Department of Neurobiology, Division of Physiotherapy Caring Sciences, and Society, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Mar 15;38(6):E350-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828435fb.
Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
To determine the short-term, intermediate, and long-term effectiveness of MCE, with regard to pain and disability, in patients with chronic and recurrent low-back pain.
Previous meta-analyses have shown no difference between the effects of MCE and general exercise in the treatment of low back pain. Several high quality studies on this topic have been published lately, warranting a new meta-analysis.
We searched electronic databases up to October 2011 for randomized controlled trials clearly distinguishing MCE from other treatments. We extracted pain and disability outcomes and converted them to a 0 to 100 scale. We used the RevMan5 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) software to perform pooled analyses to determine the weighted mean differences (WMDs) between MCE and 5 different control interventions.
Sixteen studies were included. The pooled results favored MCE compared with general exercise with regard to disability during all time periods (improvement in WMDs ranged from -4.65 to -4.86), and with regard to pain in the short and intermediate term (WMDs were -7.80 and -6.06, respectively). Compared with spinal manual therapy, MCE was superior with regard to disability during all time periods (the WMDs ranged between -5.27 and -6.12), but not with regard to pain. Furthermore, MCE was superior to minimal intervention during all time periods with regard to both pain (the WMDs ranged between -10.18 and -13.32) and disability (the WMDs ranged between -5.62 and -9.00).
In patients with chronic and recurrent low back pain, MCE seem to be superior to several other treatments. More studies are, however, needed to investigate what subgroups of patients experiencing LBP respond best to MCE.
随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
确定慢性和复发性腰痛患者接受运动控制训练(MCE)在短期、中期和长期的疗效,评估其在疼痛和残疾方面的效果。
先前的荟萃分析表明,MCE 与一般运动疗法在治疗腰痛方面没有差异。最近有几项高质量的关于这个主题的研究已经发表,因此需要进行新的荟萃分析。
我们检索了截至 2011 年 10 月的电子数据库,以寻找明确区分 MCE 与其他治疗方法的随机对照试验。我们提取了疼痛和残疾的结果,并将其转换为 0 到 100 的评分。我们使用 RevMan5(Nordic Cochrane Centre,哥本哈根,丹麦)软件进行汇总分析,以确定 MCE 与 5 种不同对照干预措施之间的加权均数差(WMDs)。
纳入了 16 项研究。汇总结果表明,在所有时间段内,MCE 与一般运动疗法相比,在残疾方面更具优势(WMD 改善范围为-4.65 至-4.86),在短期和中期疼痛方面也更具优势(WMD 分别为-7.80 和-6.06)。与脊柱手法治疗相比,MCE 在所有时间段内的残疾改善方面均具有优势(WMD 范围为-5.27 至-6.12),但在疼痛方面没有优势。此外,在所有时间段内,MCE 在疼痛(WMD 范围为-10.18 至-13.32)和残疾(WMD 范围为-5.62 至-9.00)方面均优于最低干预措施。
对于慢性和复发性腰痛患者,MCE 似乎优于其他几种治疗方法。然而,需要进一步研究哪些亚组的腰痛患者对 MCE 反应最好。