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: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.
A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of qigong as a treatment for chronic pain. Five electronic databases were searched from their date of establishment until July 2014. The review included 10 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the impacts of qigong on chronic pain with waiting list or placebo or general care. Random effect models and standard mean differences were used to present pain scores. A total of 10 RCTs met inclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant difference on reducing chronic pain between internal qigong and control (SMD: [Formula: see text]1.23 95% [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), external qigong and general care (SMD: [Formula: see text]1.53 95% [Formula: see text]), external qigong and placebo (SMD: [Formula: see text]0.51 95% [Formula: see text]), and internal qigong for chronic neck pain at 6 months (SMD: [Formula: see text]1.00 95% [Formula: see text]). The differences between external qigong and control, external qigong and waiting list, internal qigong and waiting list, and external for premenstrual syndromes were not significant. This study showed that internal qigong generated benefits on treating some chronic pain with significant differences. External qigong showed nonsignificant differences in treating chronic pain. Higher quality randomized clinical trials with scientific rigor are needed to establish the effectiveness of qigong in reducing chronic pain.
UNLABELLED: Chronic neuropathic pain, the most frequent condition affecting the peripheral nervous system, remains underdiagnosed and difficult to treat. Inhaled cannabis may alleviate chronic neuropathic pain. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the use of inhaled cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of individual patient data. We registered our protocol with PROSPERO CRD42011001182. We searched in Cochrane Central, PubMed, EMBASE, and AMED. We considered all randomized controlled trials investigating chronic painful neuropathy and comparing inhaled cannabis with placebo. We pooled treatment effects following a hierarchical random-effects Bayesian responder model for the population-averaged subject-specific effect. Our evidence synthesis of individual patient data from 178 participants with 405 observed responses in 5 randomized controlled trials following patients for days to weeks provides evidence that inhaled cannabis results in short-term reductions in chronic neuropathic pain for 1 in every 5 to 6 patients treated (number needed to treat = 5.6 with a Bayesian 95% credible interval ranging between 3.4 and 14). Our inferences were insensitive to model assumptions, priors, and parameter choices. We caution that the small number of studies and participants, the short follow-up, shortcomings in allocation concealment, and considerable attrition limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the review. The Bayes factor is 332, corresponding to a posterior probability of effect of 99.7%.
PERSPECTIVE: This novel Bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials suggests that inhaled cannabis may provide short-term relief for 1 in 5 to 6 patients with neuropathic pain. Pragmatic trials are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and risks of this treatment.
One in four people suffers from chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP). Acupuncture points stimulation is increasingly used for pain relief for CMP. Commonly, a combination of local and distant points is used. However, the difference between the effects of local and distant point stimulation is unknown. This systematic review aimed to determine if there was a difference in effects between stimulating local and distant points, and the combination of both when compared with either alone. English and Chinese electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials, where local or distant points were stimulated in adults with CMP. Pain intensity was the primary outcome measure. Nineteen were included in the qualitative analysis and 15 in the meta-analysis. Local and distant point stimulation was more effective than their respective controls in pain reduction immediately after treatment. Three studies directly compared the stimulation of local and distant points and found no significant difference between the two. No studies compared combined local and distant point stimulation with either alone. Subgroup analyses showed that, local tender point stimulation was more effective than local acupuncture points. Local and distant point stimulation induces similar degree of acupuncture analgesia. The benefit of combining local and distant point stimulation is unknown. However, subgroup analyses suggested that local tender points could be important in the treatment of CMP for short-term pain relief.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on reducing neuropathic pain intensity in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).
METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched for all relevant articles published from 1980 to November 2014. Trials were included if (i) tDCS intervention group and a placebo control group were present; (ii) at least 50% of participants in the study had an SCI and there were at least three participants; (iii) participants were aged 18 years or older; and (iv) persistent pain for at least 3 months. Studies were excluded if: (i) the tDCS intervention group was compared with an active treatment group; (ii) there was insufficient reporting detail to enable pooling of data; and (iii) it was a nonclinical trial (that is, reviews, epidemiology, basic sciences). A standardized mean difference (SMD)±s.e. and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each outcome of interest and the results were pooled using a fixed or random effects model, as appropriate. Effect sizes were interpreted as: small >0.2, moderate >0.5, large >0.8.
