成人慢性腰背痛初级保健治疗综述》(Umbrella Review of Primary Care Treatments for Adults With Chronic Low Back Pains)。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.03.002
Filip Gedin, Tobias Sundberg, Vibeke Sparring, Martin Skeppholm, Emelie Heintz, Niklas Zethraeus
{"title":"成人慢性腰背痛初级保健治疗综述》(Umbrella Review of Primary Care Treatments for Adults With Chronic Low Back Pains)。","authors":"Filip Gedin, Tobias Sundberg, Vibeke Sparring, Martin Skeppholm, Emelie Heintz, Niklas Zethraeus","doi":"10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to identify, critically assess, and summarize evidence of the effectiveness of primary care treatments for adults with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews focusing on primary care treatments for NSCLBP. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane library databases for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care treatments for adults with NSCLBP published between January 2007 and March 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of these systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist. We selected systematic reviews with a low or moderate risk of bias and graded the evidence based on Grading of GRADE criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the initial 66 systematic reviews meeting our inclusion criteria, 19 systematic reviews with low or moderate bias risk were selected for analysis. These reviews included a total of 365 studies involving 62 832 participants. The evidence suggested moderate to high support for the effectiveness of certain primary care treatments in improving pain and function in NSCLBP patients. These treatments included NSAIDs and opioids compared to placebos, spinal manipulation versus exercise/physical therapy, and MBR versus exercise/education/advice/no treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recommendations for specific primary care treatments for NSCLBP in adults remain inconclusive. Further high-quality systematic reviews and RCTs are needed to better understand the effectiveness of these treatments. Future RCTs should prioritize the assessment of NSAIDs, opioids, spinal manipulation, and MBR, as they appear promising for improving NSCLBP outcomes in certain comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":16132,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Umbrella Review of Primary Care Treatments for Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Filip Gedin, Tobias Sundberg, Vibeke Sparring, Martin Skeppholm, Emelie Heintz, Niklas Zethraeus\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.03.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to identify, critically assess, and summarize evidence of the effectiveness of primary care treatments for adults with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews focusing on primary care treatments for NSCLBP. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane library databases for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care treatments for adults with NSCLBP published between January 2007 and March 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of these systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist. We selected systematic reviews with a low or moderate risk of bias and graded the evidence based on Grading of GRADE criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the initial 66 systematic reviews meeting our inclusion criteria, 19 systematic reviews with low or moderate bias risk were selected for analysis. These reviews included a total of 365 studies involving 62 832 participants. The evidence suggested moderate to high support for the effectiveness of certain primary care treatments in improving pain and function in NSCLBP patients. These treatments included NSAIDs and opioids compared to placebos, spinal manipulation versus exercise/physical therapy, and MBR versus exercise/education/advice/no treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recommendations for specific primary care treatments for NSCLBP in adults remain inconclusive. Further high-quality systematic reviews and RCTs are needed to better understand the effectiveness of these treatments. Future RCTs should prioritize the assessment of NSAIDs, opioids, spinal manipulation, and MBR, as they appear promising for improving NSCLBP outcomes in certain comparisons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.03.002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.03.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在识别、批判性评估和总结成人非特异性慢性腰背痛(NSCLBP)初级保健治疗的有效性证据:我们对NSCLBP初级保健治疗方法的系统综述进行了总体回顾。我们在 PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中检索了 2007 年 1 月至 2021 年 3 月间发表的评估 NSCLBP 成人初级保健治疗方法的随机对照试验 (RCT) 系统综述。两名审稿人使用 AMSTAR 核对表独立评估了这些系统性综述的质量。我们选择了偏倚风险较低或中等的系统性综述,并根据 GRADE 分级标准对证据进行了分级:在最初符合纳入标准的 66 篇系统综述中,我们选择了 19 篇具有低度或中度偏倚风险的系统综述进行分析。这些综述共包括 365 项研究,涉及 62 832 名参与者。有证据表明,某些初级保健治疗对改善 NSCLBP 患者的疼痛和功能具有中度到高度的有效性。这些治疗方法包括非甾体抗炎药和阿片类药物与安慰剂的比较、脊柱手法与运动/物理疗法的比较以及MBR与运动/教育/建议/不治疗的比较:结论:针对成人 NSCLBP 的特定初级保健治疗方法的建议仍无定论。需要进一步开展高质量的系统综述和研究性临床试验,以更好地了解这些治疗方法的有效性。未来的研究性临床试验应优先评估非甾体抗炎药、阿片类药物、脊柱推拿和MBR,因为在某些比较中,它们似乎有望改善NSCLBP的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Umbrella Review of Primary Care Treatments for Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify, critically assess, and summarize evidence of the effectiveness of primary care treatments for adults with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).

Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews focusing on primary care treatments for NSCLBP. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane library databases for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating primary care treatments for adults with NSCLBP published between January 2007 and March 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of these systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist. We selected systematic reviews with a low or moderate risk of bias and graded the evidence based on Grading of GRADE criteria.

Results: Among the initial 66 systematic reviews meeting our inclusion criteria, 19 systematic reviews with low or moderate bias risk were selected for analysis. These reviews included a total of 365 studies involving 62 832 participants. The evidence suggested moderate to high support for the effectiveness of certain primary care treatments in improving pain and function in NSCLBP patients. These treatments included NSAIDs and opioids compared to placebos, spinal manipulation versus exercise/physical therapy, and MBR versus exercise/education/advice/no treatment.

Conclusions: Recommendations for specific primary care treatments for NSCLBP in adults remain inconclusive. Further high-quality systematic reviews and RCTs are needed to better understand the effectiveness of these treatments. Future RCTs should prioritize the assessment of NSAIDs, opioids, spinal manipulation, and MBR, as they appear promising for improving NSCLBP outcomes in certain comparisons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
63
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is an international and interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of conservative health care principles and practices. The JMPT is the premier biomedical publication in the chiropractic profession and publishes peer reviewed, research articles and the Journal''s editorial board includes leading researchers from around the world. The Journal publishes original primary research and review articles of the highest quality in relevant topic areas. The JMPT addresses practitioners and researchers needs by adding to their clinical and basic science knowledge and by informing them about relevant issues that influence health care practices.
期刊最新文献
Umbrella Review of Primary Care Treatments for Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain. Factors Predicting Nonadherence to Treatment Recommendations for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain in India: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Efficacy of Myofascial Release With Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Conductive Glove for Neck Myofascial Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial Study. Utilization of Chiropractic Care at The World Games 2017: A Retrospective Descriptive Study. Chiropractic Care in a Multidisciplinary Sports Health Care Environment: A Survey of Canadian National Team Athletes
×
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