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.

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.

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.

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.

Promoting the use of a self-management strategy among novice chiropractors treating individuals with spine pain: A mixed methods pilot clustered-clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of Self-Management Support (SMS) among clinicians is suboptimal. To date, few studies have tested knowledge translation (KT) interventions to increase the application of SMS in chiropractic teaching clinics. STUDY OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility of implementing a KT intervention to promote the use of a SMS strategy among chiropractic interns, their supervisors, and individuals with spine pain compared to controls. METHODS: Mixed methods pilot clustered-clinical trial. Clusters of 16 Patient Management Teams were allocated to a complex KT intervention (online and workshop training). Primary feasibility outcomes for clinicians, interns and patients were rates of recruitment, retention, and adherence to protocol. A nominal group technique and interviews were used to seek end-users' views on the implementation process, and generate possible solutions. RESULTS: In total, 16 (84%) clinicians, 65 (26%) interns and 42 patients agreed to participate. All clinicians in the intervention group completed all KT intervention components, 23 interns (85%) completed the online training and 14 interns (51.8%) attended the workshop training. All clinicians in the intervention and seven (78%) in the control group completed all outcome measures at baseline and 6-month follow-up, while 15 (55.6%) and 23 (60.5%) interns in the intervention and control groups completed the questionnaires at baseline and 6-month follow-up, respectively. Among patients, 10 (52.6%) and 12 (52.2%) in the intervention and control groups respectively completed the questionnaires at the end of the study. Based on interview findings, solutions to improve the feasibility of conducting a full trial include: making SMS a part of the internship, changing the time of introducing the study to the interns, and having more training on SMS. CONCLUSION: Recruitment and retention of chiropractic interns and patients for a larger implementation trial in a single outpatient teaching clinic may be challenging.