TY - JOUR
T1 - Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful
T2 - A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
AU - Tagliaferri, Scott D.
AU - Mitchell, Ulrike H.
AU - Saueressig, Tobias
AU - Owen, Patrick J.
AU - Miller, Clint T.
AU - Belavy, Daniel L.
N1 - Funding Information:
1Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. 2Department of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 3Physio Meets Science GmbH, Leimen, Germany. 4Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Hochschule für Gesundheit, Bochum, Germany. ORCID: Belavy, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-832X; Owen, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3924-9375; Saueressig, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3332-3856; Tagliaferri, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3669-4131. This review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020214123). Scott Tagliaferri is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. No other funding was received for this research. Dr Belavy is an associate editor at the JOSPT. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article. Address correspondence to Scott Tagliaferri, Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125 Australia. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] U Copyright 2022 JOSPT ®, Inc
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 JOSPT®, Inc.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges’ g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, –0.31; 95% CI: –0.54, –0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, –0.27; 95% CI: –0.46, –0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges’ g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, –0.31; 95% CI: –0.54, –0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, –0.27; 95% CI: –0.46, –0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP.
KW - Physical therapy
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Spine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123973479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2519/JOSPT.2022.10761
DO - 10.2519/JOSPT.2022.10761
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 34775831
AN - SCOPUS:85123973479
SN - 0190-6011
VL - 52
SP - 67
EP - 84
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
IS - 2
ER -