Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
19 References (19 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Systemic Pharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

blocked
Journal Annals of internal medicine
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 96 Primary studies 96 Primary studies (96 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available. PURPOSE: To review the current evidence on systemic pharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through November 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second verified accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of trials ranged from 9 (benzodiazepines) to 70 (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). New evidence found that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for radiculopathy. For opioids, evidence remains limited to short-term trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess serious harms. Skeletal muscle relaxants are effective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation. Systemic corticosteroids do not seem to be effective. For effective interventions, pain relief was small to moderate and generally short-term; improvements in function were generally smaller. Evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of antiseizure medications. LIMITATIONS: Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses. Only English-language studies were included, many of which had methodological shortcomings. Medications injected for local effects were not addressed. CONCLUSION: Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, primarily short-term effects on pain. New evidence suggests that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).

Systematic review

Unclassified

Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors Peng K , Chen L , Peng J , Xing F , Xiang Z
Journal International journal of clinical and experimental medicine
Year 2015
Links Pubmed PubMed Central

This article includes 6 Primary studies 6 Primary studies (6 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: To investigate whether calcitonin can improve walking distance (WD) and visual analog pain scale (VAS) in patients who suffer lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: We performed a search on CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to July 2014; we finally found 19 original articles, of which only 6 were in full compliance with the RCT criteria. These full articles were carefully reviewed independent and in blinded way by two previously capacitated reviewers for the objective to extract data and score a quality of these articles by the criteria of Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0). RESULTS: We accepted 6 studies with 232 participants. There is no evidence show calcitonin is better than placebo or paracetamol regardless of mode of administration. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggest that calcitonin provide no significant improvement in pain symptoms or walking distance in LSS patients.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Steroid for epidural injection in spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

blocked
Authors Liu K , Liu P , Liu R , Wu X , Cai M
Journal Drug design, development and therapy
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 10 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: We performed a search on the CENTRAL, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to September 2014. We recovered 17 original articles, of which only 10 were in full compliance with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) criteria. These articles were reviewed in an independent and blinded way by two reviewers who were previously trained to extract data and score their quality by the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0). RESULTS: We accepted ten studies with 1,010 participants. There is minimal evidence that shows that epidural steroid injections are better than lidocaine alone, regardless of the mode of epidural injection. There is a fair short-term and long-term benefit for treating spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that epidural steroid injections provide limited improvement in short-term and long-term benefits in LSS patients.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

Journal Anesthesiology and pain medicine
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 7 Primary studies 7 Primary studies (7 references)

Loading references information
CONTEXT: Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed. RESULTS: The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Physical Therapy Interventions for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review.

Journal Physical therapy
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 8 Primary studies 8 Primary studies (8 references)

Loading references information
Background. Physical therapy is commonly prescribed for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS); however, little is known about its effectiveness. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of physical therapy for LSS. Data Sources. Studies were searched on electronic databases to January 2012. Study Selection. Inclusion criteria were: clinical diagnosis of LSS with confirmatory imaging, evaluation of physical therapy treatment, presence of a comparison group, and outcomes of pain, disability, function, or quality of life. Data Extraction. Outcomes were extracted and, when possible, pooled using RevMan 5, a freely available review program from the Cochrane Library. Data Synthesis. Ten studies were included: 5 RCTs, 2 controlled trials, 2 mixed- design studies, and 1 longitudinal cohort study. Pooled effects of 2 studies revealed that the addition of a physical therapy modality to exercise had no statistically significant effect on outcome. Pooled effects results of RCTs evaluating surgery versus physical therapy demonstrated that surgery was better than physical therapy for pain and disability at long term (2 years) only. Other results suggested that exercise is significantly better than no exercise, that cycling and body-weight-supported treadmill walking have similar effects, and that corsets are better than no corsets. Limitations. The limitations of this review include the low quality and small number of studies, as well as the heterogeneity in outcomes and treatments. Conclusions. No conclusions could be drawn from the review regarding which physical therapy treatment is superior for LSS. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that modalities have no additional effect to exercise and that surgery leads to better long-term (2 years) outcomes for pain and disability, but not walking distance, than physical therapy in patients with LSS.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 25 Primary studies 21 Primary studies (25 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Epidural Injections for Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Evaluating the "Control" Injections in Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors Bicket MC , Gupta A , Brown CH , Cohen SP
Journal Anesthesiology
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Broad syntheses 43 Broad syntheses (2 references)

This article includes 43 Primary studies 43 Primary studies (43 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injection is the most frequently performed pain procedure. This study of epidural steroid "control" injections aimed to determine whether epidural nonsteroid injections constitute a treatment or true placebo in comparison with nonepidural injections for back and neck pain treatment. METHODS: This systematic review with direct and indirect meta-analyses used PubMed and EMBASE searches from inception through October 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection included randomized controlled trials with a treatment group receiving epidural injections of corticosteroids or another analgesic and study control groups receiving either an epidural injection devoid of treatment drug or a nonepidural injection. Two reviewers independently extracted data including short-term (up to 12 weeks) pain scores and pain outcomes. All reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality. RESULTS: A total of 3,641 patients from 43 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons suggested epidural nonsteroid were more likely than nonepidural injections to achieve positive outcomes (risk ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.87-2.53) and provide greater pain score reduction (mean difference, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.55 to 0.25). In the very limited direct comparisons, no significant differences were noted between epidural nonsteroid and nonepidural injections for either outcome (risk ratio [95% CI], 1.05 [0.88-1.25]; mean difference [95% CI], 0.22 [-0.50 to 0.94]). CONCLUSION: Epidural nonsteroid injections may provide improved benefit compared with nonepidural injections on some measures, though few, low-quality studies directly compared controlled treatments, and only short-term outcomes (<=12 weeks) were examined.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Oral Opioid Analgesics vs. Spinal Steroid Injections in the Treatment of Low Back Pain Syndromes.

