Cargando…

Effectiveness of muscle energy technique in patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of physical disability in the world. The origin of this condition can be due to differents causes, with a specific cause or of unknown mechanical origin,being characterized as unspecific. In this case a physical therapy treatment approach with manua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: SANTOS, Gabriela K., GONÇALVES de OLIVEIRA, Raphael, CAMPOS de OLIVEIRA, Laís, FERREIRA C. de OLIVEIRA, Carolina, ANDRAUS, Rodrigo A., NGOMO, Suzy, FUSCO, Andrea, CORTIS, Cristina, DA SILVA, Rubens A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Edizioni Minerva Medica 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10081535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36169931
http://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.22.07424-X
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of physical disability in the world. The origin of this condition can be due to differents causes, with a specific cause or of unknown mechanical origin,being characterized as unspecific. In this case a physical therapy treatment approach with manual therapy is relevant, which includes the muscle energy technique (MET) classified as a common conservative treatment for pathologies of the spine, mainly in LBP and disability. This study assessed the effectiveness of the muscle energy technique on nonspecific low back pain. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Patients with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. This study was designed by a systematic review and meta-analysis, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020219295). For the report and methodological definitions of this study, the recommendations of the PRISMA protocol and the Cochrane collaboration, were followed, respectively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search yielded 164 citations, which 19 were eligible randomised trials were included in the review (N.=609 patients with low back pain). The methodological quality of the studies averaged 4.2 points, with an interval of 2 to 7 points. Three RCTs showed satisfactory methodological quality (PEDro Score ≥6). For patients with chronic LBP, a significant result on pain (but with a small and clinically unimportant effect) in favor of MET versus other (MD=-0.51 [95% CI,-0.93 to -0.09] P=0.02, N.=376, studies=11, I2=80%). In patients with subacute LBP, MET enabled a significant and moderate effect to reduce pain intensity when compared to the control group (MD=-1.32 [95% CI,-2.57 to -0.06] P=0.04, N.=120, studies=3, I(2)=88%). No significant effects were observed for the disability. CONCLUSIONS: MET is not considered an efficient treatment to improve the incapacity of the lumbar spine, but it may be beneficial in reducing the intensity of LBP, although showing a small clinical effect in chronic LBP and a moderate effect in subacute LBP.