Are Tailored Interventions to Modifiable Psychosocial Risk Factors Effective in Reducing Pain Intensity and Disability in Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Pouya Rabiei, Catelyn Keough, Philippe Patricio, Claudia Côté-Picard, Amélie Desgagnés, Hugo Massé-Alarie
{"title":"Are Tailored Interventions to Modifiable Psychosocial Risk Factors Effective in Reducing Pain Intensity and Disability in Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.","authors":"Pouya Rabiei, Catelyn Keough, Philippe Patricio, Claudia Côté-Picard, Amélie Desgagnés, Hugo Massé-Alarie","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2025.12777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To determine whether tailored interventions based on patients' psychological profiles enhanced the outcomes of interventions in people with nonspecific low back pain, compared to usual care. <b>DESIGN:</b> Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from their inception until November 2, 2023. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> We included randomized clinical trials that compared psychological interventions to any alternatives without psychological components in patients with nonspecific low back pain who were stratified based on their psychological risk factors using the cutoff of the questionnaires measuring a psychological construct. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS:</b> The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge certainty of evidence. <b>RESULTS:</b> Twenty-nine trials were included, most presenting some concerns for the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was mostly low, with moderate to substantial heterogeneity. Using psychological stratification, individuals who received a psychological intervention (versus usual care) reported lower pain intensity at the short term (MD, -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.41, -0.02) and midterm (MD, -0.37; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.16). For disability, there was a larger improvement with psychological interventions versus usual care at short-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.02), midterm (SMD, -0.16; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.05), and long-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.29, -0.04) follow-ups. <b>CONCLUSIONS:</b> Psychological interventions had a positive impact, although small, on reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and psychological risk factors. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(2):1-20. Epub 3 January 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12777</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"55 2","pages":"89-108"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2025.12777","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether tailored interventions based on patients' psychological profiles enhanced the outcomes of interventions in people with nonspecific low back pain, compared to usual care. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from their inception until November 2, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials that compared psychological interventions to any alternatives without psychological components in patients with nonspecific low back pain who were stratified based on their psychological risk factors using the cutoff of the questionnaires measuring a psychological construct. DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included, most presenting some concerns for the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was mostly low, with moderate to substantial heterogeneity. Using psychological stratification, individuals who received a psychological intervention (versus usual care) reported lower pain intensity at the short term (MD, -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.41, -0.02) and midterm (MD, -0.37; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.16). For disability, there was a larger improvement with psychological interventions versus usual care at short-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.02), midterm (SMD, -0.16; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.05), and long-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.29, -0.04) follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions had a positive impact, although small, on reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and psychological risk factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(2):1-20. Epub 3 January 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12777.

针对可改变的社会心理风险因素的针对性干预是否能有效减轻腰痛患者的疼痛强度和残疾?随机试验荟萃分析的系统评价。
目的:确定与常规治疗相比,基于患者心理特征的量身定制干预是否能提高非特异性腰痛患者的干预效果。设计:采用meta分析的干预系统评价。文献检索:Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL和PsycINFO从其成立到2023年11月2日进行检索。研究选择标准:我们纳入了随机临床试验,将心理干预与非特异性腰痛患者的任何不含心理成分的替代方案进行比较,这些患者根据心理危险因素进行分层,使用测量心理结构的问卷截断。数据综合:结果为疼痛强度和残疾。采用改进的Cochrane随机试验风险偏倚工具评估偏倚风险。采用建议分级、评估、发展和评价(GRADE)方法来判断证据的确定性。结果:纳入了29项试验,其中大多数存在偏倚风险。证据的确定性大多较低,具有中度到实质性的异质性。使用心理分层,接受心理干预的个体(与常规护理相比)报告短期疼痛强度较低(MD, -0.22;95%置信区间[CI]: -0.41, -0.02)和中期(MD, -0.37;95% ci: -0.57, -0.16)。对于残疾,短期心理干预与常规护理相比有更大的改善(SMD, -0.17;95% CI: -0.32, -0.02),中期(SMD, -0.16;95%置信区间:-0.28 - -0.05)和长期(SMD, -0.17;95% CI: -0.29, -0.04)。结论:心理干预对减轻腰痛患者的疼痛强度和残疾以及心理危险因素有积极影响,尽管影响不大。[J] .中华体育杂志,2015;55(2):1-20。2025年1月3日。doi: 10.2519 / jospt.2025.12777。
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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics. With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.
×
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