对于已知神经病理性疼痛机制的坐骨神经痛患者,联合保守干预是否能有效减轻疼痛、残疾和/或总体疼痛评分?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Colette Ridehalgh, Shemane Murtagh, Kika Konstantinou, Andrew Dilley
{"title":"对于已知神经病理性疼痛机制的坐骨神经痛患者,联合保守干预是否能有效减轻疼痛、残疾和/或总体疼痛评分?","authors":"Colette Ridehalgh, Shemane Murtagh, Kika Konstantinou, Andrew Dilley","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08477-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>National Clinical Guidelines recommend an integrated combination of conservative management strategies for sciatica. However, the efficacy of such combinations have not been established. The purpose of this systemic review with meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of combined conservative (non-pharmacological) compared to single interventions for people with sciatica with a confirmed neuropathic mechanism.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42023464011. The databases included were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycINFO, and grey literature sources from inception until January 2024. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of combined non-pharmacological interventions in comparison to a control intervention among individuals with sciatica of a neuropathic origin identified using diagnostic or clinical tests. Primary outcomes were back pain, leg pain, and disability. The secondary outcome was global rating of change. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (using Cochrane ROB2) were assessed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model with inverse variance weighting used for the metanalysis using SPSS v 29.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3,370 articles were identified, of which 6 were included. Risk of bias was high in one study and had some concerns in the remaining 5 studies for each outcome measure. There was evidence of efficacy for combined interventions for back pain in the short-and long-term (SMD - 0.56 (95% CI -0.91, -0.22, p = 0.01, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.2; SMD - 0.44 (95% CI -0.79, -0.1, p = 0.03, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00), and for disability in the short term (SMD - 0.48 (95% CI -0.92, -0.04, p = 0.04, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.72). There was no evidence of efficacy for leg pain at any time point (( short term SMD - 0.45 (95% CI -0.91, 0.02, p = 0.06, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.65), medium term (SMD - 0.29 (95% CI -1.12, 0.54, p = 0.35, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.82), long term (SMD - 0.40 (95% CI -1.23, 0.44, p = 0.18, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.57).Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are few studies that have combined conservative (non-pharmacological) interventions for the management of sciatica with a neuropathic component pain mechanism, as recommended by National Clinical Guidelines. This review indicates that combining conservative (no-pharmacological) management strategies appeared more effective than single interventions for the outcomes of low back pain in the short and long term, and for disability in the short term, but not for leg pain at any time point. The overall low certainty of evidence, suggests that future studies with more robust methodologies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are combined conservative interventions effective in reducing pain, disability and/or global rating of pain in people with sciatica with known neuropathic pain mechanisms?\",\"authors\":\"Colette Ridehalgh, Shemane Murtagh, Kika Konstantinou, Andrew Dilley\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-024-08477-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>National Clinical Guidelines recommend an integrated combination of conservative management strategies for sciatica. However, the efficacy of such combinations have not been established. The purpose of this systemic review with meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of combined conservative (non-pharmacological) compared to single interventions for people with sciatica with a confirmed neuropathic mechanism.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42023464011. The databases included were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycINFO, and grey literature sources from inception until January 2024. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of combined non-pharmacological interventions in comparison to a control intervention among individuals with sciatica of a neuropathic origin identified using diagnostic or clinical tests. Primary outcomes were back pain, leg pain, and disability. The secondary outcome was global rating of change. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (using Cochrane ROB2) were assessed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model with inverse variance weighting used for the metanalysis using SPSS v 29.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3,370 articles were identified, of which 6 were included. Risk of bias was high in one study and had some concerns in the remaining 5 studies for each outcome measure. There was evidence of efficacy for combined interventions for back pain in the short-and long-term (SMD - 0.56 (95% CI -0.91, -0.22, p = 0.01, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.2; SMD - 0.44 (95% CI -0.79, -0.1, p = 0.03, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00), and for disability in the short term (SMD - 0.48 (95% CI -0.92, -0.04, p = 0.04, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.72). There was no evidence of efficacy for leg pain at any time point (( short term SMD - 0.45 (95% CI -0.91, 0.02, p = 0.06, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.65), medium term (SMD - 0.29 (95% CI -1.12, 0.54, p = 0.35, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.82), long term (SMD - 0.40 (95% CI -1.23, 0.44, p = 0.18, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.57).Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are few studies that have combined conservative (non-pharmacological) interventions for the management of sciatica with a neuropathic component pain mechanism, as recommended by National Clinical Guidelines. This review indicates that combining conservative (no-pharmacological) management strategies appeared more effective than single interventions for the outcomes of low back pain in the short and long term, and for disability in the short term, but not for leg pain at any time point. The overall low certainty of evidence, suggests that future studies with more robust methodologies are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08477-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08477-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:《国家临床指南》建议采用综合的坐骨神经痛保守治疗策略。然而,这种综合疗法的疗效尚未得到证实。本系统性综述和荟萃分析的目的是确定与单一干预措施相比,综合保守疗法(非药物疗法)对确诊为神经病理性机制的坐骨神经痛患者的疗效:该系统综述已在 PROSPERO CRD42023464011 上注册。纳入的数据库包括 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)、CINAHL (EBSCO)、Embase、PubMed、Scopus、APA PsycINFO 以及从开始到 2024 年 1 月的灰色文献来源。纳入标准为通过诊断或临床测试确定为神经性坐骨神经痛患者的随机对照试验,这些试验评估了联合非药物干预措施与对照干预措施相比的有效性。主要结果为背痛、腿痛和残疾。次要结果为总体评分变化。研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估(使用 Cochrane ROB2)由两名评审员进行评估。荟萃分析采用随机效应模型,并使用 SPSS v 29 进行反方差加权:结果:共发现 3,370 篇文章,其中 6 篇被纳入。一项研究的偏倚风险较高,其余 5 项研究的每项结果指标都存在一定的偏倚风险。有证据表明,短期和长期综合干预对背痛有疗效(SMD - 0.56 (95% CI -0.91, -0.22, p = 0.01, I2 = 0.2; SMD - 0.44 (95% CI -0.79, -0.1, p = 0.03, I2 = 0.00)),对短期残疾有疗效(SMD - 0.48 (95% CI -0.92, -0.04, p = 0.04, I2 = 0.72)。在任何时间点都没有证据表明腿部疼痛(短期 SMD - 0.45 (95% CI -0.91, 0.02, p = 0.06, I2 = 0.65),中期 SMD - 0.29 (95% CI -1.证据的确定性从很低到中等不等:很少有研究按照《国家临床指南》的建议,结合保守(非药物)干预治疗具有神经病理性疼痛机制的坐骨神经痛。本综述表明,在短期和长期腰痛以及短期残疾方面,联合使用保守(非药物)治疗策略似乎比单一干预措施更有效,但在任何时间点对腿痛的治疗效果都不理想。总的来说,证据的确定性较低,这表明今后的研究需要采用更可靠的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are combined conservative interventions effective in reducing pain, disability and/or global rating of pain in people with sciatica with known neuropathic pain mechanisms?

