Effectiveness of Simulated Horseback Riding for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Virtual Reality-Based Training in Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the most prevalent pain conditions worldwide. Virtual reality-based training has been used for low back pain as a new treatment strategy. Present evidence indicated that the effectiveness of virtual reality-based training for people with chronic low back pain is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

This study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the immediate- and short-term effects of virtual reality-based training on pain, pain-related fear, and disability in people with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases from inception until January 2024. Only randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of virtual reality-based training on individuals with chronic low back pain were selected. The outcomes were focused on pain, pain-related fear measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, and disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index. The immediate term was defined as the immediate period after intervention, and the short term was defined as 3 to 6 months after intervention. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach were used to evaluate the quality of the methodology and evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1059 patients were eligible for analysis. Virtual reality-based training showed significant improvements in pain (mean difference [MD] -1.43; 95% CI -1.86 to -1.00; I2=95%; P<.001), pain-related fear using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (MD -5.46; 95% CI -9.40 to 1.52; I2=90%; P=.007), and disability using the Oswestry Disability Index (MD -11.50; 95% CI -20.00 to -3.01; I2=95%; P=.008) in individuals with chronic low back pain immediately after interventions. However, there were no significant differences observed in pain (P=.16), pain-related fear (P=.10), and disability (P=.43) in the short term.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicated that virtual reality-based training can be used effectively for individuals with chronic low back pain in the immediate term, especially to reduce pain, alleviate pain-related fear, and improve disability. However, the short-term benefits need more high-quality trials to be demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021292633; http://tinyurl.com/25mydxpz.

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.

Equine-Assisted Activities and Therapies: State-of-the-Art Review

The purpose of this paper is to explore what is known about equine-assisted activities and therapies based on Roy's adaptation model. Quality of life for vulnerable populations who engage with equine-assisted activities and therapies is considered the main concept here. This state-of-the-art review was conducted from four databases ranging from January 2019 to February 2020. Limited studies examined the effect of equine-assisted activities and therapies on cancer survivors, although preliminary data were promising. The rural context was not extensively examined. Thus, equine-assisted activities and therapies may enhance the quality of life through four adaptation modes.

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

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

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.

The Use of Virtual Reality in Back Pain Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the existing evidence of extended reality (XR) on pain and motor function outcomes in patients with back pain. Following the Cochrane guidelines, relevant articles of any language were selected by 2 independent reviewers from CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and Web of Knowledge databases. Of 2,050 unique citations, 24 articles were included in our review. These studies included a total of 900 back pain patients. Despite broader XR search, all interventions were virtual reality (VR) based and involved physical exercises (n = 17, 71%), hippotherapy (n = 4, 17%), motor imagery (n = 1, 4%), distraction (n = 1, 4%), and cognitive-behavior therapy (n = 1, 4%). Sixteen controlled studies were included in a meta-analysis which suggested that VR provides a significant improvement in terms of back pain intensity over control interventions (Mean Difference: -0.67; 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.23; I² = 85%). Almost all included studies presented high risk of bias, highlighting the need to improve methodology in the examination of VR interventions. While the specific set of studies showed high heterogeneity across several methodological factors, a tentative conclusion could be drawn that VR was effective improving back pain intensity and tends to have a positive effect on improving other pain outcomes and motion function. PERSPECTIVE: Extended reality technologies have appeared as interesting nonpharmacological options for the treatment of back pain, with the potential to minimise the need for opioid medications. Our systematic review summarised existing applications of extended reality for back pain and proposed a few recommendations to direct further studies in the field.

Horse-riding simulators in treatment of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of horse-riding simulators in the treatment of chronic low back pain has drawn considerable attention for its efficacy and acceptability to reduce chronic low back pain; because of the similarities in movements provided by equine-assisted therapies and the possible accessibility advantages. However, the results are conflicting. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to assess the impact of treatments based on horse-riding simulators on chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A systematic literature search up to January 2021 was performed and 11 studies were detected with 543 subjects with chronic low back pain at the baseline of the study, 257 of them were using horse-riding simulators, and 255 of them were inactive control group who continued their usual care, and similar kind of physical therapy (control). They reported a comparison between horse-riding simulators and control to reduce chronic low back pain. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated assessing the impact of treatments based on horse-riding simulators on chronic low back pain using the continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

Significantly higher change-from-baseline pain outcomes was observed in Visual Analogue Scale (MD, -4.36; 95% CI, -6.24 to -2.30, P < .001), and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire change-from-baseline (MD, -2.32; 95% CI, -3.52 to -1.12, P < .001) with horse-riding simulators compared with control.

CONCLUSIONS

Using horse-riding simulators may lower the risk of chronic low back pain. This relationship forces us to recommend the use of horse-riding simulators to avoid any complications that could occur with chronic low back pain.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Effects of Equine Simulator Riding on Low Back Pain, Morphological Changes, and Trunk Musculature in Elderly Women

Background and objectives: Studies on the effects of an equine riding simulator (ERS) program on back pain, spinal alignment, and isokinetic moments in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP) remain limited. The purpose of this study was to analyze changes in elderly women with CLBP who participate in an ERS program. Materials and Methods: The 80 participants were all women aged 61–84 years who were randomly assigned to either the control group (CON) or ERS group (ERSG). ERS exercise was performed for a duration of 12 weeks (three times each week). The degree of pain was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and the visual analog scale. Body composition and spinal alignment were measured using bioelectrical impedance and raster stereography. The isokinetic moments of trunk extensor and flexor were measured before and after the training period. Results: The ERSG showed a significant decrease in back pain compared to the CON. There was a significant decrease in levels of fat in the ERSG, although no differences were shown in terms of muscle mass. However, there was an increased basal metabolic rate (BMR) in the ERSG. Spinal alignment in the ERSG significantly improved. The peak torques of the trunk extensor in the ERSG were also significantly increased. Conclusion: It can be inferred that the ERS exercise can decrease fat and improve the trunk extensor strength through increased BMR, leading to better spinal alignment and reducing back pain in elderly women with CLBP.

Dose-response-relationship of stabilisation exercises in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-regression

Stabilization exercise (SE) is evident for the management of chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). The optimal dose-response-relationship for the utmost treatment success is, thus, still unknown. The purpose is to systematically review the dose-response-relationship of stabilisation exercises on pain and disability in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. A systematic review with meta-regression was conducted (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane). Eligibility criteria were RCTs on patients with chronic non-specific LBP, written in English/German and adopting a longitudinal core-specific/stabilising/motor control exercise intervention with at least one outcome for pain intensity and/or disability. Meta-regressions (dependent variable = effect sizes (Cohens d) of the interventions (for pain and for disability), independent variable = training characteristics (duration, frequency, time per session)), and controlled for (low) study quality (PEDro) and (low) sample sizes (n) were conducted to reveal the optimal dose required for therapy success. From the 3,415 studies initially selected, 50 studies (n = 2,786 LBP patients) were included. N = 1,239 patients received SE. Training duration was 7.0 ± 3.3 weeks, training frequency was 3.1 ± 1.8 sessions per week with a mean training time of 44.6 ± 18.0 min per session. The meta-regressions' mean effect size was d = 1.80 (pain) and d = 1.70 (disability). Total R² was 0.445 and 0.17. Moderate quality evidence (R² = 0.231) revealed that a training duration of 20 to 30 min elicited the largest effect (both in pain and disability, logarithmic association). Low quality evidence (R² = 0.125) revealed that training 3 to 5 times per week led to the largest effect of SE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP (inverted U-shaped association). In patients with non-specific chronic LBP, stabilization exercise with a training frequency of 3 to 5 times per week (Grade C) and a training time of 20 to 30 min per session (Grade A) elicited the largest effect on pain and disability.

Effects of Equine-Assisted Therapies or Horse-Riding Simulators on Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives: Chronic pain is a complex global public health problem that affects the health status, quality of life, activities of daily living, and different work-related variables. Riding a horse may lead to some benefits in chronic pain patients through the improvement of postural control and other biopsychosocial processes. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of horse riding (with real or simulated horses) on chronic pain. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines in Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed (Medline) electronic databases. Eleven articles (seven randomized controlled trials) were selected to be included in the review. Due to some risk of bias concerns, two meta-analyses (using postintervention or change-from-baseline measures) were conducted utilizing Review Manager Software (RevMan 5.3). Results: Horse-riding simulators significantly reduced the pain levels of patients with low back pain (p = 0.03, with a SMD of -1.14 and a 95% CI from -2.16 to -0.11) using change-from-baseline measures. However, the p-value in the meta-analysis with the postintervention measures was 0.06. Regarding interventions with real horses, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis due to the low number of studies. Conclusion: Horse riding could be a useful exercise to reduce pain, but more studies are needed to make evidence-based recommendations and to compare the effects of horse-riding with real and simulated horses.

Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis

Objective

Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).

Design

Network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data sources

MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL.

Eligibility criteria

Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP.

Results

Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): −1.86 (–2.54 to –1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.14 (–1.71 to –0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; −1.13 (–1.53 to –0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.26 (–2.10 to –0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; −1.18 (–2.20 to –0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (–0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA<40%). NMA was not possible for trunk muscle endurance or analgesic medication. The quality of the synthesised evidence was low according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

Summary/conclusion

There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations.