Carla Vanti, Kevin Saccardo, Alice Panizzolo, Luca Turone, Andrew A Guccione, Paolo Pillastrini
{"title":"The effects of the addition of mechanical traction to physical therapy on low back pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Carla Vanti, Kevin Saccardo, Alice Panizzolo, Luca Turone, Andrew A Guccione, Paolo Pillastrini","doi":"10.5152/j.aott.2023.21323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparative effects of different types or parameters of lumbar traction in low back pain (LBP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CENTRAL, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched from their inception to March 31, 2021. We considered all RCTs comparing different types or parameters of lumbar traction on adults who complained of LBP with or without lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Any restriction regarding publication time or language was applied. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis employed a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, and five were pooled. Meta-analyses of results from five studies on LBP with LR showed no significant difference between diverse tractions modalities at short-term follow-up. Very low to low-quality evidence supports these results. High-force and low-force traction demonstrated clinically significant improvements in pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The literature suggests the short-term effectiveness of traction on pain in LBP with LR, regardless of the type or the dosage employed. Different effects of traction other the mechanical ones can be hypothesized. This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to the similar effects of different traction types or dosages.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I, Therapeutic Study.</p>","PeriodicalId":7097,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9f/90/aott-57-1-3.PMC10151852.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2023.21323","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparative effects of different types or parameters of lumbar traction in low back pain (LBP).
Methods: CENTRAL, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched from their inception to March 31, 2021. We considered all RCTs comparing different types or parameters of lumbar traction on adults who complained of LBP with or without lumbar radiculopathy (LR). Any restriction regarding publication time or language was applied. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Meta-analysis employed a random-effects model.
Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, and five were pooled. Meta-analyses of results from five studies on LBP with LR showed no significant difference between diverse tractions modalities at short-term follow-up. Very low to low-quality evidence supports these results. High-force and low-force traction demonstrated clinically significant improvements in pain.
Conclusion: The literature suggests the short-term effectiveness of traction on pain in LBP with LR, regardless of the type or the dosage employed. Different effects of traction other the mechanical ones can be hypothesized. This systematic review may be relevant for clinical practice due to the similar effects of different traction types or dosages.
目的:本研究旨在对随机对照试验(RCTs)进行系统回顾和荟萃分析，比较不同类型或参数腰椎牵引治疗腰痛(LBP)的效果。方法:检索CENTRAL、CINAHL、ISI Web of Science、PEDro、PubMed和Scopus数据库，检索时间为建站至2021年3月31日。我们考虑了所有比较腰痛伴或不伴腰椎神经根病(LR)的成人腰椎牵引不同类型或参数的随机对照试验。对出版时间或语言有任何限制。两名审稿人独立选择研究，进行质量评估，并提取结果。meta分析采用随机效应模型。结果:16项研究符合定性分析的纳入标准，5项纳入。5项LBP合并llr研究的meta分析结果显示，在短期随访中，不同牵引方式之间没有显著差异。非常低到低质量的证据支持这些结果。高强度和低强度牵引均表现出临床显著的疼痛改善。结论:文献提示，不论牵引类型或剂量如何，牵引对llr伴LBP疼痛的短期疗效。除了力学作用外，牵引力的其他作用也可以假设。由于不同牵引类型或剂量的效果相似，本系统综述可能与临床实践相关。证据等级:I级，治疗性研究。
期刊介绍：
Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica (AOTT) is an international, scientific, open access periodical published in accordance with independent, unbiased, and double-blinded peer-review principles. The journal is the official publication of the Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, and Turkish Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. It is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September, and November. The publication language of the journal is English.
The aim of the journal is to publish original studies of the highest scientific and clinical value in orthopedics, traumatology, and related disciplines. The scope of the journal includes but not limited to diagnostic, treatment, and prevention methods related to orthopedics and traumatology. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica publishes clinical and basic research articles, case reports, personal clinical and technical notes, systematic reviews and meta-analyses and letters to the Editor. Proceedings of scientific meetings are also considered for publication.
The target audience of the journal includes healthcare professionals, physicians, and researchers who are interested or working in orthopedics and traumatology field, and related disciplines.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
