Suppr超能文献

个体患者教育在管理急性和/或亚急性下腰痛中的作用:与安慰剂相比,对疼痛和功能几乎没有额外益处。一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Individual Patient Education for Managing Acute and/or Subacute Low Back Pain: Little Additional Benefit for Pain and Function Compared to Placebo. A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

出版信息

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2022 Jul;52(7):432-445. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10698. Epub 2022 May 18.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of individual patient education for managing acute and/or subacute low back pain (LBP), compared to no intervention/placebo education, noneducational interventions, or other type of education.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL (up to September 30, 2020); reference lists of previous systematic reviews.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating individual education for patients with acute and/or subacute LBP.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogeneous RCTs. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs. There was moderate certainty evidence that individual patient education was more effective than placebo education for pain at medium term (mean difference [MD], -0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.52, -0.07) and physical function at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.25; 95% CI: -0.47, -0.02) and medium term (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.04), but with no clinically relevant effects. There was low-to-moderate certainty evidence that individual patient education was superior to noneducational interventions on short-term quality of life (MD, -12.00; 95% CI: -20.05, -3.95) and medium-term sick leave (odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.88). We found no clinically relevant between-group effects for any other comparison (low-to-high certainty of evidence) at any follow-up.

CONCLUSION

One or 2 hours of individual patient education probably makes little to no difference in pain and functional outcomes compared with placebo for patients with acute and/or subacute LBP. Considering its effects on other outcomes (eg, reassurance) and patients' desire for information about their condition, it is reasonable to retain patient education as part of a first-line approach when managing acute and subacute LBP. .

摘要

目的

评估针对急性和/或亚急性下背痛(LBP)患者的个体患者教育与不干预/安慰剂教育、非教育干预或其他类型教育的效果。

设计

系统评价和荟萃分析的随机试验。

文献检索

PubMed、CINAHL、PEDro、Embase、Scopus 和 CENTRAL(截至 2020 年 9 月 30 日);以前的系统评价的参考文献列表。

研究选择标准

评估急性和/或亚急性 LBP 患者个体教育的随机对照试验(RCT)。

数据综合

对临床同质 RCT 进行随机效应荟萃分析。使用推荐评估、制定和评估方法评估证据的确定性。

结果

我们纳入了 13 项 RCT。有中等确定性证据表明,个体患者教育在中期对疼痛(平均差异[MD],-0.79;95%置信区间[CI]:-1.52,-0.07)和短期(标准化均数差[SMD],-0.25;95%CI:-0.47,-0.02)和中期(SMD,-0.26;95%CI:-0.48,-0.04)更有效,而无临床相关影响。有低到中等确定性证据表明,个体患者教育在短期生活质量(MD,-12.00;95%CI:-20.05,-3.95)和中期病假(优势比=0.32;95%CI:0.11,0.88)方面优于非教育干预。我们在任何随访中都没有发现任何其他比较的临床相关组间效应(低到高确定性证据)。

结论

对于急性和/或亚急性 LBP 患者,与安慰剂相比,1 或 2 小时的个体患者教育可能对疼痛和功能结果几乎没有影响。考虑到它对其他结果(例如,安慰)和患者对其病情信息的需求,保留患者教育作为急性和亚急性 LBP 一线治疗方法的一部分是合理的。

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