Suppr超能文献

手法治疗腰痛患者的假治疗效应:系统评价和成对荟萃分析。

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.

机构信息

Research, AIMO, Saronno, Italy

Research, AIMO, Saronno, Italy.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2021 May 4;11(5):e045106. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045106.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included.Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score.

RESULTS

24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI -20.46 to 8.78).ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique.Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings.Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198301.

摘要

目的

评估手法治疗(MT)试验中假程序在治疗背痛(BP)中的效果和可靠性,为临床试验的发展提供方法学指导。

设计

系统评价和荟萃分析。

方法和分析

截至 2020 年 8 月 20 日,筛选了不同的数据库。纳入了涉及成人 BP(颈和腰)、急性或慢性的随机对照试验。手接触假治疗(ST)与不同的 MT(物理治疗、脊椎按摩疗法、整骨疗法、按摩、运动疗法和反射疗法)和无治疗进行比较。主要结局是 BP 改善、盲法成功率和不良事件(AE)。次要结局是脱落人数。二分类结局采用风险比(RR)分析,连续变量采用均数差(MD),95%CI。最小临床重要差异为疼痛评分 30mm 的变化。

结果

纳入了 24 项试验,共涉及 2019 名参与者。极低的证据质量表明,与 ST 相比,MT 治疗的疼痛改善程度具有临床意义(MD 3.86,95%CI 3.29 至 4.43),ST 与无治疗之间无差异(MD-5.84,95%CI-20.46 至 8.78)。ST 的可靠性表明,参与者的正确检测率较高(范围为 46.7%至 83.5%),脊椎手法治疗是最被认可的技术。低质量证据表明,ST 和 MT 之间的 AE 和脱落率相似(RR AE=0.84,95%CI 0.55 至 1.28,RR 脱落=0.98,95%CI 0.77 至 1.25)。无治疗的脱落率相似(RR=0.82,95%CI 0.43 至 1.55)。

结论

与 ST 相比,MT 似乎没有临床相关的效果。与无治疗相比,效果相似。假 MT 研究的异质性和极低的证据质量使得这些综述结果不确定。未来的试验应开发出类似的可靠的 ST,与主动治疗相似,以确保参与者的盲法,并保证可靠检测具有临床意义的治疗效果所需的适当样本量。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42020198301。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d78b/8098952/ab3c1cd2c7b4/bmjopen-2020-045106f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验