Suppr超能文献

治疗腰痛的分类方法效果微小,无临床意义:一项系统评价与荟萃分析

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

作者信息

Tagliaferri Scott D, Mitchell Ulrike H, Saueressig Tobias, Owen Patrick J, Miller Clint T, Belavy Daniel L

出版信息

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2022 Feb;52(2):67-84. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10761. Epub 2021 Nov 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' ) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. .

摘要

目的

确定分类系统是否能改善腰痛(LBP)患者的患者报告结局。

设计

系统评价与荟萃分析。

文献检索

检索MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science核心合集和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库数据库,检索时间从建库至2021年6月21日。对先前系统评价的参考文献列表和纳入的试验进行筛选。

研究选择标准

我们纳入了将分类系统(如麦肯齐方法或STarT Back工具)与任何对照进行比较的随机试验。排除评估患有特定脊柱疾病(如骨折或肿瘤)参与者的研究。

数据合成

结局指标为患者报告的腰痛强度、腿痛强度和残疾情况。我们使用修订后的Cochrane协作偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,并采用推荐分级评估、制定和评价方法判断证据的确定性。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析,并采用Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman调整,以估计标准化均数差值(SMD;Hedges' )和95%置信区间(CI)。亚组分析探讨了分类系统、对照类型、疼痛类型和疼痛持续时间。

结果

纳入了24项评估分类系统的试验和34项评估亚类的试验。对于腰痛强度(SMD,-0.31;95%CI:-0.54,-0.07;P = 0.014,n = 4416,n = 21项试验)和残疾情况(SMD,-0.27;95%CI:-0.46,-0.07;P = 0.011,n = 4809,n = 24项试验),干预结束时效应较小且证据确定性低,与一般干预相比,分类治疗更具优势,但腿痛强度方面并非如此。干预结束时,没有特定类型的分类系统在改善疼痛强度和残疾方面优于一般干预。没有任何估计值超过临床有意义的效应量。

结论

对于患者报告的疼痛强度和残疾情况,在管理腰痛时,没有足够的证据支持使用分类系统而非一般干预措施。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验