Hochheim Martin, Ramm Philipp, Amelung Volker
Institute of Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health System Research, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), Hannover, Germany.
Generali Health Solutions GmbH (GHS), Köln, Germany.
Pain Pract. 2023 Apr;23(4):409-436. doi: 10.1111/papr.13198. Epub 2023 Jan 9.
To evaluate the effectiveness of low-dosed outpatient biopsychosocial interventions versus active physical interventions on pain intensity and disability in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain.
Research has shown that primary care biopsychosocial interventions (PCBI) can reduce pain intensity and disability. While scattered studies support low-dosed (≤ 15 treatment hours) PCBI, no systematic review exists comparing the effectiveness of low-dosed PCBI treatment with traditional physical activity interventions in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Randomized controlled trials that evaluate low-dosed PCBI compared to physical treatment with an active component such as exercise, physical activity or usual physiotherapy treatment for adult participants (18 years or older), who suffer from CLBP were included. Not recommended interventions that feature only passive therapies, spinal surgery or pharmacological treatment, and studies with inpatient multidisciplinary-based rehabilitation (MBR) were excluded.
Databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2021. Language was restricted to English or German. Keywords and derivatives of "chronic back pain", "exercise intervention", "cognitive-behavioral therapy", "primary care" and "randomized controlled trials" were used. Sources were CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed and Web of Science. Search was finished on March 08, 2022. Data appraisal, extraction and synthesis followed JBI guidance for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Risk of Bias was assessed using JBI 13-item checklist for randomized controlled trials. The GRADE approach for grading the certainty of evidence was followed.
PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022302771.
Eighteen RCTs were found eligible and 15 trials comprising a total of 1531 participants suffering from CLBP were entered in the meta-analyses. Risk of Bias was low. Overall evidence was moderate. Significant effects in favor of PCBI were found for pain intensity post-treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.84 to -0.34, I = 97%, p = 0.004) as well as at short-term (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.08, I = 0%, p = 0.004), long term (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.42 to -0.17, I = 96%, p = 0.01) and very long-term (SMD = -1.13, 95% CI = -1.93 to -0.33, I = 94%, p = 0.005) follow-up. Significant effects in favor of PCBI for physical function were found post-treatment (SMD = -1.33, 95% CI = -2.17 to -0.49, I = 97%, p = 0.002) at short-term (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.36 to -0.04, I = 0%, p = 0.01) and at long-term follow-up (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI = -2.06 to -0.28, I = 98%, p = 0.01). The results were characterized by high heterogeneity due to different types (cognitive behavioral therapy, pain-neuroscience education, mindfulness, and motivation), delivery modes (individual and/or group), durations (3-12 weeks) and contact times (2-15 h) of PCBI. In sensitivity analysis outliers were removed to reduce heterogeneity. The results remained significant for pain intensity at short-term (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.08, I = 0%, p = 0.004) and long-term follow-up (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.41 to -0.03, I = 39%, p = 0.02).
This meta-analysis suggests that low-dosed PCBI has favorable effects in terms of disability and pain intensity compared to active physical treatments alone. All conducted meta-analyses indicate that biopsychosocial interventions produce better outcomes than active physical treatment alone. Therefore, we strongly recommend decision makers and clinical practitioners to analyze how psychosocial elements can be introduced into outpatient (low-dosed) CLBP interventions.
评估低剂量门诊生物心理社会干预与积极物理干预对非特异性慢性下腰痛成人患者疼痛强度和功能障碍的效果。
研究表明,初级保健生物心理社会干预(PCBI)可减轻疼痛强度和功能障碍。虽然有零散研究支持低剂量(≤15个治疗小时)的PCBI,但尚无系统评价比较低剂量PCBI治疗与传统体育活动干预对非特异性慢性下腰痛(CLBP)成人患者的效果。
纳入评估低剂量PCBI与包含运动、体育活动或常规物理治疗等积极成分的物理治疗相比的随机对照试验,成年参与者(18岁及以上)患有CLBP。不推荐仅采用被动疗法、脊柱手术或药物治疗的干预措施,排除基于住院多学科康复(MBR)的研究。
检索数据库,时间范围从建库至2021年12月31日。语言限于英语或德语。使用了“慢性背痛”“运动干预”“认知行为疗法”“初级保健”和“随机对照试验”的关键词及衍生词。来源包括护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、Ovid医学数据库、物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)、PubMed和科学引文索引(Web of Science)。检索于2022年3月8日完成。数据评估、提取和综合遵循循证卫生保健合作中心(JBI)关于有效性系统评价的指南。使用JBI随机对照试验13项清单评估偏倚风险。遵循证据质量分级的GRADE方法。
国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)2022 CRD42022302771。
发现18项随机对照试验符合条件,15项试验共1531名患有CLBP的参与者纳入荟萃分析。偏倚风险较低。总体证据为中等质量。治疗后疼痛强度方面发现PCBI有显著效果(标准化均数差(SMD)=-1.09,95%置信区间(CI)=-(1.8)4至-0.34,I²=97%,p=0.004),短期(SMD=-0.23,95% CI=-0.39至-0.08,I²=0%,p=0.004)、长期(SMD=-0.79,95% CI=-1.42至-0.17,I²=96%,p=0.01)和极长期随访(SMD=-1.13,95% CI=-1.93至-0.33,I²=94%,p=0.005)时也有显著效果。治疗后身体功能方面发现PCBI有显著效果(SMD=-1.33,95% CI=-2.17至-0.49,I²=97%,p=0.002),短期(SMD=-0.20,95% CI=-0.36至-0.04,I²=0%,p=0.01)和长期随访时也有显著效果(SMD=-1.17,95% CI=-2.06至-0.28,I²=98%,p=0.01)。由于PCBI的类型(认知行为疗法、疼痛神经科学教育、正念和动机)、实施方式(个体和/或团体)、持续时间(3 - 12周)和接触时间(2 - 15小时)不同,结果具有高度异质性。在敏感性分析中去除了异常值以减少异质性。短期(SMD=-0.23,95% CI=-0.39至-0.08,I²=0%,p=0.004)和长期随访时疼痛强度的结果仍然显著(SMD=-0.22,95% CI=-0.41至-0.03,I²=39%,p=0.02)。
这项荟萃分析表明,与单纯的积极物理治疗相比,低剂量PCBI在功能障碍和疼痛强度方面具有良好效果。所有进行的荟萃分析均表明,生物心理社会干预比单纯的积极物理治疗产生更好的结果。因此,我们强烈建议决策者和临床从业者分析如何将心理社会因素引入门诊(低剂量)CLBP干预中。