Purpose: National Clinical Guidelines recommend an integrated combination of conservative management strategies for sciatica. However, the efficacy of such combinations have not been established. The purpose of this systemic review with meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of combined conservative (non-pharmacological) compared to single interventions for people with sciatica with a confirmed neuropathic mechanism.

Methods: The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42023464011. The databases included were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycINFO, and grey literature sources from inception until January 2024. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of combined non-pharmacological interventions in comparison to a control intervention among individuals with sciatica of a neuropathic origin identified using diagnostic or clinical tests. Primary outcomes were back pain, leg pain, and disability. The secondary outcome was global rating of change. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (using Cochrane ROB2) were assessed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model with inverse variance weighting used for the metanalysis using SPSS v 29.

Results: 3,370 articles were identified, of which 6 were included. Risk of bias was high in one study and had some concerns in the remaining 5 studies for each outcome measure. There was evidence of efficacy for combined interventions for back pain in the short-and long-term (SMD - 0.56 (95% CI -0.91, -0.22, p = 0.01, I2 = 0.2; SMD - 0.44 (95% CI -0.79, -0.1, p = 0.03, I2 = 0.00), and for disability in the short term (SMD - 0.48 (95% CI -0.92, -0.04, p = 0.04, I2 = 0.72). There was no evidence of efficacy for leg pain at any time point (( short term SMD - 0.45 (95% CI -0.91, 0.02, p = 0.06, I2 = 0.65), medium term (SMD - 0.29 (95% CI -1.12, 0.54, p = 0.35, I2 = 0.82), long term (SMD - 0.40 (95% CI -1.23, 0.44, p = 0.18, I2 = 0.57).Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Conclusion: There are few studies that have combined conservative (non-pharmacological) interventions for the management of sciatica with a neuropathic component pain mechanism, as recommended by National Clinical Guidelines. This review indicates that combining conservative (no-pharmacological) management strategies appeared more effective than single interventions for the outcomes of low back pain in the short and long term, and for disability in the short term, but not for leg pain at any time point. The overall low certainty of evidence, suggests that future studies with more robust methodologies are needed.

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
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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