Cashin Aidan G, Furlong Bradley M, Kamper Steven J, De Carvalho Diana, Machado Luciana Ac, Davidson Simon Re, Bursey Krystal K, Abdel Shaheed Christina, Hall Amanda M
Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112974.
To investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo.
Randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or sham in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.
MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 April 2023.
Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the 0 to 10 PEDro Scale.
Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals on outcome pain intensity (0 to 100 scale) at first assessment post-treatment for each treatment type and by duration of low back pain-(sub)acute (<12 weeks) and chronic (≥12 weeks). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.
A total of 301 trials (377 comparisons) provided data on 56 different treatments or treatment combinations. One treatment for acute low back pain (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), and five treatments for chronic low back pain (exercise, spinal manipulative therapy, taping, antidepressants, transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonists) were efficacious; effect sizes were small and of moderate certainty. Three treatments for acute low back pain (exercise, glucocorticoid injections, paracetamol), and two treatments for chronic low back pain (antibiotics, anaesthetics) were not efficacious and are unlikely to be suitable treatment options; moderate certainty evidence. Evidence is inconclusive for remaining treatments due to small samples, imprecision, or low and very low certainty evidence.
The current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo. The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain due to the limited number of randomised participants and poor study quality. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled trials are warranted to address the remaining uncertainty in treatment efficacy along with greater consideration for placebo-control design of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments.
OSF Registries; https://osf.io/2dk9z.
探讨与安慰剂相比,非手术和非介入治疗对成人腰痛的疗效。
评估非手术和非介入治疗与安慰剂或假治疗相比,在报告非特异性腰痛的成人(≥18岁)中的随机对照试验。
检索了MEDLINE、CINAHL、EMBASE、PsychInfo和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库,检索时间从建库至2023年4月14日。
使用0至10分的PEDro量表评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
采用随机效应荟萃分析,估计每种治疗类型在治疗后首次评估时的总体效应及相应的95%置信区间,评估结果疼痛强度(0至100分),并按腰痛持续时间分为(亚)急性(<12周)和慢性(≥12周)。使用推荐分级评估(GRADE)方法评估证据的确定性。
共有301项试验(377项比较)提供了56种不同治疗方法或治疗组合的数据。一种急性腰痛治疗方法(非甾体抗炎药)和五种慢性腰痛治疗方法(运动、脊柱推拿疗法、贴扎、抗抑郁药、瞬时受体电位香草酸亚型1激动剂)有效;效应量较小且确定性中等。三种急性腰痛治疗方法(运动、糖皮质激素注射、对乙酰氨基酚)和两种慢性腰痛治疗方法(抗生素、麻醉剂)无效,不太可能是合适的治疗选择;证据确定性中等。由于样本量小、不精确或证据确定性低或非常低,其余治疗方法的证据尚无定论。
目前的证据表明,十分之一的非手术和非介入性腰痛治疗方法有效,仅比安慰剂有小的镇痛效果。由于随机参与者数量有限和研究质量差,大多数治疗方法的疗效尚不确定。有必要进行进一步的高质量、安慰剂对照试验,以解决治疗疗效方面的剩余不确定性,并更多地考虑非手术和非介入治疗的安慰剂对照设计。
OSF注册库;https://osf.io/2dk9z 。