Effects of pulse ultrasound and kneading massage in managing individual with incessant pain at lower region of back using random allocation

Characterization and critical appraisal of physiotherapy intervention research in Nigeria: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Clinical research is the bedrock of clinical innovation, education and practice. We characterized and critically appraised physiotherapy clinical research to avoid implementing misleading research findings into practice and to task the Nigerian physiotherapy societies on responsible conduct of clinical research.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of articles published in English between 2009 and 2023. We started with 2009 because at least few Nigerian Physiotherapy school had commenced postgraduate (research) training by then. We searched Pubmed, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO and African Journal Online, and reference lists of relevant articles. We Data were selected and extracted according to predesigned eligibility criteria and using a standardized data extraction table. Where appropriate, the Pedro and Cochrane ROBINS1 were used to examine the risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 76 Nigerian studies were included in this study. The mean age of the study participants was 46.7 ± 8.6 years. Approximately, 45% of the participants were males. Of the clinical experiments, the randomized controlled trial (RCT) was the most common design (87.5%). Musculoskeletal conditions (39.3%) were the most studied disorder. Approximately 86% of the RCT had studies possessed fair to good quality. Interventions constituted exercise therapy (76.3%), manual therapy (8.5%) and electrotherapy (8.5%). More than half (67.8%) of the studies recorded medium to large effect sizes. A fair proportion (48.2%) of the studies had a confounding-by-indication bias. Approximately 43% of the clinical experiments were underpowered, and a few studies conducted normality tests (10.9%) and intention-to-treat analysis (37.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

RCT is the most frequent clinical experiment, with majority of them possessing fair to good quality. The most important flaws include improper computation of sample size, statistical analysis, absent intention-to-treat approach, among others. The magnitude of effects of Physiotherapy interventions varies from nil effect to large effect. Musculoskeletal condition is the most prevalent disorder and exercise is the most important intervention in Nigerian physiotherapy practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We registered the protocol with PROSPERO. The registration number: CRD42021228514.

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.