resulted in larger immediate improvements in terms of pain and disability, and the results suggest that when using traction, prone traction might be first choice. Further research is needed to confirm the benefits of lumbar traction in the prone position.

The effect of minimal invasive techniques and physiotherapy on pain and disability in elderly: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the major musculoskeletal problems seen in elderly, and it's the fifth common cause for hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study has determined whether minimal invasive techniques or physiotherapy methods are effective for decreasing pain and improving functions in the geriatric population.

METHODS

A retrospective design was used in this study. Sixty-one patients aged ⩾ 65, who were referred to physiotherapy enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into 2 groups; Group 1 received minimal invasive techniques, whereas Group 2 had no surgery or no minimal invasive application. Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) was used for perceived pain intensity, Semmes Weinstein Monofilaments (SWM) was used to assess tactile sensitivity, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to determine perceived functional disability. Physiotherapy methods including soft tissue mobilizations, muscle-energy techniques and spinal stabilization exercises were used in the treatment of all patients. The outcomes were evaluated pre- and post-physiotherapy applications.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in PPT were shown in both groups after physiotherapy treatment as to baseline (p< 0.05). Despite the significant improvements in PPT values of all muscles in Group 1, Group 2 had significant improvements in PPT except Hamstring muscles (p< 0.05). Functional disability levels of both groups reduced acc. to ODI, improvement in disability scores was only significant in Group 1 (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although both treatments showed pain relief, functional restoration and improvement in hypoesthesia existence; there was no superiority of physiotherapy alone over physiotherapy added minimal invasive treatments in terms of parameters.

Effects of Physical Therapy on Pain, Functional Status, Sagittal Spinal Alignment, and Spinal Mobility in Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain

Objective

To investigate the effects of physical therapy (PT) on pain, functional status, sagittal spinal alignment, and spinal mobility in chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).

Materials and Methods

The study population consisted of 100 patients with chronic NSLBP. The study group comprised 60 patients to whom a PT program including superficial heat, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound for 10 sessions was assigned. The control group was composed of 40 patients who received no PT. Home exercise programs were applied to both groups. Pain severity was determined using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional status was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Spinal sagittal alignment in regard to lumbosacral, lumbar lordosis, and thoracic kyphosis angles and spinal mobility regarding lumbar and thoracic flexion and extension degrees were assessed using a digital inclinometer. Lumbar flexion was also assessed using the modified lumbar Schober test (mLST). Evaluations were performed at baseline and after completing the therapy sessions.

Results

There were significant decreases in VAS scores in each group upon therapy completion. However, significant improvements in ODI, mLST, and all inclinometric evaluations in terms of sagittal spinal alignment and spinal mobility were noted only in the study group compared with baseline values (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Despite the short course of treatment, PT was found to have significant positive effects on pain severity, functional status, sagittal spinal alignment, and spinal mobility. PT was determined to be an effective treatment option for chronic NSLBP.

Effects of physical therapy agents on pain, disability, quality of life, and lumbar paravertebral muscle stiffness via elastography in patients with chronic low back pain

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate early effects of combined hot pack (HP) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) treatment and therapeutic ultrasound (US) on pain, quality of life, disability, and the multifidus muscle stiffness.

Patients and methods

Between December 2016 and March 2017, a total of 69 patients (36 females, 33 males; mean age 48.9±10.9; range, 27 to 73 years) were included in this randomized-controlled study. The patients were divided into three groups as HT + TENS (Group H+T, n=23), HP + TENS + US (Group H+T+U, n=23), and controls (control group, n=23). All patients filled out the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire at baseline and at the end of treatment. The left multifidus muscle strain ratio at fourth lumbar spinal level was obtained from the upper, middle, and lower parts of the muscle along the longitudinal axis on the first and last days of treatment.

Results

There was a significant improvement in the NRS, ODI, and SF-36 physical function, physical role function, pain, and general health perceptions in the H+T and H+T+U groups, compared to the control group (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the H+T and H+T+U groups. The H+T+U group showed an improvement in the SF-36 social role function and emotional role function. There was no significant difference in the multifidus muscle strain ratios among the groups.

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that H+T treatment has a beneficial effect on pain, disability, and certain subscales of the quality of life. However, US seems not to have an additional benefit.

Effectiveness of physiotherapy and minimal invasive technics on functional status and quality of life in geriatric patients with low back pain

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of physiotherapy and minimal invasive technics (MIT) on pain, quality of life and functional disability in geriatric patients with chronic low back pain. According to previous files, 61 geriatric patients who received MIT and physiotherapy allocated to group 1, the patient who received physiotherapy alone allocated to group 2. All patients received soft tissue mobilizations, muscle-energy technics and spinal stabilization exercises. Pain severity, functional disability, life quality, and fear avoidance were assessed with visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, respectively. Improvements in ODI and NHP were seen in favor of group 2 after treatment as to baseline (P<0.05). Although both treatments showed pain relief, functional restoration, and improvement in quality of life; there was no additional improvement in patients received MIT different from the patients received physiotherapy alone.

Aerobic vs. resistance exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis compared progressive aerobic training (PAT) to progressive resistance training (PRT) for pain, disability and quality of life (QoL) in people with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP).

METHODS

Five electronic databases were systematically searched up to 1 March 2016. Randomised controlled trials included land-based PAT, PRT or combined PRT and PAT, versus usual care for CNSLBP. Exercise interventions were supervised a minimum of once per week and performed ⩾ 2 days/week for ⩾ 6 weeks. Outcome measurements were pain intensity, disability, and QoL. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Six studies were included, comprising 333 participants (94 PRT, 93 PAT, 146 usual care; 66% female; age = 44 ± 6 years; duration of pain = 7 ± 6 years). Exercise significantly reduced pain intensity (SMD =-0.42 [-0.80, -0.03]; p< 0.03) although neither mode proved superior. PRT significantly improved the Short Form Health Survey-Mental Component Score (SF-MCS) (MD = 5.74 [2.02, 9.47]; p= 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

PAT and PRT decreased pain intensity in individuals with CNSLBP although neither mode was superior. Resistance exercise improved psychological wellbeing. High-quality RCTs comparing PAT, PRT, and PAT + PRT, are required.

The effects of walking intervention in patients with chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to gain insight into the effectiveness of walking intervention on pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) at post intervention and follow ups.

METHOD

Six electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro and The Cochrane library) were searched from 1980 to October 2017. The following keywords were used: Walk* or Pedometer* or Accelerometer* or Treadmill* paired with "Back pain", "Low back pain", "Chronic low back pain", "LBP", or "Backache". Randomized controlled trials in patients with chronic LBP were included if they compared the effects of walking intervention to non-pharmacological interventions. Pain, disability, and quality of life were the primary health outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Data was analyzed according to the duration of follow-up (short-term, < 3 months; intermediate-term, between 3 and 12 months; long-term, > 12 months). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that walking intervention in patients with chronic LBP was as effective as other non-pharmacological interventions on pain and disability reduction in both short- and intermediate-term follow ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Unless supplementary high-quality studies provide different evidence, walking, which is easy to perform and highly accessible, can be recommended in the management of chronic LBP to reduce pain and disability.

Meta-analysis of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for relief of spinal pain

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis analysing the existing data on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or interferential current (IFC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or neck pain (CNP) taking into account intensity and timing of stimulation, examining pain, function and disability. Seven electronic databases were searched for TENS or IFC treatment in non-specific CLBP or CNP. Four reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TENS or IFC intervention in adult individuals with non-specific CLBP or CNP. Primary outcomes were for self-reported pain intensity and back-specific disability. Two reviewers performed quality assessment, and two reviewers extracted data using a standardized form. Nine RCTs were selected (eight CLBP; one CNP), and seven studies with complete data sets were included for meta-analysis (655 participants). For CLBP, meta-analysis shows TENS/IFC intervention, independent of time of assessment, was significantly different from placebo/control (p < 0.02). TENS/IFC intervention was better than placebo/control, during therapy (p = 0.02), but not immediately after therapy (p = 0.08), or 1-3 months after therapy (p = 0.99). Analysis for adequate stimulation parameters was not significantly different, and there was no effect on disability. This systematic review provides inconclusive evidence of TENS benefits in low back pain patients because the quality of the studies was low, and adequate parameters and timing of assessment were not uniformly used or reported. Without additional high-quality clinical trials using sufficient sample sizes and adequate parameters and outcome assessments, the outcomes of this review are likely to remain unchanged.

SIGNIFICANCE

These data highlight the need for additional high-quality RCTs to examine the effects of TENS in CLBP. Trials should consider intensity of stimulation, timing of outcome assessment and assessment of pain, disability and function.

