Mind-Body Exercise Performed by Physical Therapists for Reducing Pain and Disability in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of mind-body exercise for patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mind-body exercise (MBE) interventions, including Tai Chi, Yoga, Pilates, and Qigong, in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were searched from their inception to May 2024. RevMan 5.4 and Stata 16.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Outcome measures included Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Scale, and adverse events. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool (2.0). The certainty of evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 330 studies retrieved, 15 studies satisfied the criteria for meta-analysis. Compared with the controls, MBE interventions significantly improved physical function (measured by BASFI, MD = -0.76, 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.50, P < 0.00001), disease activity (measured by BASDAI, MD = -0.76, 95% CI: -0.94 to -0.57, P < 0.00001), pain intensity (measured by VAS, MD = -0.89, 95% CI: -1.21 to -0.57, P < 0.00001), spinal mobility (measured by BASMI, MD = -0.44, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.19, P = 0.0006), and quality of life (measured by ASQoL, MD = -2.14, 95% CI: -3.54 to -0.75, P = 0.003). Subgroup analyses revealed that Tai Chi appeared to demonstrate a more pronounced effect on pain reduction when compared to Qigong (test for subgroup difference: P = 0.005). The quality of evidence for these outcomes was estimated as moderate to low. Additionally, no serious adverse events related to MBE were identified among the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, MBE may be a promising non-pharmacological treatment to improve physical function, disease activity, pain intensity, spinal mobility, and quality of life in patients with axSpA. To enhance the certainty of the evidence, additional rigorous studies are needed to verify these findings.

How to tackle non-specific low back pain among adult patients? A systematic review with a meta-analysis to compare four interventions

OBJECTIVE

To tackle non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) among patients and find the most effective solution and to quantitatively synthesize the overall effect of motor control training (MCT) compared with Pilates, McKenzie method, and physical therapy (PT) in pain and physical function.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of four types of intervention (MCT, Pilates, McKenzie method, and PT) for LBP were collected by searching PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases from the establishment of the database to September 30, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated for included studies using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Taking pain and physical function in the experimental and control groups as outcome indicators, subgroup analysis was performed according to the intervention method to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs, including 1253 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed that MCT effectively relieved pain [SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (- 1.00, - 0.29), p < 0.01] and improved physical function [SMD = -0.76, 95% CI (- 1.22, - 0.31), p < 0.01] comparing with other 3 types of intervention. Subgroup analysis suggested that MCT could alleviate pain [SMD = -0.92, 95% CI (- 1.34, - 0.50), p < 0.01] and improve physical function [SMD = -1.15, 95% CI (- 1.72, - 0.57), p < 0.01] compared with PT, but it had no statistical significance compared with Pilates [pain: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (- 0.56, 0.83), p = 0.71; physical function: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI (- 0.72, 0.91), p = 0.81] and the McKenzie method [pain: SMD = -0.03, 95% CI (- 0.75, 0.68), p = 0.93; physical function: SMD = -0.03, 95% CI (- 1.00, 0.94), p = 0.95].

CONCLUSIONS

MCT can effectively relieve pain and improve physical function in patients with NSLBP. It is more effective compared with PT for LBP, while no differences were detected between MCT and Pilates, as well as McKenzie method. Therefore, MCT, Pilates, and the McKenzie method should be encouraged as exercise interventions for NSLBP rehabilitation.