Journal American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 18 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 20 Primary studies 18 Primary studies (20 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and adverse effects of oral opioid analgesics and spinal steroid injections on low back pain syndromes. DESIGN: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched in September 2009 using combinations of terms related to spinal pain and its treatment. A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with low back pain syndromes and that evaluated patient outcomes after intervention using either oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. RESULTS: Eight high-quality and ten moderate-quality randomized controlled trials were identified. One high-quality study on oral opioid therapy showed significant improvements in pain relief and patient function. Those on spinal steroid injections had a decreased Visual Analog Scale pain score by 7.18 (95% confidence interval, 2.21-12.1) points more than the control group at 1 mo or less and by 0.429 (95% confidence interval, -4.41 to 5.27) points at 1-3 mos. At more than 6 mos, there was no significant benefit: 0.930 (95% confidence interval, -5.03 to 6.89). Spinal steroids decreased the Oswestry Disability Index by 3.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.480-6.57) at 1 mo or less, by -0.281 (95% confidence interval, -3.18 to 2.62) at 1-3 mos, by -11.0 (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -7.16) at 3-6 mos, and by -0.205 (95% confidence interval, -3.50 to 3.09) compared with the control group at 6 mos or more, suggesting that there was improvement in function. All-cause mortality was low in our analysis of patients attending specialty clinics. It was difficult to assess the adverse effects of opioid therapy because they influenced up to 28% of patients to withdraw from the original studies. In terms of spinal steroid injections, headache appeared to be the most common adverse effect. However, there was no significantly increased risk of headaches associated with spinal steroids compared with control injections: odds ratio, 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: Oral opioid therapy may be helpful for the treatment of low back pain, but it is unclear from the high-quality literature whether there are limitations from adverse effects. Spinal steroid injections are beneficial for low back pain and disability in the short-term. The high dropout rates caused by insufficient pain relief and adverse effects suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroid injections. There is more high-quality literature to support the use of spinal steroid injections compared with oral opioids in this condition.

Systematic review

Unclassified

The effectiveness of land based exercise compared to decompressive surgery in the management of lumbar spinal-canal stenosis: a systematic review.

Journal BMC musculoskeletal disorders
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 13 Primary studies 13 Primary studies (13 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is prevalent in those over the age of 65 years and the leading cause of spinal surgery in this population. Recent systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of conservative management for LSS, but not relative to surgical interventions. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of land based exercise compared with decompressive surgery in the management of patients with LSS. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and clinical trials was undertaken. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and Cochrane Library Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to June 2011. Only studies that included subjects with lumbar spinal canal stenosis were considered in this review. Studies also had to use a patient reported functional outcome measure for a land based exercise intervention or lumbar decompressive surgery. RESULTS: Only one study compared the effectiveness of exercise and decompressive surgery for LSS. Surgery demonstrated statistically significant improvements in patient reported functional outcome scores at 6, 12 and 24-months post-intervention (p < 0.01). To facilitate further analysis, the results from 12 exercise and 10 surgical intervention arms were compared using percentage change in patient reported functional outcome measure scores. Exercise interventions showed initial improvements, ranging from 16 to 29% above baseline. All decompressive surgical interventions demonstrated greater and sustained improvements over 2-years (range 38-67% improvement) with moderate to large effect sizes. The most commonly reported complications associated with surgery were dural tears, while details of adverse effects were lacking in exercise interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the recent literature demonstrates that decompressive surgery is more effective than land based exercise in the management of LSS. However, given the condition's slowly progressive nature and the potential for known surgical complications, it is recommended that a trial of conservative management with land based exercise be considered prior to consideration of surgical intervention.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Epidural corticosteroid injections in the management of sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal Annals of internal medicine
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 24 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 3 Broad syntheses 24 Broad syntheses (3 references)

This article includes 25 Primary studies 24 Primary studies (25 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines and systematic reviews provide inconsistent recommendations on epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica. Key limitations of existing reviews are the inclusion of trials with active controls of unknown efficacy and failure to provide an estimate of the size of the treatment effect. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica compared with placebo. DATA SOURCES: International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections in participants with sciatica. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Leg pain, back pain, and disability were converted to common scales from 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). Thresholds for clinically important change in the range of 10 to 30 have been proposed for these outcomes. Effects were calculated for short-term (>2 weeks but <=3 months) and long-term (>=12 months) follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used in summary conclusions. Twenty-five published reports (23 trials) were included. The pooled results showed a significant, although small, effect of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo for leg pain in the short term (mean difference, -6.2 [95% CI, -9.4 to -3.0]) and also for disability in the short term (mean difference, -3.1 [CI, -5.0 to -1.2]). The long-term pooled effects were smaller and not statistically significant. The overall quality of evidence according to the GRADE classification was rated as high. LIMITATION: The review included only English-language trials and could not incorporate dichotomous outcome measures into the analysis. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that epidural corticosteroid injections offer only short-term relief of leg pain and disability for patients with sciatica. The small size of the treatment effects, however, raises questions about the clinical utility of this procedure in the target population. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.