RESULTS: Five studies met inclusion criteria of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a prospective controlled trial. The pooled analysis found a significant effect of tDCS on reducing neuropathic pain after SCI post treatment (SMD=0.510±0.202; 95% CI, 0.114-0.906; P<0.012); however, this effect was not maintained at follow-up (SMD=0.353±0.272; 95% CI, -0.179 to 0.886; P<0.194). A reduction of 1.33 units on a 10-item scale was observed post treatment. No significant adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION: Meta-analytic results indicate a moderate effect of tDCS in reducing neuropathic pain among individuals with SCI; however, the effect was not maintained at follow-up. A mean pooled decrease of 1.33 units on a 10-item scale was found post treatment. Several factors were implicated in the effectiveness of tDCS in reducing pain. Due to the limited number of studies and lack of follow-up, more evidence is required before treatment recommendations can be made.
BACKGROUND: In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies.
METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)).
RESULTS: Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.
This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). We searched electronic databases and references lists of relevant articles, retrieved all of the published randomised controlled trials in regard to these issues and then performed a meta-analysis. Fourteen highly qualified RCTs reporting on a total of 454 patients, which evaluated the effectiveness of LLLT for patients suffering from TMDs were retrieved. The results indicated that LLLT was not better than placebo in reducing chronic TMD pain (weighted mean difference = -19·39; 95% confidence interval = -40·80-2·03; P < 0·00001; I(2) = 99%). However, the LLLT provided significant better functional outcomes in terms of maximum active vertical opening (MAVO) (weighted mean difference = 4·18; 95% confidence interval = 0·73-7·63; P = 0·006; I(2) = 73%), maximum passive vertical opening (MPVO) (weighted mean difference = 6·73; 95% confidence interval = 01·34-12·13; P = 0·06; I(2) = 73%), protrusion excursion (PE) (weighted mean difference = 1·81; 95% confidence interval = 0·79-2·83; P = 0·59; I(2) = 0%) and right lateral excursion (RLE) (weighted mean difference = 2·86; 95% confidence interval = 1·27-4·45; P = 0·01; I(2) = 73%). The results of our meta-analysis have provided the best evidence on the efficacy of LLLT in the treatment of TMDs. This study indicates that using LLLT has limited efficacy in reducing pain in patients with TMDs. However, LLLT can significantly improve the functional outcomes of patients with TMDs.
Ayurveda is one of the fastest growing systems within complementary and alternative medicine. However, the evidence for its effectiveness is unsatisfactory. The aim of this work was to review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of different Ayurvedic interventions in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). 138 electronic databases were searched through August 2013. Randomized controlled trials, randomized crossover studies, cluster-randomized trials, and non-randomized controlled clinical trials were eligible. Adults with pre-diagnosed OA were included as participants. Interventions were included as Ayurvedic if they were explicitly labeled as such. Main outcome measures were pain, physical function, and global improvement. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 19 randomized and 14 non-randomized controlled trials on 12 different drugs and 3 non-pharmaceutical interventions with a total of 2,952 patients were included. For the compound preparation, Rumalaya, large and apparently unbiased effects beyond placebo were found for pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -3.73; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -4.97, -2.50; P < 0.01) and global improvement (risk ratio 12.20; 95 % CI 5.83, 25.54; P < 0.01). There is also some evidence that effects of the herbal compound preparation Shunti-Guduchi are comparable to those of glucosamine for pain (SMD 0.08; 95 % CI -0.20, 0.36; P = 0.56) and function (SMD 0.15; 95 % CI -0.12, 0.36; P = 0.41). Based on single trials, positive effects were found for the compound preparations RA-11, Reosto, and Siriraj Wattana. For Boswellia serrata, Lepidium Sativum, a Boswellia serrata containing multicomponent formulation and the compounds Nirgundi Taila, Panchatikta Ghrita Guggulu, and Rhumayog, and for non-pharmacological interventions like Ayurvedic massage, steam therapy, and enema, no evidence for significant effects against potential methodological bias was found. No severe adverse events were observed in all trials. The drugs Rumalaya and Shunti-Guduchi seem to be safe and effective drugs for treatment of OA-patients, based on these data. However, several limitations relate to clinical research on Ayurveda. Well-planned, well-conducted and well-published trials are warranted to improve the evidence for Ayurvedic interventions.
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.