An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management in Primary Care

Currently, guidelines for lower back pain (LBP) treatment are needed. We reviewed the current guidelines and high-quality articles to confirm the LBP guidelines for the Korean Society of Spine Surgery. We searched available databases for high-quality articles in English on LBP published from 2000 to the present year. Literature searches using these guidelines included studies from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We analyzed a total of 132 randomized clinical trials, 116 systematic reviews, 9 meta-analyses, and 4 clinical guideline reviews. We adopted the SIGN checklist for the assessment of article quality. Data were subsequently abstracted by a reviewer and verified. Many treatment options exist for LBP, with a variety of recommendation grades. We assessed the recommendation grade for general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, and specific exercises. This information should be helpful to physicians in the treatment of LBP patients.

The effects of two different low level laser therapies in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different laser therapy regimens on pain, lumbar range of motions (ROM) and functional capacity in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

Forty nine patients with CLBP were randomly assigned into two groups. Group 1 (n= 20) received hot-pack + laser therapy 1 (wavelength of 850 nm Gallium-Aluminum-Arsenide (Ga-Al-As) laser); group 2 (n= 29) received hot-pack + laser therapy 2 (wavelength of 650 nm Helyum-Neon (He-Ne), 785 ve 980 nm Gal-Al-As combined plaque laser) for 15 sessions. Pain severity, patient's and physician's global assessments were evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS). Modified Schober test, right and left lateral flexion measurements were done. Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) was used for evaluation of functional disability. Measurements were done before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

After treatment there were statistically significant improvements in pain severity, patient's and physician's global assessment, ROM and MODQ scores in both groups (P< 0.05). After the treatment there were statistically significant differences between the groups in lateral flexion measurements and MODQ scores (P< 0.05) except in pain severity, Modified Schober test, patient's and physician's global assessments (P> 0.05) in favor of those patients who received combined plaque laser therapy (group 2).

CONCLUSION

Laser therapy applied with combined He-Ne and Ga-Al-As provides more improvements in lateral flexion measurements and disability of the patients, however no superiority of the two different laser devices to one another were detected on pain severity.

A randomized trial to determine the duration of analgesia following a 15- and a 30-minute application of acupuncture-like TENS on patients with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture-like TENS (AL-TENS) has been shown to produce prolonged pain relief, but no study has yet investigated its duration on a population suffering from chronic low back pain (CLPB).

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to quantify the duration and magnitude of analgesia induced by a 15- or 30-minute application of AL-TENS.

METHODOLOGY

We recruited a sample of 11 participants presenting with CLBP and conducted a randomized, crossover study, where participants were given AL-TENS for 15 and 30 minutes on two separate occasions. The pain intensity of their CLBP was assessed with a visual analogue scale before, during, and after AL-TENS applications. Magnitude and duration of analgesia were determined for each subject and for both AL-TENS application times.

RESULTS

The AL-TENS applications induced a clinically and statistically significant (p = 0.003) analgesia in all participants. Median duration of analgesia was 9 hours and 10 hours 30 minutes following the 15- and 30-minute AL-TENS applications, respectively; this 1.5-hour difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.55). Furthermore, we observed no significant difference in the magnitude of analgesia between both applications of AL-TENS (p > 0.56), suggesting that the duration of application of AL-TENS does not influence the magnitude of analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that clinicians could use a 15-minute AL-TENS application to provide significant analgesia in patients presenting with low back pain since if provides a comparable analgesia versus a 30-minute application.

Efficacy of Selected Electrical Therapies on Chronic Low Back Pain: A Comparative Clinical Pilot Study

Background

In the currently available research publications on electrical therapy of low back pain, generally no control groups or detailed randomization were used, and such studies were often conducted with relatively small groups of patients, based solely on subjective questionnaires and pain assessment scales (lacking measurement methods to objectify the therapeutic progress). The available literature also lacks a comprehensive and large-scale clinical study. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of treating low back pain using selected electrotherapy methods. The study assesses the influence of individual electrotherapeutic treatments on reduction of pain, improvement of the range of movement in lower section of the spine, and improvement of motor functions and mobility.

Material/Methods

The 127 patients qualified for the therapy (ultimately, 123 patients completed the study) and assigned to 6 comparison groups: A – conventional TENS, B – acupuncture-like TENS, C – high-voltage electrical stimulation, D – interferential current stimulation, E – diadynamic current, and F – control group.

