268
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    27
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥18 years) population with chronic (≥12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy ( n = 37), back school ( n = 5), TENS ( n = 6), low level laser therapy ( n = 3), behavioural treatment ( n = 21), patient education ( n = 1), traction ( n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment ( n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1518-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in location and selection of studies.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.

            To assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain. Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials. A total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months. Pain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments. Ten trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments. The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain.

              A number of treatments are widely prescribed for chronic back pain, but few have been rigorously evaluated. We examined the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), a program of stretching exercises, or a combination of both for low back pain. Patients with chronic low back pain (median duration, 4.1 years) were randomly assigned to receive daily treatment with TENS (n = 36), sham TENS (n = 36), TENS plus a program of exercises (n = 37), or sham TENS plus exercises (n = 36). After one month no clinically or statistically significant treatment effect of TENS was found on any of 11 indicators of outcome measuring pain, function, and back flexion; there was no interactive effect of TENS with exercise. Overall improvement in pain indicators was 47 percent with TENS and 42 percent with sham TENS (P not significant). The 95 percent confidence intervals for group differences excluded a major clinical benefit of TENS for most outcomes. By contrast, after one month patients in the exercise groups had significant improvement in self-rated pain scores, reduction in the frequency of pain, and greater levels of activity as compared with patients in the groups that did not exercise. The mean reported improvement in pain scores was 52 percent in the exercise groups and 37 percent in the nonexercise groups (P = 0.02). Two months after the active intervention, however, most patients had discontinued the exercises, and the initial improvements were gone. We conclude that for patients with chronic low back pain, treatment with TENS is no more effective than treatment with a placebo, and TENS adds no apparent benefit to that of exercise alone.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +31-10-7032114 , +31-10-7032127 , m.vanmiddelkoop@erasmusmc.nl
                Journal
                Eur Spine J
                European Spine Journal
                Springer-Verlag (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0940-6719
                1432-0932
                18 July 2010
                18 July 2010
                January 2011
                : 20
                : 1
                : 19-39
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and EMGO-Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Dutch Institute for Health Care Improvement CBO, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Health Sciences and EMGO-Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [5 ]Department of Health Sciences and EMGO-Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                1518
                10.1007/s00586-010-1518-3
                3036018
                20640863
                a5881a26-233f-4fb9-ad2a-148cf73645ba
                © The Author(s) 2010
                History
                : 14 October 2009
                : 21 June 2010
                : 3 July 2010
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag 2011

                Orthopedics
                systematic review,behavioural,low back pain,conservative,efficacy,effectiveness of interventions,rehabilitation,education,multidisciplinary,tens,back school,treatment effects,exercise,meta-analyses

                Comments

                Comment on this article