How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. METHODS: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery). RESULTS: Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I2 = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I2 = 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I2 = 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I2 = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I2 = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I2 = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions. CONCLUSION: Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

Patient satisfaction with private physiotherapy for musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND: Despite emphasis on patient centred healthcare, healthcare professionals have been slow to use validated measurements of patient satisfaction in physiotherapy practice. The aim of this cross sectional survey was to measure patient satisfaction with private physiotherapy in Ireland, for patients with musculoskeletal pain, using a previously validated survey instrument. METHODS: A multidimensional patient satisfaction questionnaire 'PTOPS', which assesses patient satisfaction with outpatient physiotherapy treatment, was translated from American English to European English, and relevant demographic and global satisfaction items were included. This was then circulated to patients with musculoskeletal pain (n = 240) for anonymous completion and return to the research team. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, v.12). RESULTS: In total 55% (n = 131/240) of questionnaires were returned. Just over half of the respondents were male (53.4%, n = 70), with a mean age (SD) of 37.7 years (12.4), and had previous experience of physiotherapy (65.6%, n = 86). The most common site of musculoskeletal pain was spinal (51.5% n = 66). The mean (SD) number of treatments was 8.3 (8.3), at a mean total cost (SD) of 350.2 euros (322.8 euros). The 'PTOPS' questionnaire categorised and scored satisfaction items under four domains, Enhancer, Detractor, Location and Cost. The mean score (SD), optimum score, and scoring range for each domain were: 'Enhancer' 41.2 (3.8), 50, 10-50; 'Detractor' 19.4 (4.4), 10, 10-50; 'Location' 28.0 (4.1), 35, 7-35; 'Cost' 18.9 (2.8), 7, 7-35. "Overall satisfaction with physiotherapy experience" was scored on a five-point scale "excellent to poor", with a modal response of "Very Good" (42%; n = 55). CONCLUSION: This study measured patient satisfaction with private physiotherapy treatment for musculoskeletal pain in Ireland using a previously validated outcome measure and provides a template for future studies of this increasingly important topic. Results demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with all components of physiotherapy treatment, except cost, and provided valuable patient feedback regarding their physiotherapy treatment for musculoskeletal pain. Results can be used by physiotherapists to improve future patient experiences with a view to improving patient attendance and compliance with physiotherapy treatment protocols for patients with musculoskeletal pain.

Level of distress in a recurrent low back pain population referred for physical therapy.

STUDY DESIGN: Recruitment phase of a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To review the published literature on the use of the distress risk assessment method in different back pain populations and healthcare settings and compare results with those obtained from the current trial. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Psychological distress in low back pain is commonplace, and distress increases the relative risk of poor outcome with physical treatment alone. The Distress and Risk Assessment Method is a tool for use in the clinical setting to assist in the identification of distress and clinical decision-making. METHODS: The Distress Risk Assessment Method and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire were used to assess eligibility of patients with recurrent low back pain for recruitment into a randomized clinical trial examining different physical therapy approaches. RESULTS: In total, 221 patients were assessed, resulting in 212 correctly complete questionnaires. Of those 212, 71 (33%) showed evidence of marked distress (41 depressed and 30 somatic). Functional disability, measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, was higher for the distressed group (mean 14.1, SD 4.8, range 3-23) than the nondistressed group (mean 8.0, SD 5.1, range 0-21). Distress and anxiety measured using the distress risk assessment method were correlated to self-reported back-related functional disability. CONCLUSIONS: Distress associated with low back pain is common with one third of patients referred for physical therapy at the units studied exhibiting a level of distress that increased their relative risk of poor outcome by 3 to 4 times. Clinically, screening this group of patients may help indicate when liaison with other professionals is appropriate and possibly identify those patients who may be too distressed to respond to physical therapy intervention alone.