Effects of breathing exercises on chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/BMR-230054

Xiaoyu Jiang, Wenyu Sun, Qiang Chen, Qiling Xu, Guoming Chen, Hongyan Bi

{"title":"Effects of breathing exercises on chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Xiaoyu Jiang, Wenyu Sun, Qiang Chen, Qiling Xu, Guoming Chen, Hongyan Bi","doi":"10.3233/BMR-230054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A range of studies concerning the effects of breathing exercises on chronic low back pain (CLBP) have been proven inconclusive.Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of breathing exercises for the treatment of CLBP.Methods: We considered randomized controlled trials in English or Chinese that used breathing exercises for the treatment of CLBP. An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wan Fang, and CBM databases for articles published up to November 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and extracted the data. The outcomes included pain, lumbar function and pulmonary function post-intervention.Results: A total of thirteen studies (n= 677) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results demonstrated a significant effect of breathing exercises on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score (SMD =-0.84, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.45, P< 0.0001), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (SMD =-0.74, 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.54, P< 0.00001), Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) score (MD = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.37, P= 0.0006), Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second /Forced Vital Capacity (FEV1/FVC) (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.73 to 3.07, P= 0.001), although there was no significant difference between the breathing exercises and control interventions for Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second (FEV1) score (MD = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.43], P= 0.05), and Maximal Voluntary Ventilation (MVV) score (MD = 8.22, 95% CI = [-4.02, 20.45], P= 0.19).Conclusion: Breathing exercises can reduce pain, assist people with lumbar disabilities, and improve pulmonary function, and could be considered as a potential alternative treatment for CLBP.","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-230054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A range of studies concerning the effects of breathing exercises on chronic low back pain (CLBP) have been proven inconclusive.

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of breathing exercises for the treatment of CLBP.

Methods: We considered randomized controlled trials in English or Chinese that used breathing exercises for the treatment of CLBP. An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wan Fang, and CBM databases for articles published up to November 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and extracted the data. The outcomes included pain, lumbar function and pulmonary function post-intervention.

Results: A total of thirteen studies (n= 677) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results demonstrated a significant effect of breathing exercises on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score (SMD =-0.84, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.45, P< 0.0001), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (SMD =-0.74, 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.54, P< 0.00001), Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) score (MD = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.37, P= 0.0006), Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second /Forced Vital Capacity (FEV1/FVC) (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.73 to 3.07, P= 0.001), although there was no significant difference between the breathing exercises and control interventions for Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second (FEV1) score (MD = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.43], P= 0.05), and Maximal Voluntary Ventilation (MVV) score (MD = 8.22, 95% CI = [-4.02, 20.45], P= 0.19).

Conclusion: Breathing exercises can reduce pain, assist people with lumbar disabilities, and improve pulmonary function, and could be considered as a potential alternative treatment for CLBP.

查看原文本刊更多论文

呼吸练习对慢性腰背痛的影响：随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：有关呼吸练习对慢性腰背痛（CLBP）影响的一系列研究均未得出结论：本研究旨在评估呼吸练习治疗慢性腰背痛的效果：我们考虑了使用呼吸练习治疗 CLBP 的英文或中文随机对照试验。我们在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、CNKI、Wan Fang 和 CBM 数据库中对截至 2022 年 11 月发表的文章进行了电子检索。两名审稿人独立筛选文章，使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险，并提取数据。研究结果包括干预后的疼痛、腰椎功能和肺功能：共有 13 项研究（n= 677）符合纳入标准。荟萃分析结果表明，呼吸练习对视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分（SMD =-0.84，95% CI：-1.24 至 -0.45，P< 0.0001）、Oswestry 失能指数（ODI）评分（SMD =-0.74，95% CI：-0.95 至 -0.54，P< 0.00001）、用力肺活量（FVC）评分（MD = 0.24，95% CI：0.10 至 0.37，P= 0.0006）、1 秒钟用力呼气容积/用力肺活量（FEV1/FVC）（MD = 1.90，95% CI：0.73 至 3.07，P= 0.001），但呼吸练习与对照干预在第一秒用力呼气容积（FEV1）评分（MD = 0.22，95% CI = [0.00，0.43]，P= 0.05）和最大自主通气（MVV）评分（MD = 8.22，95% CI = [-4.02，20.45]，P= 0.19）方面无显著差异：呼吸练习可减轻疼痛、帮助腰部残疾者并改善肺功能，可被视为慢性腰痛的一种潜在替代治疗方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

194

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.