Professional kinesiology practice for chronic low back pain: single-blind, randomised controlled pilot study

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.

Placebo effects in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

The study protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews Prospero (CRD42019148745). A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO) up to 2021 February 16th yielded 2,423 studies. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were eligible for the systematic review and 5 for the meta-analysis. Fourteen of the 18 studies were clinical treatment studies, and 4 were experimental studies specifically assessing placebo effects. The clinical treatment studies provided varying evidence for placebo effects in chronic LBP but insufficient evidence for acute and subacute LBP. Most experimental studies investigating chronic LBP revealed significant placebo effects. The meta-analysis of 5 treatment studies investigating chronic LBP depicted a significant moderate effect size of placebo for pain intensity (SMD = 0.57) and disability (SMD = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief in clinical and experimental conditions. The meta-analysis revealed that placebo effects can influence chronic LBP intensity and disability. However, additional studies are required for more supporting evidence and evidence for placebo effects in acute or subacute LBP.

SIGNIFICANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of true placebo effects in low back pain (LBP). It shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief. The results highlight the importance of patient- and context-related factors in fostering treatment effects in this patient group. New studies could provide insight into the potential value of actively making use of placebo effects in clinical practice.

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness

Background

Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.

Methods

The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.

Results

The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.

Conclusions

The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0.

Effectiveness of placebo interventions for patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the effectiveness of placebo interventions in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). This systematic review assessed the magnitude of the effects of placebo interventions as compared to no intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients with LBP. Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to December 5, 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing placebo intervention vs no intervention in adult patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life measured at short-term, medium-term, and long-term follow-up were the outcomes of this review. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included; one concerning acute LBP and one subacute LBP, whereas 19 studies reported on chronic LBP. In chronic LBP, placebo interventions were more effective than no intervention at short-term follow-up for pain intensity (standardized mean difference = -0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.55 to -0.18, moderate-quality evidence), physical functioning (standardized mean difference -0.19, 95% CI = -0.39-0.01, moderate-quality evidence), and physical quality of life (mean difference = -2.71, 95% CI = -4.71-0.71, high-quality evidence), respectively. These effects were not significant at medium-term follow-up, and no data were available at long-term follow-up. These results show placebo interventions are more effective than no intervention at short-term follow-up in patients with chronic LBP. However, the magnitude of the effects is probably not clinically relevant (approximately 8 points on a 0-100 pain scale). Future research should identify effect modifiers and causal mechanisms explaining the short-term effects of placebo interventions in patients with chronic LBP.