Effects of Motor Control Exercises in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess whether motor control exercises consisting of the methodology described by Richardson and Hodges improve the pain and disability of patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and a meta-analysis. SETTING: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, PEDro, Scielo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dialnet, Scopus, and MEDLINE from inception to November 2021. PATIENTS: Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Randomized controlled trials assessing motor control exercises versus inactive control, placebo or minimal intervention, and other exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, disability, and physical activity were considered as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 1356 patients were finally included in the systematic review, of which only 13 randomized clinical trials could be meta-analyzed. Statistically significant results were found in favor of the motor control group for the comparison with other exercises in disability at postintervention term (Mean Difference, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -3.13 [-5.87 to -0.38], P = 0.03); for the comparison with inactive control, placebo, or minimal intervention in pain at postintervention term (MD, 95% CI, -18.10 [-30.79 to -5.41], P = 0.008); and for comparison with general exercises (MD, 95% CI, -12.70 [-20.80 to -4.60], P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of motor control exercises to reduce pain intensity and disability exists, but the reduction should be interpreted with caution.

Study protocol randomised controlled trial comparison of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a face-to-face rehabilitation programme versus a telemedicine programme in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain is a highly prevalent medical condition in Western countries, which that incurs a considerable social and economic burden. Although prescription exercise at home for chronic pain has become a widely used alternative to reduce healthcare costs, the evidence regarding patient adherence and decreased in costs in European countries is scarce and inconclusive. The objective of this study is to examine the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness in patients with chronic lower back pain treated with the McKenzie Method and electroanalgesia via a telemedicine programme versus a face-to-face programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study reports the protocol for a randomised, two-arm, multicentre, parallel controlled trial. A total of 540 patients with chronic lower back pain (onset time ≥3 months, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire ≥4) will be recruited in three hospitals in Andalusia. Participants will be assigned to one of two groups (n=270, respectively) to receive electroanalgesia and Mckenzie method exercises through a telemedicine or a face-to-face programme. A total of 24 sessions will be administered three times a week for 8 weeks. Since the study design does not allow participant blinding, the outcome assessor and the statistician will be blinded. Use of helth care resources and costs due to work absenteeism will be captured and analysed. In addition, pain, intensity, fear of movement, quality of life and strength of the core muscle and anteflexion lumbar will be recorded at 2 and 6 months after the start of treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research and Local Ethics Committee of the 'Hospital Complex Torrecárdenas of Almeria, University Hospital of Granada and Virgen Macarena de Sevilla Hospital-Andalusian Health Service'. Study findings will be released to the research, clinical and health service through publication in international journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04266366.

Short-term effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy versus functional technique in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with pain, disability, decreased quality of life, and fear of movement. To date, no studies have compared the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and functional technique for the management of this population. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and functional technique on pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and quality of life in patients with chronic LBP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A single-blind pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in a university research clinic was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-two patients (62% female, age: 45±7) with chronic LBP comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMQ], Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index [ODI]), pain intensity (Numerical Pain Rate Scale [NPRS]), fear of movement (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK]), quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36] quality of life questionnaire), isometric resistance of abdominal muscles (McQuade test), and spinal mobility in flexion (finger-to-floor distance) were collected at baseline immediately after the intervention phase and at 1 month postintervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation of the patients. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to the spinal manipulative therapy group or the functional technique group and received three once-weekly sessions. RESULTS: In comparison to patients receiving functional technique, those receiving spinal manipulation experienced statistically, although not clinically, significant greater reductions in terms of RMQ (standardized mean difference in score changes between groups at post-treatment: 0.1; at 1 month: 0.1) and ODI (post-treatment: 2.9; at 1 month: 1.4). Linear longitudinal analysis showed a significant improvement in both groups over time for RMQ (manipulative: F=68.51, p<.001; functional: F=28.58, p<.001) and ODI (manipulative: F=104.66, p<.001; functional: F=32.15, p=.001). However, significant treatment-by-time interactions were not detected for pain intensity (p=.488), TSK (p=.552), any domains of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire (p≤.164), McQuade test (p=.512), and finger-to-floor distance (p=.194). Differences between and within groups were not clinically meaningful in any of the reported measures. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to functional technique, spinal manipulative therapy showed greater reduction in disability in patients with chronic LBP, but not in terms of pain, fear of movement, quality of life, isometric resistance of trunk flexors, or spinal mobility. However, differences in disability were not clinically meaningful; therefore, spinal manipulative therapy did not result in any clinically important short-term benefits over functional technique therapy. In addition, as neither group met the threshold for minimum clinically important difference following treatment, neither treatment resulted in a clinically meaningful benefit.

