Journal»European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
BACKGROUND: Training and the provision of assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain and its related disability among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH).
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of MMH advice and training and the provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating back pain.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to February 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group that were aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measured back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies.
We based the results and conclusions on the analysis of RCTs only. We compared these with the results from cohort studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (20,101 employees) and nine cohort studies (1280 employees) on the prevention of back pain in this updated review. Studies compared training to no intervention (4), professional education (2), a video (3), use of a back belt (3) or exercise (2). Other studies compared training plus lifting aids to no intervention (3) and to training only (1). The intensity of training ranged from a single educational session to very extensive personal biofeedback.
Six RCTs had a high risk of bias.
None of the included studies showed evidence of a preventive effect of training on back pain.
There was moderate quality evidence from seven RCTs (19,317 employees) that those who received training reported levels of back pain similar to those who received no intervention, with an odds ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.68 to 2.02) or minor advice (video), with a relative risk of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.25). Confidence intervals around the effect estimates were still wide due to the adjustment for the design effect of clustered studies.
The results of the cohort studies were similar to those of the randomised studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices does not prevent back pain or back pain-related disability when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available from RCTs for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain. More high quality studies could further reduce the remaining uncertainty.
BACKGROUND: Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low-back pain patients, to prevent the onset of low-back pain (primary prevention) or to prevent recurrences of a low-back pain episode (secondary prevention).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of non-specific low-back pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL to December 2006. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials, and contacted experts to identify additional RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of lumbar supports as preventive or therapeutic intervention for non-specific low-back pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author generated the electronic search. Two review authors independently identified trials that met the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data on the study population, interventions, and final results. The methodological quality and the clinical relevance were independently assessed by two review authors.
Because it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis, we performed a qualitative analysis in which the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports was classified as strong, moderate, limited, conflicting, or no evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Seven preventive studies (14,437 people) and eight treatment studies (1361 people) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was rather low. Only five of the fifteen studies met 50% or more of the internal validity items.
There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether lumbar supports are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It is still unclear if lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for the treatment of low-back pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether they are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It remains unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for treating low-back pain.
There is still a need for high quality randomised trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of an adequate compliance. Special attention should be paid to different outcome measures, types of patients and types of lumbar support.
OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports, education and exercise in the primary prevention of low back pain at the workplace.
METHODS: A computerized search for controlled clinical trials published between 1997 and 2002 was conducted, and the methodological quality of the studies was assessed using a criteria list. The available evidence was graded with a rating system for the level of evidence. Effect sizes of individual studies were combined if the studies were sufficiently similar.
RESULTS: Five new papers were identified for the update. These trials were added to the previously available trials (n = 11). The methodological quality of most studies was low. Since three of four RCTs on lumbar supports reported no effect, there is no evidence for the effectiveness of lumbar supports. No evidence for education could be found either, since all six RCTs showed negative results. The four RCTs on exercise consistently reported a positive effect, indicating limited evidence for the effectiveness of exercise.
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence for the effectiveness of lumbar supports or education in the primary prevention of low back pain at the workplace. There is limited evidence for the efficacy of exercise, and the effect that can be obtained is moderate. There is still a need for methodologically sound studies and studies on the cost-effectiveness of exercise. Also the possible effect of lumbar supports in the treatment of back pain needs further investigation.
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to prevent low back pain. Potential trials were located by a computerised search supplemented with citation tracking. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed on 11 criteria and the level of evidence for each intervention was determined, based upon the amount, consistency and quality of evidence from the trials. The review located 13 trials that were generally of moderate quality. The trials suggest that workplace exercise is effective, braces and education are ineffective, and workplace modification plus education is of unknown value in preventing low back pain.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar supports, education, and exercise in the prevention of back pain in industry.
METHODS: A computerised search for controlled clinical trials was conducted. A criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. The available evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions was graded with a rating system for the level of evidence. Effect sizes of individual studies were combined if the studies were sufficiently similar.
RESULTS: 11 studies were identified for the review. The methodological quality of all studies was low, with a maximum score of three out of seven for internal validity. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of lumbar supports due to contradictory outcomes of the studies. Five of the six studies on education reported no effect. Thus there is limited evidence that education does not help to prevent back pain. All three studies on exercise reported a positive result, indicating limited evidence for the effectiveness of exercise. The combined effect size for exercise was 0.53, which is a medium sized effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Although widely used, there is little evaluative research on the preventive measures studied here. The review showed that there is limited evidence that exercise has some effect in the prevention of back pain and that education is not effective. No conclusive evidence was found for or against the effectiveness of lumbar supports. Research of higher methodological quality is needed before firm conclusions on the effectiveness of lumbar supports, education, and exercise in the prevention of back pain in industry can be drawn.
