Suppr超能文献

联合保守干预措施是否能有效减轻坐骨神经痛患者的疼痛、残疾和/或疼痛总体评分,这些患者已知存在神经病理性疼痛机制?

Are combined conservative interventions effective in reducing pain, disability and/or global rating of pain in people with sciatica with known neuropathic pain mechanisms?

机构信息

School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.

Clinical Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

出版信息

Eur Spine J. 2024 Nov;33(11):4214-4228. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08477-2. Epub 2024 Sep 25.

Abstract

PURPOSE

National Clinical Guidelines recommend an integrated combination of conservative management strategies for sciatica. However, the efficacy of such combinations have not been established. The purpose of this systemic review with meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of combined conservative (non-pharmacological) compared to single interventions for people with sciatica with a confirmed neuropathic mechanism.

METHODS

The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42023464011. The databases included were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycINFO, and grey literature sources from inception until January 2024. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of combined non-pharmacological interventions in comparison to a control intervention among individuals with sciatica of a neuropathic origin identified using diagnostic or clinical tests. Primary outcomes were back pain, leg pain, and disability. The secondary outcome was global rating of change. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (using Cochrane ROB2) were assessed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model with inverse variance weighting used for the metanalysis using SPSS v 29.

RESULTS

3,370 articles were identified, of which 6 were included. Risk of bias was high in one study and had some concerns in the remaining 5 studies for each outcome measure. There was evidence of efficacy for combined interventions for back pain in the short-and long-term (SMD - 0.56 (95% CI -0.91, -0.22, p = 0.01, I = 0.2; SMD - 0.44 (95% CI -0.79, -0.1, p = 0.03, I = 0.00), and for disability in the short term (SMD - 0.48 (95% CI -0.92, -0.04, p = 0.04, I = 0.72). There was no evidence of efficacy for leg pain at any time point (( short term SMD - 0.45 (95% CI -0.91, 0.02, p = 0.06, I = 0.65), medium term (SMD - 0.29 (95% CI -1.12, 0.54, p = 0.35, I = 0.82), long term (SMD - 0.40 (95% CI -1.23, 0.44, p = 0.18, I = 0.57).Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

There are few studies that have combined conservative (non-pharmacological) interventions for the management of sciatica with a neuropathic component pain mechanism, as recommended by National Clinical Guidelines. This review indicates that combining conservative (no-pharmacological) management strategies appeared more effective than single interventions for the outcomes of low back pain in the short and long term, and for disability in the short term, but not for leg pain at any time point. The overall low certainty of evidence, suggests that future studies with more robust methodologies are needed.

摘要

目的

国家临床指南建议将保守管理策略综合应用于坐骨神经痛。然而,这些组合的疗效尚未得到证实。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是确定经确认具有神经病理性机制的坐骨神经痛患者联合保守(非药物)治疗与单一干预相比的疗效。

方法

系统评价已在 PROSPERO CRD42023464011 上注册。纳入的数据库包括 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、CINAHL(EBSCO)、Embase、PubMed、Scopus、APA PsycINFO 和从开始到 2024 年 1 月的灰色文献来源。纳入标准为评估联合非药物干预措施与对照干预措施在经诊断或临床检查确定为神经病理性起源的坐骨神经痛患者中的有效性的随机对照试验。主要结局为背痛、腿痛和残疾。次要结局为总体变化的综合评估。两名评审员对研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估(使用 Cochrane ROB2)进行评估。使用 SPSS v 29 进行荟萃分析,使用随机效应模型和逆方差加权进行荟萃分析。

结果

共确定了 3370 篇文章,其中 6 篇被纳入。一项研究的偏倚风险较高,其余 5 项研究在每个结局测量中都存在一些担忧。联合干预措施在短期和长期(SMD -0.56(95% CI -0.91,-0.22,p=0.01,I=0.2;SMD -0.44(95% CI -0.79,-0.1,p=0.03,I=0.00))和短期残疾(SMD -0.48(95% CI -0.92,-0.04,p=0.04,I=0.72))方面具有疗效证据。在任何时间点,联合干预措施对腿痛均无疗效((短期 SMD -0.45(95% CI -0.91,0.02,p=0.06,I=0.65))、中期(SMD -0.29(95% CI -1.12,0.54,p=0.35,I=0.82))和长期(SMD -0.40(95% CI -1.23,0.44,p=0.18,I=0.57))。证据的确定性范围从极低到中等。

结论

根据国家临床指南,很少有研究将具有神经病理性成分疼痛机制的保守(非药物)干预措施联合用于坐骨神经痛的治疗。本综述表明,与单一干预相比,联合保守(非药物)管理策略在短期和长期内对腰痛和短期残疾的疗效更好,但对任何时间点的腿痛均无效。总体证据确定性较低,表明需要采用更稳健方法的未来研究。

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