Suppr超能文献

体外冲击波治疗腰痛:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

College of Health and Rehabilitation, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Mianyang Hospital, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Mianyang, China.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Dec 29;102(52):e36596. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036596.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To provide high-quality evidence for extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

A computerized search screened trials of ESWT for LBP, and the time range was from the establishment of databases to August 2023, including CNKI, CBMdisc, Wanfang Data, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The outcomes were extracted, including patients' pain, physical and psychological conditions, and adverse reactions. Meta-analysis was completed using Revman 5.4 and Stata 15 software, and GRADEpro software quantitated rate the evidence and assigned a recommendation strength.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 1749 patients. After treatment, patients in the ESWT group had lower scores in the visual analog scale (VAS) (mean difference [MD] = -1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-1.47, -0.80), P < .00001), Oswestry disability index (ODI) [MD = -6.01, 95%CI (-7.97, -4.05), P < .00001], and Beck depression inventory [MD = -3.89, 95%CI (-6.59, -1.20), P = .005]; finger-floor distance [MD = -3.71, 95%CI (-5.26, -2.17), P < .00001] was shorter; Japanese orthopedic association scores [MD = 3.20, 95%CI (1.56, 4.85), P = .0001] were higher; at the 3-month follow-up, the VAS [MD = -1.29, 95%CI (-2.39, -0.19), P = .02] and ODI [MD = -5.95, 95%CI (-10.06, -1.84), P = .005] remained lower; adverse reactions [odds ratio = 0.19, 95%CI (0.07, 0.52), P = .001] were less, and the valid cases [odds ratio = 3.84, 95%CI (2.47, 5.96), P < .00001] were more. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were stable; Egger test found no publication bias in VAS (P = .270) and valid cases (P = .747); the trim and fill analysis tested the robustness of ODI scores due to the publication bias (P = .029), and the effect sizes before and after the trim and fill were consistent, which means the result was robust.

CONCLUSION

ESWT for LBP has efficacy and safety in improving pain, dysfunction, and psychological conditions compared to other therapies. ESWT has shown advantages in terms of long-term efficacy. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and more objective outcomes are required.

摘要

背景

为了为腰痛(LBP)的体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)提供高质量的证据。

方法

计算机检索了从数据库建立到 2023 年 8 月的关于 ESWT 治疗 LBP 的试验,包括中国知网、CBMdisc、万方数据、VIP、PubMed、Web of Science、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库。提取患者的疼痛、身体和心理状况以及不良反应等结局。使用 Revman 5.4 和 Stata 15 软件进行 Meta 分析,并使用 GRADEpro 软件对证据进行定量评估并给出推荐强度。

结果

本 Meta 分析纳入了 22 项研究,共 1749 名患者。治疗后,ESWT 组患者的视觉模拟评分(VAS)[MD=-1.14,95%置信区间(CI)(-1.47,-0.80),P<0.00001]、Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)[MD=-6.01,95%CI(-7.97,-4.05),P<0.00001]和贝克抑郁量表[MD=-3.89,95%CI(-6.59,-1.20),P=0.005]评分均较低;指距地面距离[MD=-3.71,95%CI(-5.26,-2.17),P<0.00001]更短;日本矫形协会评分[MD=3.20,95%CI(1.56,4.85),P=0.0001]更高;3 个月随访时,VAS[MD=-1.29,95%CI(-2.39,-0.19),P=0.02]和 ODI[MD=-5.95,95%CI(-10.06,-1.84),P=0.005]仍较低;不良反应[比值比(OR)=0.19,95%CI(0.07,0.52),P=0.001]较少,有效病例[OR=3.84,95%CI(2.47,5.96),P<0.00001]更多。敏感性分析显示结果稳定;Egger 检验发现 VAS(P=0.270)和有效病例(P=0.747)的发表偏倚无统计学意义;trim and fill 分析由于发表偏倚测试了 ODI 评分的稳健性(P=0.029),且 trim and fill 前后的效应量一致,表明结果稳健。

结论

与其他疗法相比,ESWT 治疗 LBP 在改善疼痛、功能障碍和心理状况方面具有疗效和安全性。ESWT 在长期疗效方面具有优势。需要更大样本量和更客观结局的随机对照试验。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3eb5/10754595/524465b05a86/medi-102-e36596-g001.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