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.
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common health problems in adults. The impact of LBP on the individual can cause loss of health status and function related to pain in the back. To reduce the impact of LBP on adults, drug therapy is the most frequently recommended intervention. But over the last decade, a substantial number of randomized clinical trials of non-pharmacological intervention for LBP have been published.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of acupuncture, acupressure and chiropractic (non-pharmacological) interventions on the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain in Iran.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was completed without date restrictions up to May 2013 in five major databases (Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, CAJ Full-text Database, and Cochrane databases). Only randomized controlled trials published in Persian (Farsi) or English languages were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The quality of the papers was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Risk of Bias criteria.
RESULTS: Initial searches revealed 415 papers, 382 of which were excluded on the basis of abstract alone. After excluding 23 papers due to duplication, the remaining 10 trial papers were subjected to a more detailed analysis of the full text, which resulted in three being excluded. The seven remaining trials had a lack of methodological and clinical homogeneity, precluding a meta-analysis. The trials used different comparators with regards to the primary outcomes, the number of treatments, the duration of treatment and the duration of follow-up.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that acupuncture, acupressure and chiropractic may have a favorable effect on self-reported pain and functional limitations on NSCLBP. However, the results should be interpreted in the context of the limitations identified, particularly in relation to the heterogeneity in the study characteristics and the low methodological quality in many of the included studies.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate randomized controlled trials validating the effects of a clinical prediction rule for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). The outcomes of interest were any back pain or pain-related measures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP is a common and costly condition. Interventions for back pain seem to have, at best, small to moderate mean beneficial effects. Identifying subgroups of patients who may respond better to certain treatments may help to improve clinical outcomes in back pain. The development of clinical prediction rules is an attempt to determine who will respond best to certain treatments. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of MEDLINE (1980-2009), EMBASE (1980-2009), PsycINFO (1980-2009), Allied and Complementary Medicine (1980-2009), PubMed (1980-2009), ISI Web of Knowledge (1980-2009), and the Cochrane Library (1980-2009). The reference lists of relevant articles were searched for further references. RESULTS: We identified 1821 potential citations; 3 articles were included. The results from the available data do not support the use of clinical prediction rules in the management of non-specific LBP. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of good quality randomized controlled trials validating the effects of a clinical prediction rule for LBP. Furthermore, there is no agreement on appropriate methodology for the validation and impact analysis. The evidence for, and development of, the existing prediction rules is generally weak.Level of Evidence: 1.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Manual therapy is frequently used to treat low back pain (LBP), but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. One explanation may be sample heterogeneity and inadequate sub-grouping of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where manual therapy has not been targeted toward those likely to respond. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of specific manual therapy provided to sub-groups of participants identified as likely to respond to manual therapy. Data sources: A systematic search of electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL). Trial eligibility criteria: RCTs on manual therapy for participants identified as belonging to a sub-group of LBP likely to respond to manual therapy were included. Trial appraisal and synthesis methods: Identified trials were assessed for eligibility. Data from included trials were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed using the PEDro scale and the overall quality of evidence rated according to the GRADE domains. Treatment effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain and activity. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included in the review. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Significant treatment effects were found favouring sub-group specific manual therapy over a number of comparison treatments for pain and activity at short and intermediate follow-up. However, the overall GRADE quality of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: This review found preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness of sub-group specific manual therapy. Further high quality research on LBP sub-groups is required.
Background CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent disorder in society that has been associated with increased loss of work time and medical expenses. A common intervention for LBP is spinal manipulation, a technique that is not specific to one scope of practice or profession. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of physical therapy spinal manipulations for the treatment of patients with low back pain. METHODS: A search of the current literature was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Pro Quest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Scopus, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Studies were included if each involved: 1) individuals with LBP; 2) spinal manipulations performed by physical therapists compared to any control group that did not receive manipulations; 3) measurable clinical outcomes or efficiency of treatment measures, and 4) randomized control trials. The quality of included articles was determined by two independent authors using the criteria developed and used by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). RESULTS: Six randomized control trials met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. The most commonly used outcomes in these studies were some variation of pain rating scales and disability indexes. Notable results included varying degrees of effect sizes favoring physical therapy spinal manipulations and minimal adverse events resulting from this intervention. Additionally, the manipulation group in one study reported statistically significantly less medication use, health care utilization, and lost work time. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this systematic review there is evidence to support the use of spinal manipulation by physical therapists in clinical practice. Physical therapy spinal manipulation appears to be a safe intervention that improves clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain.
BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practised intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain of less than six weeks duration.
SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.
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
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.
