Search

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of exercise for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) vs our main comparisons: (1) sham treatment and (2) no treatment at short term (main follow-up time)., Data Sources and Study Selection: A comprehensive search up till November 2021 was conducted in numerous databases for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise in adults with acute LBP (<6 weeks). Studies examining LBP with a specific etiology were excluded. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-specific functional status, and recovery., Data Extraction: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence., Data Synthesis: We identified 23 randomized controlled trials (2674 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants) and on functional status (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants) in the short term. There is very low-quality evidence which suggests no difference in effect on pain and functional status for exercise vs no treatment (2 studies; n=157, not pooled due to heterogeneity) at short-term follow-up. Similar results were found for the other follow-up moments. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded because many randomized controlled trials had a high risk of bias, were small in size, and/or there was substantial heterogeneity., Conclusion: Exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo and no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. A recent realist review identified the behavioural mechanisms of trust, motivation, and confidence as key to optimising exercise prescription for persistent LBP., Objectives: Our objectives were to (1) design and develop an online training programme, and (2) gain end-user feedback on the useability, usefulness, informativeness and confidence in using the online training programme using a mixed-methods, pre-post study design., Participants and Intervention: The online training programme was designed and developed using the results from a realist review, and input from a multi-disciplinary stakeholder group. A five-module online training programme was piloted by the first 10 respondents who provided feedback on the course. Further modifications were made prior to additional piloting. The satisfaction, usefulness, ease of use, and confidence of clinicians in applying the learned principles were assessed on completion., Results: The online programme was advertised to clinicians using social media. Forty-four respondents expressed initial interest, of which 22 enrolled and 18 completed the course. Of the participants, most were physiotherapists (n = 16/18, 88.9%), aged between 30 and 49 (n = 11/18, 61.1%). All participants were satisfied with the course content, rated the course platform as easy to use and useful, and reported that they were very confident to apply the learning. Most (n = 10/14, 71.4%) reported that their manner of prescribing exercise had changed after completion of the course., Conclusions: An online training programme to optimise exercise prescription for persistent LBP appears to be easy to use, informative and improves confidence to apply the learning., (© 2024 The Author(s). Musculoskeletal Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Persistent low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and therapeutic exercise is recommended as a first-line treatment in international guidelines. The effects of exercise on clinical outcomes of pain and physical function are small to moderate, despite broader impacts on cardiovascular systems, biological health, mood, and emotional well-being. Therapeutic exercise prescription is defined as exercise that is prescribed by a clinician for a health-related treatment. It is unknown how therapeutic exercise prescription creates effects on outcomes of importance. Realist reviews explore how underlying mechanisms (M) may be active in the context (C) of certain situations, settings, or populations to create an intended or unintended outcome (O). Our objective is to explore and understand the mechanisms by which therapeutic exercise prescription changes outcomes for people with persistent LBP., Methods: We will develop initial programme theories based on preliminary data from a previous systematic review and consensus workshop. These theories will be modified with input from a steering group (experts), a stakeholder group (people with lived experience of exercise for persistent LBP and clinicians), and a scoping search of the published literature. An information specialist will design and undertake an iterative search strategy. These will be used to create CMO configurations, which will be refined and tested using the literature. The realist review will be reported following RAMESES guidance., Discussion: Realist reviews are uncommon in LBP research to date, yet those offer an opportunity to contrast with traditional methods of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews and provide additional information regarding the contexts and mechanisms that may trigger certain outcomes. This can aid our understanding of the contextual features that may influence exercise prescription, such as for whom they are most effective, in what setting, how they are implemented and why. This realist synthesis will enhance our understanding of therapeutic exercise prescription to improve adherence and engagement and ultimately will provide clinically relevant recommendations regarding exercise prescription for those with persistent LBP., Systematic Review Registration: The review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017072023)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise., Methods: In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers., Results: We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics., Conclusions: This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MvT and the members of the Chronic LBP IPD Meta-analysis Group are investigators of the individual trials included in the IPD data set., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: JAH reports a grant from Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation (now Research Nova Scotia) (2011), which partially funded the Cochrane review update providing data for this study. RO reports grants from Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation (2011), received by her institution, during the conduct of the study. LW reports a grant from the Versus Arthritis Primary Care Centre (2017–2020) to fund her PhD, and the Society of Back Pain Research (2019) which enabled the collaboration for this study.

Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of core stability exercises for treating athletes with low back pain (LBP)., Data Sources: We searched several databases (Medline, AMED, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and EMBASE). Our eligibility criteria consisted of articles published in a peer-reviewed journal in English, using any prospective clinical study design, where athletes with nonspecific LBP were treated with core stability exercises in at least 1 study arm, and back pain intensity and/or disability were used as outcome measures. All included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, whereas non-RCT studies were assessed for quality using the Downs and Black checklist., Main Results: Five studies including 151 participants met the inclusion criteria, including 2 RCTs. The quality of the literature on this topic was deemed to be low overall, with only 1 non-RCT having a moderate quality score, and 1 RCT having a lower risk of bias. Four studies reported statistically significant decreases in back pain intensity in their core stability intervention group., Conclusions: The quantity and quality of literature on the use of core stability exercises for treating LBP in athletes is low. The existing evidence has been conducted on small and heterogeneous study populations using interventions that vary drastically with only mixed results and short-term follow-up. This precludes the formulation of strong conclusions, and additional high quality research is clearly needed.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability and has a major socioeconomic impact. Despite a large amount of research in the field, there remains uncertainty about the best treatment approach for chronic LBP, and identification of relevant patient subgroups is an important goal. Exercise therapy is a commonly used strategy to treat chronic low back pain and is one of several interventions that evidence suggests is moderately effective.In parallel with an update of the 2005 Cochrane review, we will undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, which will allow us to standardize analyses across studies and directly derive results, and to examine differential treatment effects across individuals to estimate how patients' characteristics modify treatment benefit., Methods/design: We will use standard systematic review methods advocated by the Cochrane Collaboration to identify relevant trials. We will include trials evaluating exercise therapy compared to any or no other interventions in adult non-specific chronic LBP. Our primary outcomes of interest include pain, functional status, and return-to-work/absenteeism. We will assess potential risk of bias for each study meeting selection criteria, using criteria and methods recommended by the Cochrane BRG.The original individual participant data will be requested from the authors of selected trials having moderate to low risk of bias. We will test original data and compile a master dataset with information about each trial mapped on a pre-specified framework, including reported characteristics of the study sample, exercise therapy characteristics, individual patient characteristics at baseline and all follow-up periods, subgroup and treatment effect modifiers investigated. Our analyses will include descriptive, study-level meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of the overall treatment effect, and individual-level IPD meta-analyses of treatment effect modification. IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using a one-step approach where the IPD from all studies are modeled simultaneously while accounting for the clustering of participants with studies., Discussion: We will analyze IPD across a large number of LBP trials. The resulting larger sample size and consistent presentation of data will allow additional analyses to explore patient-level heterogeneity in treatment outcomes and prognosis of chronic LBP.

Study Design: Critical appraisal of the literature., Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess if results of back pain trials are statistically significant and clinically important., Summary of Background Data: There seems to be a discrepancy between conclusions reported by authors and actual results of randomized controlled trials. Little attention has been paid to the problem of over-reporting of conclusions., Methods: All 43 trials of the Cochrane review on exercise therapy for low back pain were included. Descriptive analyses were conducted., Results: Eighteen trials reported positive conclusions in favor of exercise. Only six of the 43 studies showed both clinically important and statistically significant differences in favor of the exercise groups on function, and 4 on pain., Conclusion: It seems that many conclusions of studies of exercise therapy for chronic low back pain have been based on statistical significance of results rather than on clinical importance and, consequently, may have been too positive. Authors of trials should report not only statistical significance of results but also clinical importance.

