治疗慢性腰背痛的认知功能疗法:系统回顾与元分析》(Cognitive Functional Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Lena Thiveos, Peter Kent, Natasha C Pocovi, Peter O'Sullivan, Mark J Hancock
{"title":"治疗慢性腰背痛的认知功能疗法:系统回顾与元分析》(Cognitive Functional Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Lena Thiveos, Peter Kent, Natasha C Pocovi, Peter O'Sullivan, Mark J Hancock","doi":"10.1093/ptj/pzae128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in the management of people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and explore the variability in available trials to understand the factors which may affect the effectiveness of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. Four databases were searched from inception to October 12th 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating CFT compared to any control group in patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Mean difference and 95% CIs were calculated for pain, disability, and pain self-efficacy. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven trials were included. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT was effective for disability at short, medium, and long term time points compared to alternate treatments, including usual care. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT is effective for pain in the short and medium terms and probably in the long term. There was high certainty evidence CFT was effective in increasing pain self-efficacy in the medium and long terms. A single study found CFT was cost-effective compared to usual care. Variability was found in the training and implementation of CFT across the included trials, which may contribute to some heterogeneity in the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results show promise in the use of CFT as an intervention likely to effectively manage disability, pain, and self-efficacy in people with chronic nonspecific LBP. The number of clinicians trained, their experience, and quality of training (including competency assessment) may be important in achieving optimal effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Impact statement: </strong>This is the most comprehensive review of CFT to date and included investigation of between-trial differences. CFT is a promising intervention for chronic LBP and high-quality synthesis of evidence of its effectiveness is important for its clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":20093,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Functional Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lena Thiveos, Peter Kent, Natasha C Pocovi, Peter O'Sullivan, Mark J Hancock\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ptj/pzae128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in the management of people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and explore the variability in available trials to understand the factors which may affect the effectiveness of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. Four databases were searched from inception to October 12th 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating CFT compared to any control group in patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Mean difference and 95% CIs were calculated for pain, disability, and pain self-efficacy. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven trials were included. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT was effective for disability at short, medium, and long term time points compared to alternate treatments, including usual care. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT is effective for pain in the short and medium terms and probably in the long term. There was high certainty evidence CFT was effective in increasing pain self-efficacy in the medium and long terms. A single study found CFT was cost-effective compared to usual care. Variability was found in the training and implementation of CFT across the included trials, which may contribute to some heterogeneity in the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results show promise in the use of CFT as an intervention likely to effectively manage disability, pain, and self-efficacy in people with chronic nonspecific LBP. The number of clinicians trained, their experience, and quality of training (including competency assessment) may be important in achieving optimal effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Impact statement: </strong>This is the most comprehensive review of CFT to date and included investigation of between-trial differences. CFT is a promising intervention for chronic LBP and high-quality synthesis of evidence of its effectiveness is important for its clinical application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae128\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae128","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

目的目的是研究认知功能疗法(CFT)在治疗慢性非特异性腰背痛(LBP)患者方面的有效性,并探讨现有试验的差异性,以了解可能影响干预有效性的因素:方法:采用荟萃分析法进行了系统回顾。方法:进行了一项带有荟萃分析的系统性综述,检索了从开始到 2023 年 10 月 12 日的四个数据库。研究对象包括对非特异性腰痛患者进行 CFT 与任何对照组比较的随机对照试验。计算了疼痛、残疾和疼痛自我效能的平均差和 95% CI。采用建议评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)对证据的确定性进行评估:结果:共纳入七项试验。与包括常规护理在内的其他治疗方法相比,CFT在短期、中期和长期时间点上对残疾有效的证据确定性为中低。有中低度确定性证据表明,CFT在短期和中期对疼痛有效,长期可能有效。有高度确定性的证据表明,在中长期内,CFT 能有效提高疼痛自我效能。一项研究发现,与常规护理相比,CFT 具有成本效益。在纳入的各项试验中,CFT的培训和实施存在差异,这可能是导致试验结果不一致的原因之一:结论:研究结果表明,CFT 作为一种干预措施,有望有效控制慢性非特异性腰背痛患者的残疾、疼痛和自我效能。受训临床医生的数量、经验和培训质量(包括能力评估)可能对达到最佳效果非常重要:这是迄今为止对CFT最全面的综述,其中包括对试验间差异的调查。CFT是一种很有前景的慢性腰椎间盘突出症干预方法,对其有效性证据进行高质量的综述对其临床应用非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive Functional Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in the management of people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and explore the variability in available trials to understand the factors which may affect the effectiveness of the intervention.

Methods: A systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. Four databases were searched from inception to October 12th 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating CFT compared to any control group in patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Mean difference and 95% CIs were calculated for pain, disability, and pain self-efficacy. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results: Seven trials were included. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT was effective for disability at short, medium, and long term time points compared to alternate treatments, including usual care. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT is effective for pain in the short and medium terms and probably in the long term. There was high certainty evidence CFT was effective in increasing pain self-efficacy in the medium and long terms. A single study found CFT was cost-effective compared to usual care. Variability was found in the training and implementation of CFT across the included trials, which may contribute to some heterogeneity in the results.

Conclusion: The results show promise in the use of CFT as an intervention likely to effectively manage disability, pain, and self-efficacy in people with chronic nonspecific LBP. The number of clinicians trained, their experience, and quality of training (including competency assessment) may be important in achieving optimal effectiveness.

Impact statement: This is the most comprehensive review of CFT to date and included investigation of between-trial differences. CFT is a promising intervention for chronic LBP and high-quality synthesis of evidence of its effectiveness is important for its clinical application.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy (PTJ) engages and inspires an international readership on topics related to physical therapy. As the leading international journal for research in physical therapy and related fields, PTJ publishes innovative and highly relevant content for both clinicians and scientists and uses a variety of interactive approaches to communicate that content, with the expressed purpose of improving patient care. PTJ"s circulation in 2008 is more than 72,000. Its 2007 impact factor was 2.152. The mean time from submission to first decision is 58 days. Time from acceptance to publication online is less than or equal to 3 months and from acceptance to publication in print is less than or equal to 5 months.
×
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