Does resistance training improve pain intensity, quality of life, and disability in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2 4区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Disability and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI:10.1080/09638288.2025.2566275

Álvaro-José Rodríguez-Domínguez, Jose A Moral-Munoz, Juan-David Guzmán-Gómez, Javier Valero-Ortiz, Luis González-Gómez, Melania Cardellat-González

{"title":"Does resistance training improve pain intensity, quality of life, and disability in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Álvaro-José Rodríguez-Domínguez, Jose A Moral-Munoz, Juan-David Guzmán-Gómez, Javier Valero-Ortiz, Luis González-Gómez, Melania Cardellat-González","doi":"10.1080/09638288.2025.2566275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of resistance training (RT) in improving pain intensity, quality of life, and disability in people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).Method: Searches were conducted in April 2025 using MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RT interventions with any treatment and assessed pain intensity, quality of life, or disability in adults with NSCLBP were included. A pairwise random-effects meta-analysis was performed by subgroup according to the comparison treatment. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.Results: Ten RCTs (n = 434) showed significant improvements in pain intensity (SMD = -1.15; 95% CI [-1.67, -0.62], p < 0.0001) and disability (SMD = -2.76; 95% CI [-3.90, -1.62], p < 0.00001) favoring RT. No statistical or clinical significance was observed in the quality of life. Only pain intensity reached clinical significance. The certainty of the evidence was rated as \"moderate\" for all variables.Conclusions: RT programs effectively reduce pain intensity and disability in patients with NSCLBP. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that RT can be recommended for NSCLBP. Further research is required to confirm these findings.Prospero registration no.: CRD42024505897.","PeriodicalId":50575,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2566275","RegionNum":4,"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

Purpose: Systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of resistance training (RT) in improving pain intensity, quality of life, and disability in people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).

Method: Searches were conducted in April 2025 using MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RT interventions with any treatment and assessed pain intensity, quality of life, or disability in adults with NSCLBP were included. A pairwise random-effects meta-analysis was performed by subgroup according to the comparison treatment. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

Results: Ten RCTs (n = 434) showed significant improvements in pain intensity (SMD = -1.15; 95% CI [-1.67, -0.62], p < 0.0001) and disability (SMD = -2.76; 95% CI [-3.90, -1.62], p < 0.00001) favoring RT. No statistical or clinical significance was observed in the quality of life. Only pain intensity reached clinical significance. The certainty of the evidence was rated as "moderate" for all variables.

Conclusions: RT programs effectively reduce pain intensity and disability in patients with NSCLBP. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that RT can be recommended for NSCLBP. Further research is required to confirm these findings.

Prospero registration no.: CRD42024505897.

查看原文本刊更多论文

抗阻训练能改善慢性非特异性腰痛患者的疼痛强度、生活质量和残疾吗？系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的：采用荟萃分析的系统综述来评估阻力训练（RT）在改善非特异性慢性腰痛（NSCLBP）患者疼痛强度、生活质量和残疾方面的疗效。方法：于2025年4月使用MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library进行检索。随机对照试验（rct）比较了RT干预与任何治疗方法，并评估了成人NSCLBP患者的疼痛强度、生活质量或残疾。根据比较治疗分组进行两两随机效应荟萃分析。使用Cochrane Risk of bias 2.0工具（RoB 2）评估偏倚风险，使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。结果：10项rct （n = 434）显示疼痛强度有显著改善（SMD = -1.15; 95% CI [-1.67, -0.62], p p）。结论：RT治疗方案可有效减轻非小细胞bp患者的疼痛强度和残疾。中等确定性的证据表明，可以推荐RT治疗NSCLBP。需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现。普洛斯彼罗注册号: CRD42024505897。

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

Disability and Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

9.10%

发文量

415

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： Disability and Rehabilitation along with Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology are international multidisciplinary journals which seek to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability and to promote rehabilitation science, practice and policy aspects of the rehabilitation process.