Background: Exercise therapy is widely used as an intervention in low back pain., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy in adult nonspecific acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain versus no treatment and other conservative treatments., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases to October 2004; citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews., Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy for adult nonspecific low back pain and measuring pain, function, return to work or absenteeism, and global improvement outcomes., Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and outcomes at short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up., Data Synthesis: 61 randomized, controlled trials (6390 participants) met inclusion criteria: acute (11 trials), subacute (6 trials), and chronic (43 trials) low back pain (1 trial was unclear). Evidence suggests that exercise therapy is effective in chronic back pain relative to comparisons at all follow-up periods. Pooled mean improvement (of 100 points) was 7.3 points (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.9 points) for pain and 2.5 points (CI, 1.0 to 3.9 points) for function at earliest follow-up. In studies investigating patients (people seeking care for back pain), mean improvement was 13.3 points (CI, 5.5 to 21.1 points) for pain and 6.9 points (CI, 2.2 to 11.7 points) for function, compared with studies where some participants had been recruited from a general population (for example, with advertisements). Some evidence suggests effectiveness of a graded-activity exercise program in subacute low back pain in occupational settings, although the evidence for other types of exercise therapy in other populations is inconsistent. In acute low back pain, exercise therapy and other programs were equally effective (pain, 0.03 point [CI, -1.3 to 1.4 points])., Limitations: Limitations of the literature, including low-quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures inconsistent and poor reporting, and possibility of publication bias., Conclusions: Exercise therapy seems to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low back pain, particularly in health care populations. In subacute low back pain populations, some evidence suggests that a graded-activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, although evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low back pain populations, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments.

Background: Exercise therapy encompasses a heterogeneous group of interventions. There continues to be uncertainty about the most effective exercise approach in chronic low back pain., Purpose: To identify particular exercise intervention characteristics that decrease pain and improve function in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases to October 2004 and citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews., Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy in populations with chronic (>12 weeks duration) low back pain., Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data on exercise intervention characteristics: program design (individually designed or standard program), delivery type (independent home exercises, group, or individual supervision), dose or intensity (hours of intervention time), and inclusion of additional conservative interventions., Data Synthesis: 43 trials of 72 exercise treatment and 31 comparison groups were included. Bayesian multivariable random-effects meta-regression found improved pain scores for individually designed programs (5.4 points [95% credible interval (CrI), 1.3 to 9.5 points]), supervised home exercise (6.1 points [CrI, -0.2 to 12.4 points]), group (4.8 points [CrI, 0.2 to 9.4 points]), and individually supervised programs (5.9 points [CrI, 2.1 to 9.8 points]) compared with home exercises only. High-dose exercise programs fared better than low-dose exercise programs (1.8 points [CrI, -2.1 to 5.5 points]). Interventions that included additional conservative care were better (5.1 points [CrI, 1.8 to 8.4 points]). A model including these most effective intervention characteristics would be expected to demonstrate important improvement in pain (18.1 points [CrI, 11.1 to 25.0 points] compared with no treatment and 13.0 points [CrI, 6.0 to 19.9 points] compared with other conservative treatment) and small improvement in function (5.5 points [CrI, 0.5 to 10.5 points] compared with no treatment and 2.7 points [CrI, -1.7 to 7.1 points] compared with other conservative treatment). Stretching and strengthening demonstrated the largest improvement over comparisons., Limitations: Limitations of the literature, including low-quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures and inconsistent and poor reporting; publication bias., Conclusions: Exercise therapy that consists of individually designed programs, including stretching or strengthening, and is delivered with supervision may improve pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Strategies should be used to encourage adherence. Future studies should test this multivariable model and further assess specific patient-level characteristics and exercise types.

