RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.
Assuntos
Dor Aguda , Dor Lombar , Adulto , Humanos , Dor Lombar/terapia , Dor Aguda/terapia , Terapia por Exercício , Resultado do Tratamento , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: As resources for healthcare are scarce, decision-makers increasingly rely on economic evaluations when making reimbursement decisions about new health technologies, such as drugs, procedures, devices, and equipment. Economic evaluations compare the costs and effects of two or more interventions. Musculoskeletal disorders have a high prevalence and result in high levels of disability and high costs worldwide. Because physical therapy interventions are usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders, economic evaluations of such interventions are becoming increasingly important for stakeholders in the field of physical therapy, including physical therapists, decision-makers, and reseachers. However, economic evaluations are relatively difficult to interpret for the majority of stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To support physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy interpreting trial-based economic evaluations and translating the results of such studies to clinical practice. METHODS: The design, analysis, and interpretation of economic evaluations performed alongside randomized controlled trials are discussed. To further illustrate and explain these concepts, we use a case study assessing the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to standard advice in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations are increasingly being used in healthcare decision-making. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that their design, conduct, and analysis are state-of-the-art and that their interpretation is adequate. This masterclass will help physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy to critically appraise the quality and results of trial-based economic evaluations and to apply the results of such studies to their own clinical practice and setting.
Assuntos
Doenças Musculoesqueléticas , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Tomada de Decisões , Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/terapiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific neck pain and low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of economic evaluations. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed in 5 clinical and 3 economic electronic databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included economic evaluations performed alongside randomised controlled trials. Differences in costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, if possible, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were descriptively analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. On average, exercise therapy was associated with lower costs and larger effects for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective (based on ICUR). Exercise therapy had similar costs and effect for QALY in comparison with other interventions for neck pain from a societal perspective, and subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective. There was limited or inconsistent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with usual care for neck pain and acute low back pain, other interventions for acute low back pain and different types of exercise therapy for neck pain and low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy seems to be cost-effective compared with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was not (more) cost-effective compared with other interventions for neck pain and low back pain. The cost-utility estimates are rather uncertain, indicating that more economic evaluations are needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42017059025.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Terapia por Exercício/economia , Dor Lombar/terapia , Cervicalgia/terapia , Terapia Cognitivo-Comportamental , Humanos , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-utility of the addition of different doses of Pilates to an advice for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) from a societal perspective. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: Physiotherapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: 296 patients with NSCLBP. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received advice and were randomly allocated to four groups (n=74 per group): booklet group (BG), Pilates once a week (Pilates group 1, PG1), Pilates twice a week (Pilates group 2, PG2) and Pilates three times a week (Pilates group 3, PG3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were pain and disability at 6-week follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with the BG, all Pilates groups showed significant improvements in pain (PG1, mean difference (MD)=-1.2, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.3; PG2, MD=-2.3, 95% CI -3.2 to -1.4; PG3, MD=-2.1, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.1) and disability (PG1, MD=-1.9, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.1; PG2, MD=-4.7, 95% CI -6.4 to -3.0; PG3, MD=-3.3, 95% CI -5.0 to -1.6). Among the different doses, PG2 showed significant improvements in comparison with PG1 for pain (MD=-1.1, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.1) and disability (MD=-2.8, 95% CI -4.5 to -1.1). The cost-utility analysis showed that PG3 had a 0.78 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Adding two sessions of Pilates exercises to advice provided better outcomes in pain and disability than advice alone for patients with NSCLBP; non-specific elements such as greater attention or expectation might be part of this effect. The cost-utility analysis showed that Pilates three times a week was the preferred option. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02241538, Completed.