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 9 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":9.0000,"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
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
Analgesic effects of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised trials. Identifying actionable statements in Chinese health guidelines: a cross-sectional study. Therapeutic quality of exercise interventions for chronic low back pain: a meta-research study using i-CONTENT tool. Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial. Rating certainty when the target threshold is the null and the point estimate is close to the null.
×
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