Objective This study aimed to estimate the proportion of exercise interventions tested in clinical trials of people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) that meet the World Health Organization's (WHO) physical activity guidelines. Methods A secondary analysis of the 2021 Cochrane review of exercise therapy for CLBP was performed. Data from each study were extracted by 1 reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Data extracted related to the frequency, duration and intensity of each exercise intervention, and the proportion of exercise interventions that met the WHO's physical activity guidelines (aerobic, muscle strengthening, or both) were determined. Results The 249 included trials comprised 426 exercise interventions. Few interventions reported an exercise type and dose consistent with the WHO guidelines (aerobic: 1.6%, muscle strengthening: 5.6%, both: 1.6%). Poor reporting of exercise intensity limited our ability to determine whether interventions met the guidelines. Conclusion Few interventions tested in clinical trials for people with CLBP prescribe an exercise type and dose consistent with the WHO guidelines. Therefore, they do not appear sufficiently dosed to achieve broader health outcomes. Future trials should investigate the effect of WHO guideline-recommended exercise interventions on patient-reported outcomes (pain and disability) as well as health-related outcomes in people with CLBP. Impact This exploratory analysis showed the lack of exercise interventions in the CLBP literature that meet the WHO's physical activity guidelines. With people in chronic pain groups, such as people with CLBP, being at higher risk for noncommunicable disease, it appears this is a key consideration for exercise practitioners when designing interventions for people with CLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As commissioned by the WHO, we updated and expanded the scope of four systematic reviews to inform its (in development) clinical practice guideline for the management of CPLBP in adults, including older adults. Methodological details and results of each review are described in the respective articles in this series. In the last article of this series, we discuss methodological considerations, clinical implications and recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Evaluate benefits and harms of structured exercise programs 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) in electronic databases (inception to 17 May 2022). Eligible RCTs targeted structured exercise programs compared to placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of exercise could be isolated). We extracted outcomes, appraised risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. Results: We screened 2503 records (after initial screening through Cochrane RCT Classifier and Cochrane Crowd) and 398 full text RCTs. Thirteen RCTs rated with overall low or unclear risk of bias were synthesized. Assessing individual exercise types (predominantly very low certainty evidence), pain reduction was associated with aerobic exercise and Pilates vs. no intervention, and motor control exercise vs. sham. Improved function was associated with mixed exercise vs. usual care, and Pilates vs. no intervention. Temporary increased minor pain was associated with mixed exercise vs. no intervention, and yoga vs. usual care. Little to no difference was found for other comparisons and outcomes. When pooling exercise types, exercise vs. no intervention probably reduces pain in adults (8 RCTs, SMD = − 0.33, 95% CI − 0.58 to − 0.08) and functional limitations in adults and older adults (8 RCTs, SMD = − 0.31, 95% CI − 0.57 to − 0.05) (moderate certainty evidence). Conclusions: With moderate certainty, structured exercise programs probably reduce pain and functional limitations in adults and older people with CPLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the effects of specific types of exercise treatments on pain intensity and functional limitation outcomes for adults with chronic low back pain? Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Adults with non-specific low back pain for ≥ 12 weeks. Exercise treatments prescribed or planned by a health professional that involved conducting specific activities, postures and/or movements with a goal to improve low back pain outcomes. Pain intensity (eg, visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) and back-related functional limitations (eg, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index), each standardised to range from 0 to 100. This review included 217 randomised controlled trials with 20,969 participants and 507 treatment groups. Most exercise types were more effective than minimal treatment for pain and functional limitation outcomes. Network meta-analysis results were compatible with moderate to clinically important treatment effects for Pilates, McKenzie therapy, and functional restoration (pain only) and flexibility exercises (function only) compared with minimal treatment, other effective treatments and other exercise types. The estimated mean differences for these exercise types compared with minimal treatment ranged from −15 to −19 for pain and from −10 to −12 for functional limitation. This review found evidence that Pilates, McKenzie therapy and functional restoration were more effective than other types of exercise treatment for reducing pain intensity and functional limitations. Nevertheless, people with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to perform the exercise that they enjoy to promote adherence. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009790. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* BACKGROUND: Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a treatment-based classification system founded on 3 core principles: classification into diagnostic syndromes, classification-based intervention, and appropriate application of force. Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of MDT for low back pain; however, results have varied. The inconsistent delivery of MDT across trials may explain the different findings. * OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment effect sizes for pain or disability between trials that delivered MDT consistent with the core principles of the approach and trials that met some or none of these principles. * METHODS: In this systematic review, databases were searched from inception to June 2018 for studies that delivered MDT compared to nonpharmacological, conservative control interventions in patients with low back pain and reported outcomes of pain or disability. Studies were classified as "adherent" (meeting the core principles of MDT) or "nonadherent" (using some or none of the principles of MDT). Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Meta-regression procedures were used to analyze the effect of delivery mode on clinical outcomes, adjusting for covariates of symptom duration (less than or greater than 3 months) and control intervention (minimal or active). * RESULTS: Studies classified as adherent to the MDT approach showed greater reductions in pain and disability of 15.0 (95% confidence interval: 7.3,22.7) and 11.7 (95% confidence interval: 5.4, 18.0) points, respectively, on a 100-point scale compared to nonadherent trials. * CONCLUSION: This review provides preliminary evidence that treatment effects of MDT are greater when the core principles are followed. * LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1a. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]