跑步对患有非特异性慢性腰背痛的成人既可接受又有效:ASTEROID 随机对照试验

IF 11.6 1区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES British Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1136/bjsports-2024-108245
Christopher Neason, Claire L Samanna, Scott D Tagliaferri, Daniel L Belavý, Steve J Bowe, Matthew J Clarkson, Emma A Craige, Romina Gollan, Luana C Main, Clint T Miller, Ulrike H Mitchell, Niamh L Mundell, David Scott, Jamie L Tait, Grace E Vincent, Patrick J Owen
{"title":"跑步对患有非特异性慢性腰背痛的成人既可接受又有效:ASTEROID 随机对照试验","authors":"Christopher Neason, Claire L Samanna, Scott D Tagliaferri, Daniel L Belavý, Steve J Bowe, Matthew J Clarkson, Emma A Craige, Romina Gollan, Luana C Main, Clint T Miller, Ulrike H Mitchell, Niamh L Mundell, David Scott, Jamie L Tait, Grace E Vincent, Patrick J Owen","doi":"10.1136/bjsports-2024-108245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Running is one of the most accessible forms of exercise, yet its suitability for adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) is unknown. This study assessed the efficacy and acceptability of running in adults with chronic LBP. Methods This two-arm parallel (1:1) individually randomised controlled trial allocated 40 participants (mean (SD) age: 33 (6) years, female: 50%) with non-specific chronic LBP to a 12-week intervention or waitlist control. The intervention was a progressive run–walk interval programme comprising three 30-min sessions per week that were digitally delivered and remotely supported by an exercise physiologist. Efficacy outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Acceptability outcomes were attrition, adherence and adverse events. Results At 12-week follow-up, the intervention improved average pain intensity (mean net difference (95% CI): −15.30 (–25.33, –5.27) points, p=0.003), current pain intensity (−19.35 (–32.01, –6.69) points, p=0.003) and disability (−5.20 (–10.12, –0.24) points, P=0.038), compared with control. There was no attrition, and mean (SD) training adherence was 70% (20%; ie, 2.1 of 3 sessions per week). Nine non-serious adverse events deemed likely study-related were reported (lower limb injury/pain: n=7, syncope associated with an underlying condition: n=1, LBP: n=1). Conclusions A run–walk programme was considered an acceptable intervention by the participants to improve the pain intensity and disability in individuals aged 18–45 years with non-specific chronic LBP when compared with the control. An individualised and conservative run–walk programme should be considered a suitable form of physical activity for adults with chronic LBP. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12622001276741. Registered on 29 September 2022. Data are available upon reasonable request. The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.","PeriodicalId":9276,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Running is acceptable and efficacious in adults with non-specific chronic low back pain: the ASTEROID randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Neason, Claire L Samanna, Scott D Tagliaferri, Daniel L Belavý, Steve J Bowe, Matthew J Clarkson, Emma A Craige, Romina Gollan, Luana C Main, Clint T Miller, Ulrike H Mitchell, Niamh L Mundell, David Scott, Jamie L Tait, Grace E Vincent, Patrick J Owen\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bjsports-2024-108245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives Running is one of the most accessible forms of exercise, yet its suitability for adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) is unknown. This study assessed the efficacy and acceptability of running in adults with chronic LBP. Methods This two-arm parallel (1:1) individually randomised controlled trial allocated 40 participants (mean (SD) age: 33 (6) years, female: 50%) with non-specific chronic LBP to a 12-week intervention or waitlist control. The intervention was a progressive run–walk interval programme comprising three 30-min sessions per week that were digitally delivered and remotely supported by an exercise physiologist. Efficacy outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Acceptability outcomes were attrition, adherence and adverse events. Results At 12-week follow-up, the intervention improved average pain intensity (mean net difference (95% CI): −15.30 (–25.33, –5.27) points, p=0.003), current pain intensity (−19.35 (–32.01, –6.69) points, p=0.003) and disability (−5.20 (–10.12, –0.24) points, P=0.038), compared with control. There was no attrition, and mean (SD) training adherence was 70% (20%; ie, 2.1 of 3 sessions per week). Nine non-serious adverse events deemed likely study-related were reported (lower limb injury/pain: n=7, syncope associated with an underlying condition: n=1, LBP: n=1). Conclusions A run–walk programme was considered an acceptable intervention by the participants to improve the pain intensity and disability in individuals aged 18–45 years with non-specific chronic LBP when compared with the control. An individualised and conservative run–walk programme should be considered a suitable form of physical activity for adults with chronic LBP. