Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Self Cite

Purpose Evaluate benefits and harms of education/advice for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. Methods Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education/advice compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of education/advice could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses and graded the certainty of evidence. Results We screened 2514 citations and 86 full text RCTs and included 15 RCTs. Most outcomes were assessed 3 to 6 months post-intervention. Compared with no intervention, education/advice improved pain (10 RCTs, MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.56), function (10 RCTs, SMD = -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.12), physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (2 RCTs, MD = 24.27, 95% CI 12.93 to 35.61), fear avoidance (5 RCTs, SMD = -1.4, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.29), depression (1 RCT; MD = 2.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.15), and self-efficacy (1 RCT; MD = 4.4, 95% CI 2.77 to 6.03). Education/advice conferred less benefit than sham Kinesio taping for improving fear avoidance regarding physical activity (1 RCT, MD = 5.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.54). Compared with usual care, education/advice improved pain (1 RCT, MD = -2.10, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.07) and function (1 RCT, MD = -7.80, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.32). There was little or no difference between education/advice and comparisons for other outcomes. For all outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion Education/advice in adults with CPLBP was associated with improvements in pain, function, HRQoL, and psychological outcomes, but with very low certainty.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured and Standardized Education or Advice for Chronic Primary low back pain in Adults

Southerst,

Hincapié,

et al. 2023

Self Cite

“…Any disagreements were resolved by consensus between paired reviewers or with a third reviewer when necessary. Forms and guidance for screening, ROB assessment, and data extraction were adapted from those used by Hayden et al in the conduct of the ‘exercise for chronic low back pain’ collaborative review, in which members of our team participated [ 19 ]. The forms were modified and completed using a web-based electronic systematic review software DistillerSR Inc. [ 20 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

Yu,

Wang,

Verville

et al. 2023

Self Cite

Purpose Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. Methods Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. Results We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = − 1.21, 95%CI − 1.50; − 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = − 1.56, 95%CI − 2.80; − 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = − 1.39, 95%CI − 2.00; − 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = − 0.57, 95%CI − 0.92; − 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = − 1.10, 95%CI − 1.71; − 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = − 1.04, 95%CI − 1.66; − 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = − 1.35, 95%CI − 1.86; − 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = − 2.55, 95%CI − 3.70; − 1.40) at 3 months. Conclusion Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.

“…Any disagreements were resolved by consensus between paired reviewers or with a third reviewer when necessary. Forms and guidance for screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction were adapted from those used by Hayden et al in the conduct of the ‘exercise for chronic low back pain’ collaborative review, in which members of our team participated [ 14 ]. The forms were modified and completed using a web-based electronic systematic review software DistillerSR Inc. [ 15 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

Verville,

Hincapié,

Southerst

et al. 2023

Self Cite

Purpose To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Results Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Conclusions Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes.