OBJECTIVES: Many interventions are available to manage chronic pain; understanding the durability of treatment effects may assist with treatment selection. We sought to assess which noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for selected chronic pain conditions are associated with persistent improvement in function and pain outcomes at least 1 month after the completion of treatment.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through November 2017, reference lists, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
REVIEW METHODS: Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials of noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for five common chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain; chronic neck pain; osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand; fibromyalgia; and tension headache) that addressed efficacy or harms compared with usual care, no treatment, waitlist, placebo, or sham intervention; compared with pharmacological therapy; or compared with exercise. Study quality was assessed, data extracted, and results summarized for function and pain. Only trials reporting results for at least 1 month post-intervention were included. We focused on the persistence of effects at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months).
RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen publications (202 trials) were included. Many included trials were small. Evidence on outcomes beyond 1 year after treatment completion was sparse. Most trials enrolled patients with moderate baseline pain intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0 to 10 point numeric rating scale) and duration of symptoms ranging from 3 months to >15 years. The most common comparison was against usual care. Chronic low back pain: At short term, massage, yoga, and psychological therapies (primarily CBT) (strength of evidence [SOE]: moderate) and exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with usual care or inactive controls. Except for spinal manipulation, these interventions also improved pain. Effects on intermediate-term function were sustained for yoga, spinal manipulation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low), and psychological therapies (SOE: moderate). Improvements in pain continued into intermediate term for exercise, massage, and yoga (moderate effect, SOE: low); mindfulness-based stress reduction (small effect, SOE: low); spinal manipulation, psychological therapies, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (small effects, SOE: moderate). For acupuncture, there was no difference in pain at intermediate term, but a slight improvement at long term (SOE: low). Psychological therapies were associated with slightly greater improvement than usual care or an attention control on both function and pain at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term followup (SOE: moderate). At short and intermediate term, multidisciplinary rehabilitation slightly improved pain compared with exercise (SOE: moderate). High-intensity multidisciplinary rehabilitation (≥20 hours/week or >80 hours total) was not clearly better than non–high-intensity programs. Chronic neck pain: At short and intermediate terms, acupuncture and Alexander Technique were associated with slightly improved function compared with usual care (both interventions), sham acupuncture, or sham laser (SOE: low), but no improvement in pain was seen at any time (SOE: llow). Short-term low-level laser therapy was associated with moderate improvement in function and pain (SOE: moderate). Combination exercise (any 3 of the following: muscle performance, mobility, muscle re-education, aerobic) demonstrated a slight improvement in pain and function short and long term (SOE: low). Osteoarthritis: For knee osteoarthritis, exercise and ultrasound demonstrated small short-term improvements in function compared with usual care, an attention control, or sham procedure (SOE: moderate for exercise, low for ultrasound), which persisted into the intermediate term only for exercise (SOE: low). Exercise was also associated with moderate improvement in pain (SOE: low). Long term, the small improvement in function seen with exercise persisted, but there was no clear effect on pain (SOE: low). Evidence was sparse on interventions for hip and hand osteoarthritis . Exercise for hip osteoarthritis was associated with slightly greater function and pain improvement than usual care short term (SOE: low). The effect on function was sustained intermediate term (SOE: low). Fibromyalgia: In the short term, acupuncture (SOE: moderate), CBT, tai chi, qigong, and exercise (SOE: low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with an attention control, sham, no treatment, or usual care. Exercise (SOE: moderate) and CBT improved pain slightly, and tai chi and qigong (SOE: low) improved pain moderately in the short term. At intermediate term for exercise (SOE: moderate), acupuncture, and CBT (SOE: low), slight functional improvements persisted; they were also seen for myofascial release massage and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low); pain was improved slightly with multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the intermediate term (SOE: low). In the long term, small improvements in function continued for multidisciplinary rehabilitation but not for exercise or massage (SOE: low for all); massage (SOE: low) improved long-term pain slightly, but no clear impact on pain for exercise (SOE: moderate) or multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) was seen. Short-term CBT was associated with a slight improvement in function but not pain compared with pregabalin. Chronic tension headache: Evidence was sparse and the majority of trials were of poor quality. Spinal manipulation slightly improved function and moderately improved pain short term versus usual care, and laser acupuncture was associated with slight pain improvement short term compared with sham (SOE: low). There was no evidence suggesting increased risk for serious treatment-related harms for any of the interventions, although data on harms were limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, CBT, and mind-body practices were most consistently associated with durable slight to moderate improvements in function and pain for specific chronic pain conditions. Our findings provided some support for clinical strategies that focused on use of nonpharmacological therapies for specific chronic pain conditions. Additional comparative research on sustainability of effects beyond the immediate post-treatment period is needed, particularly for conditions other than low back pain.
Objectives The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies. Methods We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points. Results A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = -1.92, 95% CrI: -3.58, -0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively). Conclusion According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.
Complementary medicine therapies are frequently used to treat pain conditions such as headaches and neck, back, and joint pain. Chronic pain, described as pain lasting longer than 3-6 months, can be a debilitating condition that has a significant socioeconomic impact. Pharmacologic approaches are often used for alleviating chronic pain, but recently there has been a reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic noncancer pain because of concerns about tolerance, dependence, and addiction. As a result, there has been increased interest in integrative medicine strategies to help manage pain and to reduce reliance on prescription opioids to manage pain. This article offers a brief critical review of integrative medical therapies used to treat chronic pain, including nutritional supplements, yoga, relaxation, tai chi, massage, spinal manipulation, and acupuncture. The goal of this article is to identify those treatments that show evidence of efficacy and to identify gaps in the literature where additional studies and controlled trials are needed. An electronic search of the databases of PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index Expanded was conducted. Overall, weak positive evidence was found for yoga, relaxation, tai chi, massage, and manipulation. Strong evidence for acupuncture as a complementary treatment for chronic pain that has been shown to decrease the usage of opioids was found. Few studies were found in which integrative medicine approaches were used to address opioid misuse and abuse among chronic pain patients. Additional controlled trials to address the use of integrative medicine approaches in pain management are needed.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the lack of published evidence prevented the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force [NPTF]) from commenting on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for the management of neck pain.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to update findings of the NPTF and evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for the management of neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) or whiplash-associated disorders (WAD).
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study used systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.
SAMPLE: Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing psychological interventions to other non-invasive interventions or no intervention were the samples used in this study.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures are (1) self-rated recovery; (2) functional recovery; (3) clinical outcomes; (4) administrative outcomes; and (5) adverse effects.
METHODS: We searched six databases from 1990 to 2015. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to critically appraise eligible studies. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. This study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Finance.
RESULTS: We screened 1,919 articles, 19 were eligible for critical appraisal and 10 were judged to have low risk of bias. We found no clear evidence supporting relaxation training or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for persistent grades I-III NAD for reducing pain intensity or disability. Similarly, we did not find evidence to support the effectiveness of biofeedback or relaxation training for persistent grade II WAD, and there is conflicting evidence for the use of CBT in this population. However, adding a progressive goal attainment program to functional restoration physiotherapy may benefit patients with persistent grades I-III WAD. Furthermore, Jyoti meditation may help reduce neck pain intensity and bothersomeness in patients with persistent NAD.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence for or against the use of psychological interventions in patients with recent onset NAD or WAD. We found evidence that a progressive goal attainment program may be helpful for the management of persistent WAD and that Jyoti meditation may benefit patients with persistent NAD. The limited evidence of effectiveness for psychological interventions may be due to several factors, such as interventions that are ineffective, poorly conceptualized, or poorly implemented. Further methodologically rigorous research is needed.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) found limited evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture for the management of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).
PURPOSE: To update findings of the Neck Pain Task Force examining the effectiveness of manual therapies, passive physical modalities, and acupuncture for the management of WAD or NAD.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and best evidence synthesis.
SAMPLE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies comparing manual therapies, passive physical modalities, or acupuncture to other interventions, placebo/sham, or no intervention.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-rated or functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, or adverse events.
METHODS: We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were stratified by the intervention's stage of development (exploratory versus evaluation) and synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance.
RESULTS: We screened 8551 citations, 38 studies were relevant, and 22 had a low risk of bias. Evidence from seven exploratory studies suggests that: 1) for recent but not persistent NAD I-II: thoracic manipulation offers short-term benefits; 2) for persistent NAD I-II: technical parameters of cervical mobilization (e.g., direction or site of manual contact) do not impact outcomes, while one session of cervical manipulation is similar to Kinesiotaping; and 3) for NAD I-II: strain-counterstrain treatment is no better than placebo. Evidence from 15 evaluation studies suggests that: 1) for recent NAD I-II: cervical and thoracic manipulation provides no additional benefit to high-dose supervised exercises; Swedish/clinical massage adds benefit to self-care advice; 2) for persistent NAD I-II: home-based cupping massage has similar outcomes to home-based muscle relaxation; low-level laser therapy (LLLT) does not offer benefits; Western acupuncture provides similar outcomes to non-penetrating placebo electroacupuncture; needle acupuncture provides similar outcomes to sham-penetrating acupuncture; 3) for WAD I-II: needle electroacupuncture offers similar outcomes as simulated electroacupuncture; and 4) for recent NAD III: a semi-rigid cervical collar with rest and graded strengthening exercises lead to similar outcomes; LLLT does not offer benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and suggests that mobilization, manipulation, and clinical massage are effective interventions for the management of neck pain. It also suggests that electroacupuncture, strain-counterstrain, relaxation massage, and some passive physical modalities (heat, cold, diathermy, hydrotherapy, ultrasound) are not effective and should not be used to manage neck pain.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In 2008, the Neck Pain Task Force (NPTF) recommended exercise for the management of neck pain and whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). However, no evidence was available on the effectiveness of exercise for Grade III neck pain or WAD. Moreover, limited evidence was available to contrast the effectiveness of various types of exercises.
PURPOSE: To update the findings of the NPTF on the effectiveness of exercise for the management of neck pain and WAD grades I to III.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and best evidence synthesis.
SAMPLE: Studies comparing the effectiveness of exercise to other conservative interventions or no intervention.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes of interest included self-rated recovery, functional recovery, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes, and/or adverse events.
METHODS: We searched eight electronic databases from 2000 to 2013. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. The results of scientifically admissible studies were synthesized following best-evidence synthesis principles.
RESULTS: We retrieved 4,761 articles, and 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were critically appraised. Ten RCTs were scientifically admissible: nine investigated neck pain and one addressed WAD. For the management of recent neck pain Grade I/II, unsupervised range-of-motion exercises, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen, or manual therapy lead to similar outcomes. For recent neck pain Grade III, supervised graded strengthening is more effective than advice but leads to similar short-term outcomes as a cervical collar. For persistent neck pain and WAD Grade I/II, supervised qigong and combined strengthening, range-of-motion, and flexibility exercises are more effective than wait list. Additionally, supervised Iyengar yoga is more effective than home exercise. Finally, supervised high-dose strengthening is not superior to home exercises or advice.
CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that supervised qigong, Iyengar yoga, and combined programs including strengthening, range of motion, and flexibility are effective for the management of persistent neck pain. We did not find evidence that one supervised exercise program is superior to another. Overall, most studies reported small effect sizes suggesting that a small clinical effect can be expected with the use of exercise alone.
The aims of this systematic review were to study the analgesic effect of real acupuncture and to explore whether sham acupuncture (SA) type is related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain. Five databases were searched. The outcome was pain or disability immediately (≤1 week) following an intervention. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sixty-three studies (6382 individuals) were included. Eight condition types were included. The pooled effect size was moderate for pain relief (59 trials, 4980 individuals, SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.47; P < 0.001) and large for disability improvement (31 trials, 4876 individuals, -0.77, -1.05 to -0.49; P < 0.001). In a univariate meta-regression model, sham needle location and/or depth could explain most or all heterogeneities for some conditions (e.g., shoulder pain, low back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia); however, the interactions between subgroups via these covariates were not significant (P < 0.05). Our review provided low-quality evidence that real acupuncture has a moderate effect (approximate 12-point reduction on the 100-mm visual analogue scale) on musculoskeletal pain. SA type did not appear to be related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture.
QUESTION: Is massage therapy effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders compared to any other treatment or no treatment?
DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
PARTICIPANTS: People with musculoskeletal disorders.
INTERVENTIONS: Massage therapy (manual manipulation of the soft tissues) as a stand-alone intervention.
OUTCOME: The primary outcomes were pain and function.
RESULTS: The 26 eligible randomised trials involved 2565 participants. The mean sample size was 95 participants (range 16 to 579) per study; 10 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias. Overall, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage reduces pain in the short term compared to no treatment in people with shoulder pain and osteoarthritis of the knee, but not in those with low back pain or neck pain. Furthermore, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage improves function in the short term compared to no treatment in people with low back pain, knee arthritis or shoulder pain. Low-to-very-low-level evidence from single studies indicated no clear benefits of massage over acupuncture, joint mobilisation, manipulation or relaxation therapy in people with fibromyalgia, low back pain and general musculoskeletal pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Massage therapy, as a stand-alone treatment, reduces pain and improves function compared to no treatment in some musculoskeletal conditions. When massage is compared to another active treatment, no clear benefit was evident. [Bervoets DC, Luijsterburg PAJ, Alessie JJN, Buijs MJ, Verhagen AP (2015) Massage therapy has short-term benefits for people with common musculoskeletal disorders compared to no treatment: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy61: 106-116].
BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat various symptoms and diseases in China and has been demonstrated to be effective. The objective of the present study was to review and analyze the existing data about pain and disability in TCM treatments for NP and LBP.
METHODS: Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, up to September 1, 2013. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in managing NP and LBP.
RESULTS: Seventy five randomized controlled trials (n = 11077) were included. Almost all of the studies investigated individuals experiencing chronic NP (CNP) or chronic LBP (CLBP). We found moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than sham-acupuncture in reducing pain immediately post-treatment for CNP (visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 cm, mean difference (MD) = -0.58 (-0.94, -0.22), 95% confidence interval, p = 0.01), CLBP (standardized mean difference = -0.47 (-0.77, -0.17), p = 0.003), and acute LBP (VAS 10 cm, MD = -0.99 (-1.24, -0.73), p< 0.001). Cupping could be more effective than waitlist in VAS (100 mm) (MD = -19.10 (-27.61, -10.58), p < 0. 001) for CNP or medications (e.g. NSAID) for CLBP (MD = -5.4 (-8.9, -0.19), p = 0.003). No serious or life-threatening adverse effects were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture, acupressure, and cupping could be efficacious in treating the pain and disability associated with CNP or CLBP in the immediate term. Gua sha, tai chi, qigong, and Chinese manipulation showed fair effects, but we were unable to draw any definite conclusions, and further research is still needed. The efficacy of tuina and moxibustion is unknown because no direct evidence was obtained. These TCM modalities are relatively safe.
Many interventions are available to manage chronic pain; understanding the durability of treatment effects may assist with treatment selection. We sought to assess which noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for selected chronic pain conditions are associated with persistent improvement in function and pain outcomes at least 1 month after the completion of treatment.
DATA SOURCES:
Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through November 2017, reference lists, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
REVIEW METHODS:
Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials of noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for five common chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain; chronic neck pain; osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand; fibromyalgia; and tension headache) that addressed efficacy or harms compared with usual care, no treatment, waitlist, placebo, or sham intervention; compared with pharmacological therapy; or compared with exercise. Study quality was assessed, data extracted, and results summarized for function and pain. Only trials reporting results for at least 1 month post-intervention were included. We focused on the persistence of effects at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months).
RESULTS:
Two hundred eighteen publications (202 trials) were included. Many included trials were small. Evidence on outcomes beyond 1 year after treatment completion was sparse. Most trials enrolled patients with moderate baseline pain intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0 to 10 point numeric rating scale) and duration of symptoms ranging from 3 months to >15 years. The most common comparison was against usual care. Chronic low back pain: At short term, massage, yoga, and psychological therapies (primarily CBT) (strength of evidence [SOE]: moderate) and exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (
SOE:
low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with usual care or inactive controls. Except for spinal manipulation, these interventions also improved pain. Effects on intermediate-term function were sustained for yoga, spinal manipulation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (
SOE:
low), and psychological therapies (
SOE:
moderate). Improvements in pain continued into intermediate term for exercise, massage, and yoga (moderate effect
low); spinal manipulation, psychological therapies, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (small effects
, SOE:
moderate). For acupuncture, there was no difference in pain at intermediate term, but a slight improvement at long term (
SOE:
low). Psychological therapies were associated with slightly greater improvement than usual care or an attention control on both function and pain at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term followup (
SOE:
moderate). At short and intermediate term, multidisciplinary rehabilitation slightly improved pain compared with exercise (
SOE:
moderate). High-intensity multidisciplinary rehabilitation (≥20 hours/week or >80 hours total) was not clearly better than non–high-intensity programs. Chronic neck pain: At short and intermediate terms, acupuncture and Alexander Technique were associated with slightly improved function compared with usual care (both interventions), sham acupuncture, or sham laser (
SOE:
low), but no improvement in pain was seen at any time (
SOE:
llow). Short-term low-level laser therapy was associated with moderate improvement in function and pain (
SOE:
moderate). Combination exercise (any 3 of the following: muscle performance, mobility, muscle re-education, aerobic) demonstrated a slight improvement in pain and function short and long term (
SOE:
low). Osteoarthritis: For knee osteoarthritis, exercise and ultrasound demonstrated small short-term improvements in function compared with usual care, an attention control, or sham procedure (
SOE:
moderate for exercise, low for ultrasound), which persisted into the intermediate term only for exercise (
SOE:
low). Exercise was also associated with moderate improvement in pain (
SOE:
low). Long term, the small improvement in function seen with exercise persisted, but there was no clear effect on pain (
SOE:
low). Evidence was sparse on interventions for hip and hand osteoarthritis . Exercise for hip osteoarthritis was associated with slightly greater function and pain improvement than usual care short term (
SOE:
low). The effect on function was sustained intermediate term (
SOE:
low). Fibromyalgia: In the short term, acupuncture (
SOE:
moderate), CBT, tai chi, qigong, and exercise (
SOE:
low) were associated with slight improvements in function compared with an attention control, sham, no treatment, or usual care. Exercise (
SOE:
moderate) and CBT improved pain slightly, and tai chi and qigong (
SOE:
low) improved pain moderately in the short term. At intermediate term for exercise (
SOE:
moderate), acupuncture, and CBT (
SOE:
low), slight functional improvements persisted; they were also seen for myofascial release massage and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (
SOE:
low); pain was improved slightly with multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the intermediate term (
SOE:
low). In the long term, small improvements in function continued for multidisciplinary rehabilitation but not for exercise or massage (
SOE:
low for all); massage (
SOE:
low) improved long-term pain slightly, but no clear impact on pain for exercise (
SOE:
moderate) or multidisciplinary rehabilitation (
SOE:
low) was seen. Short-term CBT was associated with a slight improvement in function but not pain compared with pregabalin. Chronic tension headache: Evidence was sparse and the majority of trials were of poor quality. Spinal manipulation slightly improved function and moderately improved pain short term versus usual care, and laser acupuncture was associated with slight pain improvement short term compared with sham (
SOE:
low). There was no evidence suggesting increased risk for serious treatment-related harms for any of the interventions, although data on harms were limited.
CONCLUSIONS:
Exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, CBT, and mind-body practices were most consistently associated with durable slight to moderate improvements in function and pain for specific chronic pain conditions. Our findings provided some support for clinical strategies that focused on use of nonpharmacological therapies for specific chronic pain conditions. Additional comparative research on sustainability of effects beyond the immediate post-treatment period is needed, particularly for conditions other than low back pain.
