Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.

How strong is the evidence that conservative treatment reduces pain and improves function in individuals with patellar tendinopathy? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials including GRADE recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of conservative treatment (CT) on pain and function in patients with patellar tendinopathy (PT) compared with minimal intervention (MI) or other invasive intervention, or in addition to decline eccentric squat. METHODS: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and AMED databases. All randomised trials that evaluated CT (any intervention not involving invasive procedures or medication) in individuals with PT were included. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of all included studies. Where suitable, meta-analyses were conducted; we assessed certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: When compared with MI, CT did not improve pain (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.6, 95% CI -6.5 to 1.2) or function (WMD 1.8, 95% CI -2.4 to 6.1) in the short-term (up to 3 months) follow-up. When compared with invasive intervention, CT did not improve pain (WMD 0.7, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.4) or function (WMD -6.6, 95% CI -13.3 to 0.2) in the short-term follow-up. No overall effects were found for combined CT (when a conservative intervention was added to decline eccentric squat) on pain (WMD -0.5, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4) or function (WMD -2.3, 95 % -9.1 to 4.6) at short-term follow-up. Single studies showed an effect on pain with iontophoresis at short-term follow-up (d = 2.42) or dry needling at medium/long-term follow-up (d = 1.17) and function with exercise intervention at medium/long-term follow-up (over 3 months) (d = 0.83). SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Our estimates of treatment effect have only low to very low certainty evidence to support them. This field of sports medicine/sports physiotherapy urgently needs larger, high-quality studies with pain and function among the potential primary outcomes.

The role of diet and nutritional supplementation in perinatal depression: a systematic review.

This article presents a systematic literature review on whether dietary intake influences the risk for perinatal depression, i.e. depression during pregnancy or post-partum. Such a link has been hypothesized given that certain nutrients are important in the neurotransmission system and pregnancy depletes essential nutrients. PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles until 30 May 2015. We included peer-reviewed studies of any design that evaluated whether perinatal depression is related to dietary intake, which was defined as adherence to certain diets, food-derived intake of essential nutrients or supplements. We identified 4808 studies, of which 35 fulfilled inclusion criteria: six randomized controlled trials, 12 cohort, one case-control and 16 cross-sectional studies, representing 88 051 distinct subjects. Studies were grouped into four main categories based on the analysis of dietary intake: adherence to dietary patterns (nine studies); full panel of essential nutrients (six studies); specific nutrients (including B vitamins, Vitamin D, calcium and zinc; eight studies); and intake of fish or polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs; 12 studies). While 13 studies, including three PUFA supplementation trials, found no evidence of an association, 22 studies showed protective effects from healthy dietary patterns, multivitamin supplementation, fish and PUFA intake, calcium, Vitamin D, zinc and possibly selenium. Given the methodological limitations of existing studies and inconsistencies in findings across studies, the evidence on whether nutritional factors influence the risk of perinatal depression is still inconclusive. Further longitudinal studies are needed, with robust and consistent measurement of dietary intake and depressive symptoms, ideally starting before pregnancy.

Intra-articular facet joint injections for low back pain: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting the use of therapeutic intra-articular facet joint injections for patients with suspected facet joint pain is sparse. A systematic review including a narrative synthesis was carried out to determine if intra-articular facet joint injections with active drug are more effective in reducing back pain and back pain-related disability than a sham procedure or a placebo/inactive injection. Secondly, to determine if intra-articular facet joint injections with active drug or placebo/inactive injection are more effective in reducing back pain and back pain-related disability than conservative treatment. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Index to Chiropractic Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through April 2015. Data were screened and single extraction with independent verification and risk of bias assessment was performed. RESULTS: A total of 391 records were screened, and six trials were included. The trials included were small (range 18-109 participants) and overall in terms of pain and disability outcomes most were inconclusive. Only two of the trials report any significant between-group differences in pain (mean difference -1.0, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.1) and (p = 0.032) or disability (mean difference -3.0, 95% CI -6.2 to 0.2) and (p = 0.013) outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The studies found here were clinically diverse and precluded any meta-analysis. A number of methodological issues were identified. The positive results, whilst interpreted with caution, do suggest that there is a need for further high-quality work in this area.

Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-specific low-back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Therapeutic ultrasound is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of LBP and is one of the most widely used electro-physical agents in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and PsycLIT databases in October 2013. Reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews were checked and forward citation searching was also performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on therapeutic ultrasound for non-specific chronic LBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. When sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed, a meta-analysis was performed. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was determined using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Seven small randomised controlled trials involving a total of 362 participants with chronic LBP were included. Two of the studies had a low risk of bias, meeting six or more of the 12 criteria used for assessing risk of bias. All studies were carried out in secondary care settings and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise therapy, at various intensities for six to 18 treatment sessions. There was moderate quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound improves back-specific function (standardised mean difference (SMD) [95%CI] -0.45 [-0.84 to -0.05]) compared with placebo in the short term. There was low quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound is no better than placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) [95%CI] -7.12 [-17.99 to 3.75]; zero to100-point scale). There was low quality evidence that therapeutic ultrasound plus exercise is no better than exercise alone for short-term pain improvement (MD [95%CI] -2.16 [-4.66 to 0.34]; zero to 50-point scale), or functional disability (MD [95%CI] -0.41 [-3.14 to 2.32]; per cent). The studies comparing therapeutic ultrasound versus placebo or versus exercise alone did not report on overall satisfaction with treatment, or quality of life. There was low quality evidence that spinal manipulation reduces pain and functional disability more than ultrasound over the short to medium term. There is also very low quality evidence that there is no clear benefit on any outcome measure between electrical stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound; and that phonophoresis results in improved SF-36 scores compared to therapeutic ultrasound. None of the included studies reported on adverse events related to the application of therapeutic ultrasound. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No high quality evidence was found to support the use of ultrasound for improving pain or quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic LBP. There is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on improving low-back function in the short term, but this benefit is unlikely to be clinically important. Evidence from comparisons between other treatments and therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP were indeterminate and generally of low quality. Since there are few high quality randomised trials and the available trials are very small, future large trials with valid methodology are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Trends over time in the size and quality of randomised controlled trials of interventions for chronic low-back pain.

PURPOSE: Previous reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for low-back pain (LBP) have failed to identify any positive trend in study quality with more recent years of publication. This study aimed to identify and describe trends over time in the study design characteristics and risk of bias in chronic LBP trials performed over the past 30 years. METHODS: One fifty-seven randomised trials of interventions for chronic LBP were extracted from recently published systematic reviews. The reviews included RCTs on physical and rehabilitation interventions, injection therapy and denervation procedures, complementary and alternative therapies and pharmacological interventions for chronic LBP. Study level data were extracted and analysed for trends associated with year of publication. RESULTS: Overall, the mean sample size in the RCTs was 141 (median 70; range 17-3093). There was a slight increase in the median number of risk of bias criteria fulfilled from trials published prior to 1995 to those published after 1996. The analysis showed that in more recent years RCTs of medical interventions were more likely to be successfully blinded than RCTs of non-medical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The continuing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of many interventions for chronic LBP again stresses the need for large RCTs with low risk of bias. Further research is needed into specific risks of bias within the RCTs for chronic LBP and the effect they have on the plausibility of the results.

Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. DESIGN: Cohort study with one year follow-up. SETTING: Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks' duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. RESULTS: The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.

Low back pain research priorities: a survey of primary care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Despite the large amount of time and money which has been devoted to low back pain research, successful management remains an elusive goal and low back pain continues to place a large burden on the primary care setting. One reason for this may be that the priorities for research are often developed by researchers and funding bodies, with little consideration of the needs of primary care practitioners. This study aimed to determine the research priorities of primary care practitioners who manage low back pain on a day-to-day basis. METHODS: A modified-Delphi survey of primary care practitioners was conducted, consisting of three rounds of questionnaires. In the first round, 70 practitioners who treat low back pain were each asked to provide up to five questions which they would like answered with respect to low back pain in primary care. The results were collated into a second round questionnaire consisting of 39 priorities, which were rated for importance by each practitioner on a likert-scale. The third round consisted of asking the practitioners to rank the top ten priorities in order of importance. RESULTS: Response rates for the modified-Delphi remained above 70% throughout the three rounds. The ten highest ranked priorities included the identification of sub-groups of patients that respond optimally to different treatments, evaluation of different exercise approaches in the management of low back pain, self-management of low back pain, and comparison of different treatment approaches by primary care professions treating low back pain. CONCLUSION: Practitioners identified a need for more information on a variety of topics, including diagnosis, the effectiveness of treatments, and identification of patient characteristics which affect treatment and recovery.