Walker Bruce F, French Simon D, Grant William, Green Sally
School of Chiropractic and Sports Science, Murdoch University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Murdoch, Australia, 6150.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;2010(4):CD005427. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005427.pub2.
Chiropractors commonly use a combination of interventions to treat people with low-back pain (LBP).
To determine the effects of combined chiropractic interventions (that is, a combination of therapies, other than spinal manipulation alone) on pain, disability, back-related function, overall improvement, and patient satisfaction in adults with LBP, aged 18 and older.
We searched: The Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register (May 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), and MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), CINAHL (from January 1982), MANTIS (from Inception) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (from Inception) to May 2009. We also screened references of identified articles and contacted chiropractic researchers.
All randomised trials comparing the use of combined chiropractic interventions (rather than spinal manipulation alone) with no treatment or other therapies.
At least two review authors selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data using standardised forms. Both descriptive synthesis and meta-analyses were performed.
We included 12 studies involving 2887 participants with LBP. Three studies had low risk of bias. Included studies evaluated a range of chiropractic procedures in a variety of sub-populations of people with LBP.No trials were located of combined chiropractic interventions compared to no treatment. For acute and subacute LBP, chiropractic interventions improved short- and medium-term pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.04) and MD -0.89 (95%CI -1.60 to -0.18)) compared to other treatments, but there was no significant difference in long-term pain (MD -0.46 (95% CI -1.18 to 0.26)). Short-term improvement in disability was greater in the chiropractic group compared to other therapies (SMD -0.36 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.02)). However, the effect was small and all studies contributing to these results had high risk of bias. There was no difference in medium- and long-term disability. No difference was demonstrated for combined chiropractic interventions for chronic LBP and for studies that had a mixed population of LBP.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short-term and pain in the medium-term for acute and subacute LBP. However, there is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with LBP when compared to other interventions. Future research is very likely to change the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results.
脊椎按摩师通常采用多种干预措施来治疗腰痛(LBP)患者。
确定联合脊椎按摩疗法(即多种疗法的组合,而非仅脊柱推拿)对18岁及以上成年LBP患者的疼痛、残疾、背部相关功能、总体改善情况及患者满意度的影响。
我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane背部回顾小组试验注册库(2009年5月)、CENTRAL(Cochrane图书馆2009年第2期)、MEDLINE(自1966年1月起)、EMBASE(自1980年1月起)、CINAHL(自1982年1月起)、MANTIS(自创建起)以及脊椎按摩文献索引(自创建起)至2009年5月。我们还筛选了已识别文章的参考文献,并联系了脊椎按摩研究人员。
所有比较联合脊椎按摩疗法(而非仅脊柱推拿)与不治疗或其他疗法的随机试验。
至少两名综述作者选择研究、评估偏倚风险并使用标准化表格提取数据。进行了描述性综合分析和荟萃分析。
我们纳入了12项研究,涉及2887名LBP患者。三项研究的偏倚风险较低。纳入研究评估了多种LBP亚人群中的一系列脊椎按摩程序。未找到联合脊椎按摩疗法与不治疗对比的试验。对于急性和亚急性LBP,与其他治疗相比,脊椎按摩疗法改善了短期和中期疼痛(标准化均数差 -0.25(95%可信区间 -0.46至 -0.04)和均数差 -0.89(95%可信区间 -1.60至 -0.18)),但长期疼痛无显著差异(均数差 -0.46(95%可信区间 -1.18至0.26))。与其他疗法相比,脊椎按摩疗法组短期残疾改善更大(标准化均数差 -0.36(95%可信区间 -0.70至 -0.02))。然而,效果较小,且所有促成这些结果的研究偏倚风险较高。中期和长期残疾无差异。对于慢性LBP以及LBP混合人群的研究,联合脊椎按摩疗法未显示出差异。
联合脊椎按摩疗法在短期内对急性和亚急性LBP的疼痛和残疾有轻微改善,中期对疼痛有改善。然而,目前没有证据支持或反驳与其他干预措施相比,这些干预措施对LBP患者的疼痛或残疾具有临床意义上的差异。未来的研究很可能会改变效应估计以及我们对结果的信心。