Non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Rodrigo Rn Rizzo, Aidan G Cashin, Benedict M Wand, Michael C Ferraro, Saurab Sharma, Hopin Lee, Edel O'Hagan, Christopher G Maher, Andrea D Furlan, Maurits W van Tulder, James H McAuley
{"title":"Non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews.","authors":"Rodrigo Rn Rizzo, Aidan G Cashin, Benedict M Wand, Michael C Ferraro, Saurab Sharma, Hopin Lee, Edel O'Hagan, Christopher G Maher, Andrea D Furlan, Maurits W van Tulder, James H McAuley","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD014691.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health issue due to its high prevalence and associated disability burden. Clinical practice guidelines recommend non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions for managing pain and function in people with LBP.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide accessible, high-quality evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for people with LBP and to highlight areas of remaining uncertainty and gaps in the evidence regarding the effects of these interventions for people with LBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 15 April 2023, to identify Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials testing the effect of non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions, unrestricted by language. Major outcomes were pain intensity, function and safety. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the quality of the reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was placebo/sham.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 31 Cochrane reviews of 644 trials that randomised 97,183 adults with LBP. We have high confidence in the findings of 19 reviews, moderate confidence in the findings of two reviews, and low confidence in the findings of 10 reviews. We present results for non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions compared to placebo/sham or no treatment/usual care at short-term (≤ three months) follow-up. Placebo/sham comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to placebo, there is probably no difference in function (at one-week follow-up) for spinal manipulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.21; 2 trials, 205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for heated back wrap. Compared to placebo, heated back wrap may result in skin pinkness (6/128 participants versus 1/130; 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to sham acupuncture, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07; 3 trials, 957 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to sham traction, there is probably no difference in pain intensity for traction (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -4, 95% CI -17.7 to 9.7; 1 trial, 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for acupuncture. There may be no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture for safety outcomes (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.10; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 4 trials, 465 participants; low-certainty evidence). No treatment/usual care comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.41; 2 trials, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.49; 2 trials, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for massage. There may be no difference between massage and usual care for safety (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07; 1 trial, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to no treatment, acupuncture probably provides a medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -10.1, 95% CI -16.8 to -3.4; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a small improvement in function (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (MD 9.4, 95% CI 6.15 to 12.65; 1 trial, 734 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment/usual care, exercise therapies probably provide a small to medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2; 35 trials, 2746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (0 to 100 scale, MD -6.8, 95% CI -8.3 to -5.3; 38 trials, 2942 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, multidisciplinary therapies probably provide a medium reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.28; 9 trials, 879 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.19; 9 trials, 939 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment, psychological therapies using operant approaches probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.11; 3 trials, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, psychological therapies (including progressive muscle relaxation and behavioural approaches) probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -5.18, 95% CI -9.79 to -0.57; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there is probably no difference in function (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.02; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions and no treatment/usual care for safety (very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Spinal manipulation probably makes no difference to function compared to placebo for people with acute/subacute LBP. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to sham acupuncture. There is probably no difference between traction and sham traction for pain intensity in people with chronic LBP. Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably reduces pain intensity slightly and improves function slightly for people with acute LBP. Acupuncture probably reduces pain intensity, and improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Exercise therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment/usual care. Multidisciplinary therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, psychological therapies probably reduce pain intensity slightly, but probably make no difference to function for people with chronic LBP.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"3 ","pages":"CD014691"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11945228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014691.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health issue due to its high prevalence and associated disability burden. Clinical practice guidelines recommend non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions for managing pain and function in people with LBP.

Objectives: To provide accessible, high-quality evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for people with LBP and to highlight areas of remaining uncertainty and gaps in the evidence regarding the effects of these interventions for people with LBP.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 15 April 2023, to identify Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials testing the effect of non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions, unrestricted by language. Major outcomes were pain intensity, function and safety. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the quality of the reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was placebo/sham.

Main results: We included 31 Cochrane reviews of 644 trials that randomised 97,183 adults with LBP. We have high confidence in the findings of 19 reviews, moderate confidence in the findings of two reviews, and low confidence in the findings of 10 reviews. We present results for non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions compared to placebo/sham or no treatment/usual care at short-term (≤ three months) follow-up. Placebo/sham comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to placebo, there is probably no difference in function (at one-week follow-up) for spinal manipulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.21; 2 trials, 205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for heated back wrap. Compared to placebo, heated back wrap may result in skin pinkness (6/128 participants versus 1/130; 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to sham acupuncture, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07; 3 trials, 957 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to sham traction, there is probably no difference in pain intensity for traction (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -4, 95% CI -17.7 to 9.7; 1 trial, 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for acupuncture. There may be no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture for safety outcomes (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.10; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 465 participants; low-certainty evidence). No treatment/usual care comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.41; 2 trials, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.49; 2 trials, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for massage. There may be no difference between massage and usual care for safety (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07; 1 trial, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to no treatment, acupuncture probably provides a medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -10.1, 95% CI -16.8 to -3.4; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a small improvement in function (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (MD 9.4, 95% CI 6.15 to 12.65; 1 trial, 734 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment/usual care, exercise therapies probably provide a small to medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2; 35 trials, 2746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (0 to 100 scale, MD -6.8, 95% CI -8.3 to -5.3; 38 trials, 2942 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, multidisciplinary therapies probably provide a medium reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.28; 9 trials, 879 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.19; 9 trials, 939 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment, psychological therapies using operant approaches probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.11; 3 trials, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, psychological therapies (including progressive muscle relaxation and behavioural approaches) probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -5.18, 95% CI -9.79 to -0.57; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there is probably no difference in function (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.02; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions and no treatment/usual care for safety (very low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Spinal manipulation probably makes no difference to function compared to placebo for people with acute/subacute LBP. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to sham acupuncture. There is probably no difference between traction and sham traction for pain intensity in people with chronic LBP. Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably reduces pain intensity slightly and improves function slightly for people with acute LBP. Acupuncture probably reduces pain intensity, and improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Exercise therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment/usual care. Multidisciplinary therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, psychological therapies probably reduce pain intensity slightly, but probably make no difference to function for people with chronic LBP.