Results

The research showed that using electrical stimulation with interferential current penetrating deeper into the tissues results in a significant and more efficient elimination of pain, and an improvement of functional ability of patients suffering from low back pain on the basis of an analysis of both subjective and objective parameters. The TENS currents and high voltage were helpful, but not as effective. The use of diadynamic currents appears to be useless.

Conclusions

Selected electrical therapies (interferential current, TENS, and high voltage) appear to be effective in treating chronic low back pain.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common and costly health complaint for which there are several moderately effective treatments. In some fields there is evidence that funder and financial conflicts are associated with trial outcomes. It is not clear whether effect sizes in back pain trials relate to journal impact factor, reporting conflicts of interest, or reporting funding.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language papers reporting randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-specific low back pain, published between 2006-2012. We modelled the relationship using 5-year journal impact factor, and categories of reported of conflicts of interest, and categories of reported funding (reported none and reported some, compared to not reporting these) using meta-regression, adjusting for sample size, and publication year. We also considered whether impact factor could be predicted by the direction of outcome, or trial sample size.

RESULTS

We could abstract data to calculate effect size in 99 of 146 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Effect size is not associated with impact factor, reporting of funding source, or reporting of conflicts of interest. However, explicitly reporting 'no trial funding' is strongly associated with larger absolute values of effect size (adjusted β=1.02 (95 % CI 0.44 to 1.59), P=0.001). Impact factor increases by 0.008 (0.004 to 0.012) per unit increase in trial sample size (P<0.001), but does not differ by reported direction of the LBP trial outcome (P=0.270).

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of associations between effect size and impact factor, reporting sources of funding, and conflicts of interest reflects positively on research and publisher conduct in the field. Strong evidence of a large association between absolute magnitude of effect size and explicit reporting of 'no funding' suggests authors of unfunded trials are likely to report larger effect sizes, notwithstanding direction. This could relate in part to quality, resources, and/or how pragmatic a trial is.

Efficacy of aerobic exercise for treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis of relevant cohort studies was performed to investigate the efficacy of aerobic exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHOD

A range of electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966-2013), the Cochrane Library Database (issue 12, 2013), EMBASE (1980-2013), CINAHL (1982-2013), Web of Science (1945~2013), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (1982-2013), without language restrictions. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale, and heart rate, sit-and-reach test, and maximum oxygen consumption were used to evaluate the efficacy of aerobic exercise. Meta-analysis was performed with the use of the STATA statistical software. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Eight clinical cohort studies with a total of 310 CLBP patients were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that CLBP patients exhibited positive decreases in scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (SMD, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P < 0.001), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (SMD, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.67-1.39; P < 0.001), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (SMD, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.34-2.37; P = 0.009), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.07-0.56; P = 0.011) after aerobic exercise. It was also observed that aerobic exercise could markedly reduce the visual analog scale score for pain of CLBP patients (SMD, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, this study's findings showed that aerobic exercise had no effects on heart rate, sit-and-reach test, and maximum oxygen consumption of CLBP patients (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that aerobic exercise could effectively diminish pain intensity and improve the physical and psychologic functioning of CLBP patients. Thus, aerobic exercise may be a good choice in the treatment for CLBP.

Central sensitization and changes in conditioned pain modulation in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a case-control study

Quantitative sensory testing is widely used in human research to investigate the state of the peripheral and central nervous system contributions in pain processing. It is a valuable tool to help identify central sensitization and may be important in the treatment of low back pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in local and segmental hypersensitivity and endogenous pain inhibition in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Thirty patients with chronic low back pain and thirty healthy subjects were studied. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were measured from the lumbar region and over the tibialis anterior muscle (TA). A cold pressor test was used to assess the activation of conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and PPTs in the lumbar region were recorded 30 s after immersion of participant's foot in a bucket with cold water. People with chronic low back pain have significantly lower PPT than controls at both the lumbar region [89.5 kPa (mean difference) 95 % CI 40.9-131.1 kPa] and TA [59.45 kPa (mean difference) 95 % CI 13.49-105.42 kPa]. During CPM, people with chronic low back pain have significantly lower PPT than controls in lumbar region [118.6 kPa (mean difference) 95 % CI 77.9-159.2 kPa]. Women had significantly lower PPTs than men in both lumbar region [101.7 kPa (mean difference) 95 % CI 37.9-165.7 kPa] and over the TA [189.7 kPa (mean difference) 95 % CI 14.2-145.2 kPa]. There was no significant difference in PPTs in men between healthy controls and those with low back pain, suggesting the significant differences are mediated primarily by difference between women.

