scholarly journals Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Wewege ◽  
◽  
Matthew K. Bagg ◽  
Matthew D. Jones ◽  
James H. McAuley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Pain Duration ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain. Methods We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology. Discussion This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019145257

Efficacy of conservative therapy in older people with nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and GRADE recommendations

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 104177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorena K.B. Amaral ◽  
Mateus B. Souza ◽  
Mariana G.M. Campos ◽  
Vanessa A. Mendonça ◽  
Alessandra Bastone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Older People ◽  
Conservative Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Tibetan herbal pain-relieving plaster for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 111727
Author(s):  
Mingxiao Yang ◽  
Susan Q. Li ◽  
Colleen M. Smith ◽  
Yi Lily Zhang ◽  
Ting Bao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Effects of low back pain on balance performance in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Ge ◽  
Chuhuai Wang ◽  
Haohan Zhou ◽  
Qiuhua Yu ◽  
Xin Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Elderly People ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Centre Of Pressure ◽  
Balance Performance

Abstract Background Research suggests that individuals with low back pain (LBP) may have poorer motor control compared to their healthy counterparts. However, the sample population of almost 90% of related articles are young and middle-aged people. There is still a lack of a systematic review about the balance performance of elderly people with low back pain. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the effects of LBP on balance performance in elderly people. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for full-text articles published before January 2020. We included the articles that 1) investigated the elderly people with LBP; 2) assessed balance performance with any quantifiable clinical assessment or measurement tool and during static or dynamic activity; 3) were original research. Two independent reviewers screened the relevant articles, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results Thirteen case-control studies comparing balance performance parameters between LBP and healthy subjects were included. The experimental group (LBP group) was associated with significantly larger area of centre of pressure movement (P < 0.001), higher velocity of centre of pressure sway in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), longer path length in the anteroposterior direction (P < 0.001), slower walking speed (P = 0.05), and longer timed up and go test time (P = 0.004) than the control group. Conclusion The results showed that balance performance was impaired in elderly people with LBP. We should pay more attention to the balance control of elderly people with LBP.

The relationships between low back pain and lumbar lordosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1180-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se-Woong Chun ◽  
Chai-Young Lim ◽  
Keewon Kim ◽  
Jinseub Hwang ◽  
Sun G. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Intervertebral disc therapies for non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2110280
Author(s):  
Camille Daste ◽  
Stéphanie Laclau ◽  
Margaux Boisson ◽  
François Segretin ◽  
Antoine Feydy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Intervertebral Disc ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Limitations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term

Objectives: We aim to evaluate the benefits and harms of intervertebral disc therapies (IDTs) in people with non-specific chronic low back pain (NScLBP). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of IDTs versus placebo interventions, active comparators or usual care. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and CINHAL databases and conference abstracts were searched from inception to June 2020. Two independent investigators extracted data. The primary outcome was LBP intensity at short term (1 week–3 months), intermediate term (3–6 months) and long term (after 6 months). Results: Of 18 eligible trials (among 1396 citations), five assessed glucocorticoids (GCs) IDTs and were included in a quantitative synthesis; 13 assessed other products including etanercept ( n = 2), tocilizumab ( n = 1), methylene blue ( n = 2), ozone ( n = 2), chymopapaine ( n = 1), glycerol ( n = 1), stem cells ( n = 1), platelet-rich plasma ( n = 1) and recombinant human growth and differentiation factor-5 ( n = 2), and were included in a narrative synthesis. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) for GC IDTs for LBP intensity and activity limitations were −1.33 (−2.34; −0.32) and −0.76 (−1.85; 0.34) at short term, −2.22 (−5.34; 0.90) and −1.60 (−3.51; 0.32) at intermediate term and −1.11 (−2.91; 0.70) and −0.63 (−1.68; 0.42) at long term, respectively. Odds ratios (95% CI) for serious and minor adverse events with GC IDTs were 1.09 (0.25; 4.65) and 0.97 (0.49; 1.91). Conclusion: GC IDTs are associated with a reduction in LBP intensity at short term in people with NScLBP. Positive effects are not sustained. IDTs have no effect on activity limitations. Our conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity and a limited methodological quality across studies. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42019106336.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document