成人腰痛的非药物和非手术治疗:Cochrane综述。
背景:腰痛(LBP)是一个重要的公共卫生问题,由于其高患病率和相关的残疾负担。临床实践指南推荐非药物/非手术干预措施来控制腰痛患者的疼痛和功能。目的:提供可获得的、高质量的证据,证明非药物和非手术干预措施对腰痛患者的影响,并强调这些干预措施对腰痛患者影响的证据中存在的不确定性和空白。方法:我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库从成立到2023年4月15日,以确定非药物/非手术干预效果的随机对照试验的Cochrane评价,不受语言限制。主要结果为疼痛强度、功能和安全性。两位作者使用AMSTAR 2(评估系统评价的测量工具)独立评估合格性、提取数据和评估评价的质量,并使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。主要的比较是安慰剂/假药。主要结果:我们纳入了31篇Cochrane综述,涉及644项试验,随机纳入97183名患有LBP的成年人。我们对19篇综述的研究结果有高置信度,对2篇综述的研究结果有中等置信度,对10篇综述的研究结果有低置信度。在短期(≤3个月)随访中,我们报告了非药物/非手术干预与安慰剂/假药或无治疗/常规护理的结果。与安慰剂相比,脊髓操纵组在急性/亚急性LBP的功能(一周随访)上可能没有差异(标准化平均差(SMD) -0.08, 95%置信区间(CI) -0.37至0.21;2项试验,205名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。安全性数据仅报道了加热背包。与安慰剂相比,热背敷可能导致皮肤发红(6/128对1/130;2试验;确定性的证据)。与假针灸相比,针灸可能提供了轻微的功能改善(SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69至-0.07;3项试验,957名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与假牵引相比,牵引的疼痛强度可能没有差异(0至100量表,平均差值(MD) -4, 95% CI -17.7至9.7;1项试验,60名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。安全性数据仅报道了针灸。在安全性结果方面,针灸和假针灸可能没有差异(风险比(RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.42 ~ 1.10;I2 = 0%;4项试验,465名受试者;确定性的证据)。急性/亚急性腰痛与建议休息相比,建议保持活动可能能略微降低疼痛强度(SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.02至-0.41;2项试验,401名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与建议休息相比,建议保持运动可能对功能有轻微的改善(SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.09至-0.49;2项试验,400名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。安全性数据仅报道了按摩。在安全性方面,按摩和常规护理可能没有差异(风险差为0,95% CI为-0.07 ~ 0.07;1项试验,51名受试者;确定性的证据)。与未治疗相比,针灸可能提供了中等程度的疼痛强度减轻(0 - 100量表,平均差(MD) -10.1, 95% CI -16.8 -3.4;3项试验,144名受试者;中度确定性证据),以及功能的小幅改善(SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.72至-0.06;3项试验,144名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与常规护理相比,针灸可能对功能有轻微改善(MD 9.4, 95% CI 6.15至12.65;1项试验,734名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与无治疗/常规护理相比,运动疗法可能提供小到中等程度的疼痛强度减轻(0至100分,MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3至-12.2;35项试验,2746名受试者;中等确定性证据),并可能提供功能上的小改善(0 - 100量表,MD -6.8, 95% CI -8.3至-5.3;38项试验,2942名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与常规治疗相比,多学科治疗可能提供中等程度的疼痛强度降低(SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.83至-0.28;9项试验,879名受试者;中等确定性证据),并可能提供功能的小改善(SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62至-0.19;9项试验,939名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与不治疗相比,采用手术方法的心理治疗可能会轻微降低疼痛强度(SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.75至-0.11;3项试验,153名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。 与常规治疗相比,心理治疗(包括渐进式肌肉放松和行为方法)可能会轻微降低疼痛强度(0至100量表,MD -5.18, 95% CI -9.79至-0.57;2项试验,330名受试者;中度确定性证据),但在功能上可能没有差异(SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.41至0.02;2项试验,330名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。不确定非药物/非手术干预与无治疗/常规护理之间是否存在差异(非常低确定性证据)。作者的结论是:对于急性/亚急性腰痛患者,与安慰剂相比,脊柱操作可能对功能没有影响。与假针灸相比,针灸可能会略微改善慢性腰痛患者的功能。对于慢性腰痛患者,牵引和假牵引的疼痛强度可能没有区别。与休息的建议相比,保持活跃的建议可能会稍微减轻疼痛强度,并稍微改善急性腰痛患者的功能。与不进行治疗相比,针灸可能会减轻慢性腰痛患者的疼痛强度,并略微改善其功能。与常规治疗相比,针灸可能会略微改善慢性腰痛患者的功能。与没有治疗/常规护理相比,运动疗法可能会减轻慢性腰痛患者的疼痛强度,并略微改善其功能。与常规治疗相比,多学科治疗可能会减轻慢性腰痛患者的疼痛强度,并略微改善其功能。与常规治疗相比,心理治疗可能会稍微减轻疼痛强度,但可能对慢性腰痛患者的功能没有影响。
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
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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