Gender differences in pain severity, disability, depression, and widespread pressure pain sensitivity in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome without comorbid conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the differences in pain, disability, depression, and pressure sensitivity between men and women with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), and to analyze the relationship between pain and pressure sensitivity in FMS. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Gender differences in pain sensitivity in individuals with FMS have not been yet clarified. PATIENTS: Twenty-four men (age: 52 ± 6 years) and 24 age-matched women (age: 52 ± 5 years) with FMS diagnosed according to 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria participated. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the 18 tender points and over the second metacarpal and tibialis anterior muscle were assessed. The intensity and duration of pain, tender point count, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II) were calculated. RESULTS: Women reported higher intensity of pain, tender point count, and depression than men (P < 0.01). Men reported a longer history of pain and disability than women (P = 0.005). Women showed bilateral lower PPT over suboccipital, cervical spine, second rib, supraspinatus, lateral epicondyle, gluteal region, and second metacarpal than men (P < 0.05). Negative associations between tender point count and PPT were found in men and women. In men, negative correlations between the intensity of ongoing pain and PPT over the cervical spine were found. No significant association between PPT and other clinical outcome was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Women with FMS showed higher pain severity and lower PPT than men, whereas men exhibited longer duration of symptoms and disability. In men with FMS, the intensity of ongoing pain was positively correlated to pressure hyperalgesia over the neck. This study suggests that FMS could show a different phenotype in women and men and confirm that women exhibit lower PPT than men.

Short-term effects of kinesio taping versus cervical thrust manipulation in patients with mechanical neck pain: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cervical spine thrust manipulation to that of Kinesio Taping applied to the neck in individuals with mechanical neck pain, using self-reported pain and disability and cervical range of motion as measures. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of cervical manipulation has received considerable attention in the literature. However, because some patients cannot tolerate cervical thrust manipulation, alternative therapeutic options should be investigated. METHODS: Eighty patients (36 women) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the manipulation group, which received 2 cervical thrust manipulations, and the tape group, which received Kinesio Taping applied to the neck. Neck pain (11-point numeric pain rating scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), and cervical-range-of-motion data were collected at baseline and 1 week after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patients. Mixed-model analyses of variance were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction. RESULTS: No significant group-by-time interactions were found for pain (F = 1.892, P = .447) or disability (F = 0.115, P = .736). The group-by-time interaction was statistically significant for right (F = 7.317, P = .008) and left (F = 9.525, P = .003) cervical rotation range of motion, with the patients who received the cervical thrust manipulation having experienced greater improvement in cervical rotation than those treated with Kinesio Tape (P<.01). No significant group-by-time interactions were found for cervical spine range of motion for flexion (F = 0.944, P = .334), extension (F = 0.122, P = .728), and right (F = 0.220, P = .650) and left (F = 0.389, P = .535) lateral flexion. CONCLUSION: Patients with mechanical neck pain who received cervical thrust manipulation or Kinesio Taping exhibited similar reductions in neck pain intensity and disability and similar changes in active cervical range of motion, except for rotation. Changes in neck pain surpassed the minimal clinically important difference, whereas changes in disability did not. Changes in cervical range of motion were small and not clinically meaningful. Because we did not include a control or placebo group in this study, we cannot rule out a placebo effect or natural changes over time as potential reasons for the improvements measured in both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b.