Evaluation of biofeedback based bridging exercises on older adults with low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

Effects of Resistance Training on Pain Control and Physical Function in Older Adults With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Low back pain (LBP) has a high prevalence in older adults and is associated with elevated health care costs. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the effects of progressive resistance training (PRT) interventions on physical function (PF) and pain control in community-dwelling older adults with chronic LBP.

METHODS

A meta-analysis applying the quality effect method was performed by calculating the effect sizes (ESs) using the Cohen d with a 95% CI. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the participant and intervention characteristics. The statistical significance of differences between subgroups was calculated using a Z-test. Study bias was estimated using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) and quality of evidence (Qi) index. Small study effect/publication bias was estimated using the Doi plot and Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index. The systematic search was conducted in major databases for clinical trials published between January 1, 1990, and January 9, 2021. The inclusion criteria were articles that (1) were peer-reviewed; (2) had participants' mean age of more than 60 years; (3) studied PRT interventions; (4) had participants with LBP; (5) measured LBP or PF outcomes; (6) measured PF in terms of functionality; (7) were randomized controlled trials; (8) and non-randomized controlled trials. The exclusion criteria were (1) articles not written in English, (2) nonexperimental studies, and (3) repeated publications.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-one studies were included (n = 1661). Clear improvements were found in PF (ES = 0.32 [95% CI, 0.05-0.58]; I2 = 75.1%; P < .001), but results on LBP decrease were inconclusive (ES = 0.24 [95% CI, -0.05 to 1.10]; I2 = 75.7%; P < .001). The overall evidence of this aggregated data meta-analysis of clinical trials is level C+. Main limitations are the use of aggregated data and the large heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The Qi of this meta-analysis is level I (C+). We concluded that PRT interventions are useful for PF improvement in older adults with generalized LBP, LBP not arising from lumbar spinal stenosis, and having body mass index less than 27. In older adults with LBP not arising from lumbar spine stenosis, PRT interventions also decrease LBP. Interventions should have a frequency of at least 3 sessions per week. In addition, at a lower level of evidence IV (C+), we recommend that interventions with a duration of more than 12 weeks should be considered, whenever possible.

Multimedia Instructions for Motor Control Exercises in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the top 3 diseases that may lead to disability. Current treatment guidelines define exercise as a first-line treatment for nonspecific LBP (NSLBP). There are various evidence-based exercise approaches for treating NSLBP, and many of them include motor control principles. Motor control exercises (MCEs) are better than general exercises that do not include motor control principles. Many patients find learning these exercises complex and challenging, in that MCE exercises have no standard teaching method. The researchers of this study developed multimedia instructions for an MCE program to make teaching MCE easier; thus, more effective.

METHODS

The participants were randomized into multimedia or standard (face-to-face) instruction groups. We applied the same treatments to both groups at the same dosage. The only differences between groups were the exercise instruction methods. The multimedia group learned MCE from multimedia videos; the control group learned MCE from a physiotherapist with face-to-face instructions. Treatment lasted 8 weeks. We evaluated patients' exercise adherence with Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS), pain with the Visual Analog Scale, and disability with Oswestry Disability Index. Evaluations were made before and after treatment. Follow-up evaluations were carried out 4 weeks after the end of treatment.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant interaction between the group and time on pain, F2,56 = 0.068, P = .935, partial η2 = .002 and Oswestry Disability Index scores, F2,56 = 0.951, P = .393, partial η2 = .033. Also, there was no statistically significant interaction between the group and time on Exercise Adherence Rating Scale total scores F1,20 = 2.343, P = .142, partial η2 = .105.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that multimedia instructions for MCE have similar effects to standard (face-to-face) instructions on pain, disability, and exercise adherence in patients with NSLBP. To our knowledge, with these results, the developed multimedia instructions became the first free, evidence-based instructions that have objective progression criteria and a Creative Commons license.

Efficacy of Hip Strengthening on Pain Intensity, Disability, and Strength in Musculoskeletal Conditions of the Trunk and Lower Limbs: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Grade Recommendations

To investigate the efficacy of hip strengthening on pain, disability, and hip abductor strength in musculoskeletal conditions of the trunk and lower limbs, we searched eight databases for randomized controlled trials up to 8 March 2022 with no date or language restrictions. Random-effect models estimated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Very low quality evidence suggested short-term effects (≤3 months) of hip strengthening on pain intensity (MD of 4.1, 95% CI: 2.1 to 6.2; two trials, n = 48 participants) and on hip strength (MD = 3.9 N, 95% CI: 2.8 to 5.1; two trials, n = 48 participants) in patellofemoral pain when compared with no intervention. Uncertain evidence suggested that hip strengthening enhances the short-term effect of the other active interventions on pain intensity and disability in low back pain (MD = -0.6 points, 95% CI: 0.1 to 1.2; five trials, n = 349 participants; MD = 6.2 points, 95% CI: 2.6 to 9.8; six trials, n = 389 participants, respectively). Scarce evidence does not provide reliable evidence of the efficacy of hip strengthening in musculoskeletal conditions of the trunk and lower limbs.

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.