Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Pieter Severijns, Nina Goossens, Wim Dankaerts, Laurent Pitance, Nathalie Roussel, Corentin Denis, Antoine Fourré, Pieter Verschueren, Annick Timmermans, Lotte Janssens
{"title":"Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review.","authors":"Pieter Severijns, Nina Goossens, Wim Dankaerts, Laurent Pitance, Nathalie Roussel, Corentin Denis, Antoine Fourré, Pieter Verschueren, Annick Timmermans, Lotte Janssens","doi":"10.1177/02692155241282987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain first consulting a physiotherapist and those first consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician's visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241282987","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To summarise the evidence on the effect of physiotherapy-led versus physician-led care on clinical outcomes, healthcare use, and costs in persons with low back pain.

Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched with the latest search performed in July 2024. Reference lists of articles were hand-searched.

Review methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes, healthcare use, or costs between adults with low back pain first consulting a physiotherapist and those first consulting a physician were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study design, clinical setting, patient characteristics, and group effects were extracted. Findings on outcomes assessed in two or more studies were synthesised narratively. Certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE approach.

Results: Eighteen studies comprising 1,481,980 persons with low back pain were included. Most studies were non-randomised retrospective or prospective cohort studies. In primary care (15 studies), consistent evidence, though of mostly very low certainty, indicated that physiotherapy-led care leads to higher patient satisfaction, less use of medication, injections and imaging, fewer physician's visits, lower total healthcare costs, and less sick leave compared to physician-led care, without increased harm. In emergency care (three studies), evidence of very low certainty showed that physiotherapy-led care leads to shorter waiting and treatment times, and fewer hospital admissions.

Conclusion: Physiotherapy-led care is a clinically, time- and cost-effective care pathway for low back pain, although the certainty of evidence was overall very low. Further high-quality research with a greater focus on clinical outcomes is warranted.

腰背痛患者的物理治疗与医生治疗:系统综述。
摘要总结以物理治疗为主导的护理与以医生为主导的护理对腰背痛患者的临床疗效、医疗使用和成本影响的证据:对 PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、Embase 和 PEDro 进行了系统检索,最新检索于 2024 年 7 月进行。人工检索了文章的参考文献列表:综述方法:纳入了对首次咨询物理治疗师的成人腰背痛患者与首次咨询医生的成人腰背痛患者的临床结果、医疗保健使用或成本进行比较的研究。方法学质量采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。提取了研究设计、临床环境、患者特征和群体效应。对两项或两项以上研究的结果进行综合叙述。采用 GRADE 方法确定证据的确定性:共纳入了 18 项研究,涉及 1,481,980 名腰背痛患者。大多数研究为非随机回顾性或前瞻性队列研究。在初级护理方面(15 项研究),尽管确定性大多很低,但一致的证据表明,与医生主导的护理相比,物理治疗主导的护理可提高患者满意度,减少药物、注射和影像学检查的使用,减少医生就诊次数,降低医疗保健总成本,减少病假,而不会增加伤害。在急诊护理方面(三项研究),确定性极低的证据显示,物理治疗为主导的护理可缩短等待和治疗时间,减少入院次数:结论:以物理治疗为主导的护理在临床上是一种时间和成本效益都很高的腰背痛护理途径,尽管证据的确定性总体上很低。有必要进一步开展更注重临床结果的高质量研究。
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
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信