Efficacy of manual therapy for sacroiliac joint pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.6 Q2 REHABILITATION Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-14 DOI:10.1080/10669817.2024.2316420
Robert J Trager, Anthony N Baumann, Hudson Rogers, Joshua Tidd, Kevin Orellana, Gordon Preston, Keith Baldwin
{"title":"Efficacy of manual therapy for sacroiliac joint pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Robert J Trager, Anthony N Baumann, Hudson Rogers, Joshua Tidd, Kevin Orellana, Gordon Preston, Keith Baldwin","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2024.2316420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study examined the efficacy of manual therapy for pain and disability measures in adults with sacroiliac joint pain syndrome (SIJPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched six databases, including gray literature, on 24 October 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining sacroiliac joint (SIJ) manual therapy outcomes via pain or disability in adults with SIJPS. We evaluated quality via the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and certainty via Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) in post-treatment pain and disability scores were pooled using random-effects models in meta-regressions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 16 RCTs (421 adults; mean age = 37.7 years), with 11 RCTs being meta-analyzed. Compared to non-manual physiotherapy (i.e. exercise ± passive modalities; 10 RCTs) or sham (1 RCT) interventions, SIJ manual therapy did not significantly reduce pain (SMD: -0.88; 95%-CI: -1.84; 0.08, <i>p</i> = 0.0686) yet had a statistically significant moderate effect in reducing disability (SMD: -0.67; 95% CI: -1.32; -0.03, <i>p</i> = 0.0418). The superiority of individual manual therapies was unclear due to low sample size, wide confidence intervals for effect estimates, and inability to meta-analyze five RCTs with a unique head-to-head design. RCTs were of 'good' (56%) or 'fair' (44%) quality, and heterogeneity was high. Certainty was very low for pain and low for disability outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SIJ manual therapy appears efficacious for improving disability in adults with SIJPS, while its efficacy for pain is uncertain. It is unclear which specific manual therapy techniques may be more efficacious. These findings should be interpreted cautiously until further high-quality RCTs are available examining manual therapy against control groups such as exercise.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42023394326).</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"561-572"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11578406/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2024.2316420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study examined the efficacy of manual therapy for pain and disability measures in adults with sacroiliac joint pain syndrome (SIJPS).

Methods: We searched six databases, including gray literature, on 24 October 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining sacroiliac joint (SIJ) manual therapy outcomes via pain or disability in adults with SIJPS. We evaluated quality via the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and certainty via Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) in post-treatment pain and disability scores were pooled using random-effects models in meta-regressions.

Results: We included 16 RCTs (421 adults; mean age = 37.7 years), with 11 RCTs being meta-analyzed. Compared to non-manual physiotherapy (i.e. exercise ± passive modalities; 10 RCTs) or sham (1 RCT) interventions, SIJ manual therapy did not significantly reduce pain (SMD: -0.88; 95%-CI: -1.84; 0.08, p = 0.0686) yet had a statistically significant moderate effect in reducing disability (SMD: -0.67; 95% CI: -1.32; -0.03, p = 0.0418). The superiority of individual manual therapies was unclear due to low sample size, wide confidence intervals for effect estimates, and inability to meta-analyze five RCTs with a unique head-to-head design. RCTs were of 'good' (56%) or 'fair' (44%) quality, and heterogeneity was high. Certainty was very low for pain and low for disability outcomes.

Conclusion: SIJ manual therapy appears efficacious for improving disability in adults with SIJPS, while its efficacy for pain is uncertain. It is unclear which specific manual therapy techniques may be more efficacious. These findings should be interpreted cautiously until further high-quality RCTs are available examining manual therapy against control groups such as exercise.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023394326).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骶髂关节疼痛综合征的人工疗法疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:本研究探讨了手法治疗对骶髂关节疼痛综合征(SIJPS)成人患者疼痛和残疾测量的疗效:本研究探讨了人工疗法对骶髂关节疼痛综合征(SIJPS)成人患者疼痛和残疾测量的疗效:我们检索了六个数据库,包括灰色文献、NaN无效日期NaN、研究骶髂关节(SIJ)人工疗法对成人骶髂关节疼痛综合征患者疼痛或残疾疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们通过物理治疗证据数据库量表来评估质量,并通过建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)来评估确定性。在元回归中使用随机效应模型对治疗后疼痛和残疾评分的标准化均值差异(SMDs)进行了汇总:我们纳入了 16 项研究性研究(421 名成人;平均年龄 = 37.7 岁),其中 11 项研究进行了元分析。与非徒手物理疗法(即运动±被动方式;10 项研究性试验)或假干预(1 项研究性试验)相比,SIJ 手法疗法并不能显著减轻疼痛(SMD:-0.88;95%-CI:-1.84;0.08,p = 0.0686),但在减轻残疾方面具有统计学意义的中等效果(SMD:-0.67;95% CI:-1.32;-0.03,p = 0.0418)。由于样本量较少、效应估计值的置信区间较宽,以及无法对五项采用独特的头对头设计的研究性试验进行元分析,因此单项人工疗法的优越性尚不明确。临床试验的质量为 "良好"(56%)或 "一般"(44%),异质性较高。疼痛结果的确定性很低,残疾结果的确定性也很低:结论:SIJ手法治疗对改善成人SIJPS患者的残疾状况似乎有效,但对疼痛的疗效尚不确定。目前还不清楚哪些特定的手法治疗技术可能更有效。在有更多高质量的 RCT 研究将徒手疗法与运动等对照组进行对比研究之前,应谨慎解读这些研究结果:prospero(CRD42023394326)。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of manual therapy for sacroiliac joint pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Recognition of a patient with neck autonomic dysfunction: findings from a rare case report of harlequin syndrome in direct access physiotherapy. Autonomic nervous system and endocrine system response to upper or lower cervical spine mobilization in males with persistent post-concussion symptoms: a proof-of-concept trial. Management of concussion symptoms utilizing Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy: a case series. Differences in physical examination findings between those who present with or without headache soon after a whiplash injury: a cross-sectional study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1