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12622001276741. Registered on 29 September 2022. Data are available upon reasonable request. The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108245\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108245","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 跑步是最容易接受的运动方式之一,但它是否适合慢性腰背痛(LBP)成人患者还不得而知。本研究评估了跑步对慢性腰背痛成人患者的疗效和可接受性。方法 这项双臂平行(1:1)单独随机对照试验将 40 名患有非特异性慢性腰背痛的参与者(平均(标清)年龄:33(6)岁,女性:50%)分配到为期 12 周的干预或等待名单对照组。干预措施是一项渐进式跑步-步行间歇训练计划,每周三次,每次 30 分钟,由一名运动生理学家以数字方式提供远程支持。疗效结果为自我报告的疼痛强度(100 分视觉模拟量表)和残疾程度(Oswestry 残疾指数)。可接受性结果为自然减员、依从性和不良事件。结果 在 12 周的随访中,干预改善了平均疼痛强度(平均净差异(95% CI):-15.30(-25.30)):-15.30(-25.33,-5.27)分,P=0.003)、当前疼痛强度(-19.35(-32.01,-6.69)分,P=0.003)和残疾程度(-5.20(-10.12,-0.24)分,P=0.038)。没有自然减员,平均(标度)训练坚持率为 70%(20%;即每周 3 次训练中的 2.1 次)。有 9 例非严重不良事件被认为可能与研究有关(下肢损伤/疼痛:7 例;与潜在疾病相关的晕厥:1 例;腰痛:1 例)。结论 与对照组相比,参与者认为跑步-步行计划是一项可接受的干预措施,可改善 18-45 岁非特异性慢性枸杞痛患者的疼痛强度和残疾状况。对于患有慢性腰椎间盘突出症的成年人来说,个性化和保守的跑步-步行计划应被视为一种合适的体育锻炼方式。试验注册号:澳大利亚-新西兰临床试验注册中心:ACTRN12622001276741。注册日期:2022 年 9 月 29 日。如有合理要求,可提供相关数据。本研究中使用和分析的数据集可向通讯作者索取。
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
Running is acceptable and efficacious in adults with non-specific chronic low back pain: the ASTEROID randomised controlled trial
Objectives Running is one of the most accessible forms of exercise, yet its suitability for adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) is unknown. This study assessed the efficacy and acceptability of running in adults with chronic LBP. Methods This two-arm parallel (1:1) individually randomised controlled trial allocated 40 participants (mean (SD) age: 33 (6) years, female: 50%) with non-specific chronic LBP to a 12-week intervention or waitlist control. The intervention was a progressive run–walk interval programme comprising three 30-min sessions per week that were digitally delivered and remotely supported by an exercise physiologist. Efficacy outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Acceptability outcomes were attrition, adherence and adverse events. Results At 12-week follow-up, the intervention improved average pain intensity (mean net difference (95% CI): −15.30 (–25.33, –5.27) points, p=0.003), current pain intensity (−19.35 (–32.01, –6.69) points, p=0.003) and disability (−5.20 (–10.12, –0.24) points, P=0.038), compared with control. There was no attrition, and mean (SD) training adherence was 70% (20%; ie, 2.1 of 3 sessions per week). Nine non-serious adverse events deemed likely study-related were reported (lower limb injury/pain: n=7, syncope associated with an underlying condition: n=1, LBP: n=1). Conclusions A run–walk programme was considered an acceptable intervention by the participants to improve the pain intensity and disability in individuals aged 18–45 years with non-specific chronic LBP when compared with the control. An individualised and conservative run–walk programme should be considered a suitable form of physical activity for adults with chronic LBP. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12622001276741. Registered on 29 September 2022. Data are available upon reasonable request. The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
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
27.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
217
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) is a dynamic platform that presents groundbreaking research, thought-provoking reviews, and meaningful discussions on sport and exercise medicine. Our focus encompasses various clinically-relevant aspects such as physiotherapy, physical therapy, and rehabilitation. With an aim to foster innovation, education, and knowledge translation, we strive to bridge the gap between research and practical implementation in the field. Our multi-media approach, including web, print, video, and audio resources, along with our active presence on social media, connects a global community of healthcare professionals dedicated to treating active individuals.
期刊最新文献
IOC consensus statement: interpersonal violence and safeguarding in sport Improving treatment in patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty: the role of preoperative low-load blood flow restricted resistance training(PhD Academy Award) Nationwide incidence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in higher-level athletes in Sweden: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry linked to six sports organisations Refining the recipe or spoiling the broth? Reframing perceptions of programme adaptation in sports injury prevention Elevating the games: the future of the Olympics and Paralympics at higher altitudes
×
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