Comparison of high-intensity laser therapy and ultrasound treatment in the patients with lumbar discopathy

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of high intensity laser and ultrasound therapy in patients who were diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation and who were capable of performing physical exercises. 65 patients diagnosed with lumbar disc were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 received 10 sessions of high intensity laser to the lumbar region, Group 2 received 10 sessions of ultrasound, and Group 3 received medical therapy for 10 days and isometric lumbar exercises. The efficacy of the treatment modalities was compared with the assessment of the patients before the therapy at the end of the therapy, and in third month after the therapy. Comparing the changes between groups, statically significant difference was observed in MH (mental health) parameter before treatment between Groups 1 and 2 and in MH parameter and VAS score in third month of the therapy between Groups 2 and 3. However, the evaluation of the patients after ten days of treatment did not show significant differences between the groups compared to baseline values. We found that HILT, ultrasound, and exercise were efficient therapies for lumbar discopathy but HILT and ultrasound had longer effect on some parameters.

Walking exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence examining effects of walking interventions on pain and self-reported function in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PEDro, Sport Discus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from January 1980 to March 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials in adults with chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis, or fibromyalgia comparing walking interventions to a nonexercise or nonwalking exercise control group.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were independently extracted using a standardized form. Methodological quality was assessed using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force system.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-six studies (2384 participants) were included, and suitable data from 17 studies were pooled for meta-analysis, with a random effects model used to calculate between-group mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data were analyzed according to the duration of follow-up (short-term, ≤8wk postrandomization; medium-term, >2mo to 12mo; long-term, >12mo). Interventions were associated with small to moderate improvements in pain at short-term (mean difference , -5.31; 95% CI, -8.06 to -2.56) and medium-term (mean difference, -7.92; 95% CI, -12.37 to -3.48) follow-up. Improvements in function were observed at short-term (mean difference, -6.47; 95% CI, -12.00 to -0.95), medium-term (mean difference, -9.31; 95% CI, -14.00 to -4.61), and long-term (mean difference, -5.22; 95% CI, -7.21 to -3.23) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of fair methodological quality suggests that walking is associated with significant improvements in outcome compared with control interventions but longer-term effectiveness is uncertain. With the use of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force system, walking can be recommended as an effective form of exercise or activity for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain but should be supplemented with strategies aimed at maintaining participation. Further work is required for examining effects on important health-related outcomes in this population in robustly designed studies.

Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-specific low-back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Therapeutic ultrasound is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of LBP and is one of the most widely used electro-physical agents in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and PsycLIT databases in October 2013. Reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews were checked and forward citation searching was also performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on therapeutic ultrasound for non-specific chronic LBP were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. When sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed, a meta-analysis was performed. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was determined using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven small randomised controlled trials involving a total of 362 participants with chronic LBP were included. Two of the studies had a low risk of bias, meeting six or more of the 12 criteria used for assessing risk of bias. All studies were carried out in secondary care settings and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise therapy, at various intensities for six to 18 treatment sessions. There was moderate quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound improves back-specific function (standardised mean difference (SMD) [95%CI] -0.45 [-0.84 to -0.05]) compared with placebo in the short term. There was low quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound is no better than placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) [95%CI] -7.12 [-17.99 to 3.75]; zero to100-point scale). There was low quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound plus exercise is no better than exercise alone for short-term pain improvement (MD [95%CI] -2.16 [-4.66 to 0.34]; zero to 50-point scale), or functional disability (MD [95%CI] -0.41 [-3.14 to 2.32]; per cent). The studies comparing therapeutic ultrasound versus placebo or versus exercise alone did not report on overall satisfaction with treatment, or quality of life. There was low quality evidence that spinal manipulation reduces pain and functional disability more than ultrasound over the short to medium term. There is also very low quality evidence that there is no clear benefit on any outcome measure between electrical stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound; and that phonophoresis results in improved SF-36 scores compared to therapeutic ultrasound. None of the included studies reported on adverse events related to the application of therapeutic ultrasound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No high quality evidence was found to support the use of ultrasound for improving pain or quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic LBP. There is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on improving low-back function in the short term, but this benefit is unlikely to be clinically important. Evidence from comparisons between other treatments and therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP were indeterminate and generally of low quality. Since there are few high quality randomised trials and the available trials are very small, future large trials with valid methodology are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.