基于循证医学原则的下腰痛康复理疗方法综述

Aleksander Kaletka
{"title":"基于循证医学原则的下腰痛康复理疗方法综述","authors":"Aleksander Kaletka","doi":"10.5114/FOR.2021.106944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major social and economic problem. Its prevalence in 2015 was 540 million cases, which is 7% of the general population. A number of physiotherapeutic methods are used to treat these spinal complaints. Aims: This review aimed to compare the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and the Pilates Method Exercise Program (PMEP) in patients with LPB. Material and methods: This review analyzed studies considered high quality according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale (PEDro score above 7/10) in terms of the effectiveness of the methods analyzed: MDT, TENS, and PMEP. Results: In the studies reviewed, the MDT method was found to be inconclusively effective, while TENS, considered simple and popular, improved the condition of patients suffering from LBP. The PMEP method was the most effective, although it was compared only with the control group. Conclusions: It seems necessary to continue randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on these methods with standardized methodology (double and triple blinding, a follow-up evaluation of the participants, selecting therapists with similar professional experience, and a comparison of more methods in high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses).","PeriodicalId":88183,"journal":{"name":"The Physiotherapy review","volume":"180 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of Selected Physiotherapeutic Methods Used in the Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain in Light of Evidence-Based Medicine Principles\",\"authors\":\"Aleksander Kaletka\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/FOR.2021.106944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major social and economic problem. Its prevalence in 2015 was 540 million cases, which is 7% of the general population. A number of physiotherapeutic methods are used to treat these spinal complaints. Aims: This review aimed to compare the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and the Pilates Method Exercise Program (PMEP) in patients with LPB. Material and methods: This review analyzed studies considered high quality according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale (PEDro score above 7/10) in terms of the effectiveness of the methods analyzed: MDT, TENS, and PMEP. Results: In the studies reviewed, the MDT method was found to be inconclusively effective, while TENS, considered simple and popular, improved the condition of patients suffering from LBP. The PMEP method was the most effective, although it was compared only with the control group. Conclusions: It seems necessary to continue randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on these methods with standardized methodology (double and triple blinding, a follow-up evaluation of the participants, selecting therapists with similar professional experience, and a comparison of more methods in high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses).\",\"PeriodicalId\":88183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Physiotherapy review\",\"volume\":\"180 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Physiotherapy review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/FOR.2021.106944\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Physiotherapy review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/FOR.2021.106944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腰痛(LBP)是一个重大的社会经济问题。2015年的流行率为5.4亿例,占总人口的7%。许多物理治疗方法用于治疗这些脊柱疾病。目的:本综述旨在比较麦肯齐机械诊断和治疗方法(MDT)、经皮神经电刺激(TENS)和普拉提方法运动计划(PMEP)在LPB患者中的疗效。材料和方法:本综述分析了根据物理治疗证据数据库量表(PEDro评分在7/10以上)在所分析方法的有效性方面被认为是高质量的研究:MDT, TENS和PMEP。结果:在回顾的研究中,MDT方法被认为是不确定有效的,而TENS方法被认为是简单和流行的,可以改善LBP患者的病情。PMEP方法是最有效的,尽管它只与对照组比较。结论:似乎有必要继续采用标准化的方法对这些方法进行随机临床试验(rct)(双盲和三重盲,对参与者进行随访评估,选择具有相似专业经验的治疗师,并在高质量的系统评价和荟萃分析中比较更多的方法)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review of Selected Physiotherapeutic Methods Used in the Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain in Light of Evidence-Based Medicine Principles
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major social and economic problem. Its prevalence in 2015 was 540 million cases, which is 7% of the general population. A number of physiotherapeutic methods are used to treat these spinal complaints. Aims: This review aimed to compare the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and the Pilates Method Exercise Program (PMEP) in patients with LPB. Material and methods: This review analyzed studies considered high quality according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale (PEDro score above 7/10) in terms of the effectiveness of the methods analyzed: MDT, TENS, and PMEP. Results: In the studies reviewed, the MDT method was found to be inconclusively effective, while TENS, considered simple and popular, improved the condition of patients suffering from LBP. The PMEP method was the most effective, although it was compared only with the control group. Conclusions: It seems necessary to continue randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on these methods with standardized methodology (double and triple blinding, a follow-up evaluation of the participants, selecting therapists with similar professional experience, and a comparison of more methods in high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses).
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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