Analgesic effects of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised trials.

IF 7.6 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112974
Aidan G Cashin, Bradley M Furlong, Steven J Kamper, Diana De Carvalho, Luciana Ac Machado, Simon Re Davidson, Krystal K Bursey, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Amanda M Hall
{"title":"Analgesic effects of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised trials.","authors":"Aidan G Cashin, Bradley M Furlong, Steven J Kamper, Diana De Carvalho, Luciana Ac Machado, Simon Re Davidson, Krystal K Bursey, Christina Abdel Shaheed, Amanda M Hall","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or sham in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.</p><p><strong>Information sources: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 April 2023.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the 0 to 10 PEDro Scale.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals on outcome pain intensity (0 to 100 scale) at first assessment post-treatment for each treatment type and by duration of low back pain-(sub)acute (<12 weeks) and chronic (≥12 weeks). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 301 trials (377 comparisons) provided data on 56 different treatments or treatment combinations. One treatment for acute low back pain (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), and five treatments for chronic low back pain (exercise, spinal manipulative therapy, taping, antidepressants, transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonists) were efficacious; effect sizes were small and of moderate certainty. Three treatments for acute low back pain (exercise, glucocorticoid injections, paracetamol), and two treatments for chronic low back pain (antibiotics, anaesthetics) were not efficacious and are unlikely to be suitable treatment options; moderate certainty evidence. Evidence is inconclusive for remaining treatments due to small samples, imprecision, or low and very low certainty evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo. The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain due to the limited number of randomised participants and poor study quality. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled trials are warranted to address the remaining uncertainty in treatment efficacy along with greater consideration for placebo-control design of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>OSF Registries; https://osf.io/2dk9z.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112974","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo.

Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or sham in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.

Information sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 April 2023.

Risk of bias: Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the 0 to 10 PEDro Scale.

Synthesis of results: Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals on outcome pain intensity (0 to 100 scale) at first assessment post-treatment for each treatment type and by duration of low back pain-(sub)acute (<12 weeks) and chronic (≥12 weeks). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.

Results: A total of 301 trials (377 comparisons) provided data on 56 different treatments or treatment combinations. One treatment for acute low back pain (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), and five treatments for chronic low back pain (exercise, spinal manipulative therapy, taping, antidepressants, transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonists) were efficacious; effect sizes were small and of moderate certainty. Three treatments for acute low back pain (exercise, glucocorticoid injections, paracetamol), and two treatments for chronic low back pain (antibiotics, anaesthetics) were not efficacious and are unlikely to be suitable treatment options; moderate certainty evidence. Evidence is inconclusive for remaining treatments due to small samples, imprecision, or low and very low certainty evidence.

Conclusions: The current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo. The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain due to the limited number of randomised participants and poor study quality. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled trials are warranted to address the remaining uncertainty in treatment efficacy along with greater consideration for placebo-control design of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments.

Trial registration number: OSF Registries; https://osf.io/2dk9z.

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
非手术和非介入治疗腰痛的镇痛效果:安慰剂对照随机试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:探讨非手术和非介入治疗对成人腰痛的疗效,并与安慰剂进行比较。入选标准:在报告非特异性腰痛的成人(≥18岁)中,随机对照试验评估非手术和非介入治疗与安慰剂或假药的比较。信息来源:MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials检索自成立至2023年4月14日。偏倚风险:纳入研究的偏倚风险采用0 - 10 PEDro量表进行评估。结果综合:随机效应荟萃分析用于估计每种治疗类型的治疗后首次评估结果疼痛强度(0至100量表)和(亚)急性腰痛持续时间的合并效应和相应的95%置信区间(结果:总共301项试验(377项比较)提供了56种不同治疗或治疗组合的数据。一种治疗急性腰痛的方法(非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs))和五种治疗慢性腰痛的方法(运动、脊柱推拿疗法、贴敷、抗抑郁药、瞬时受体电位香草样蛋白1 (TRPV1)激动剂)有效;效应量较小,确定性中等。急性腰痛的三种治疗方法(运动、糖皮质激素注射、扑热息痛)和慢性腰痛的两种治疗方法(抗生素、麻醉剂)无效,不太可能是合适的治疗选择;中等确定性证据。由于样本量小、不精确或证据的确定性低或极低,对其余治疗方法的证据尚无定论。结论:目前的证据表明,十分之一的非手术和非介入治疗腰痛是有效的,仅提供比安慰剂更小的镇痛效果。由于随机受试者数量有限和研究质量差,大多数治疗方法的疗效尚不确定。需要进一步开展高质量的安慰剂对照试验,以解决治疗效果的不确定性,并更多地考虑非手术和非介入性治疗的安慰剂对照设计。试验注册号:OSF registres;https://osf.io/2dk9z。
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
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in the selection and measurement of outcomes in psychiatric trials. Patient-reported outcomes and acupuncture-related adverse events are overlooked in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. Developing a core outcome set for dysphagia interventions in Parkinson's disease: an international Delphi consensus study. Are we ready for AI-augmented generalists? Standardised mean difference.
×
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:604180095
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