Cargando…

Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Different databases were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lavazza, Carolina, Galli, Margherita, Abenavoli, Alessandra, Maggiani, Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8098952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33947735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045106
_version_ 1783688508547792896
author Lavazza, Carolina
Galli, Margherita
Abenavoli, Alessandra
Maggiani, Alberto
author_facet Lavazza, Carolina
Galli, Margherita
Abenavoli, Alessandra
Maggiani, Alberto
author_sort Lavazza, Carolina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included. Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score. RESULTS: 24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI −20.46 to 8.78). ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique. Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings. Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198301.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8098952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80989522021-05-18 Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis Lavazza, Carolina Galli, Margherita Abenavoli, Alessandra Maggiani, Alberto BMJ Open Complementary Medicine OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects and reliability of sham procedures in manual therapy (MT) trials in the treatment of back pain (BP) in order to provide methodological guidance for clinical trial development. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Different databases were screened up to 20 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving adults affected by BP (cervical and lumbar), acute or chronic, were included. Hand contact sham treatment (ST) was compared with different MT (physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, massage, kinesiology and reflexology) and to no treatment. Primary outcomes were BP improvement, success of blinding and adverse effect (AE). Secondary outcomes were number of drop-outs. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using risk ratio (RR), continuous using mean difference (MD), 95% CIs. The minimal clinically important difference was 30 mm changes in pain score. RESULTS: 24 trials were included involving 2019 participants. Very low evidence quality suggests clinically insignificant pain improvement in favour of MT compared with ST (MD 3.86, 95% CI 3.29 to 4.43) and no differences between ST and no treatment (MD -5.84, 95% CI −20.46 to 8.78). ST reliability shows a high percentage of correct detection by participants (ranged from 46.7% to 83.5%), spinal manipulation being the most recognised technique. Low quality of evidence suggests that AE and drop-out rates were similar between ST and MT (RR AE=0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.28, RR drop-outs=0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25). A similar drop-out rate was reported for no treatment (RR=0.82, 95% 0.43 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: MT does not seem to have clinically relevant effect compared with ST. Similar effects were found with no treatment. The heterogeneousness of sham MT studies and the very low quality of evidence render uncertain these review findings. Future trials should develop reliable kinds of ST, similar to active treatment, to ensure participant blinding and to guarantee a proper sample size for the reliable detection of clinically meaningful treatment effects. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198301. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8098952/ /pubmed/33947735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045106 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Complementary Medicine
Lavazza, Carolina
Galli, Margherita
Abenavoli, Alessandra
Maggiani, Alberto
Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
title Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
title_full Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
title_fullStr Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
title_short Sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
title_sort sham treatment effects in manual therapy trials on back pain patients: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis
topic Complementary Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8098952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33947735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045106
work_keys_str_mv AT lavazzacarolina shamtreatmenteffectsinmanualtherapytrialsonbackpainpatientsasystematicreviewandpairwisemetaanalysis
AT gallimargherita shamtreatmenteffectsinmanualtherapytrialsonbackpainpatientsasystematicreviewandpairwisemetaanalysis
AT abenavolialessandra shamtreatmenteffectsinmanualtherapytrialsonbackpainpatientsasystematicreviewandpairwisemetaanalysis
AT maggianialberto shamtreatmenteffectsinmanualtherapytrialsonbackpainpatientsasystematicreviewandpairwisemetaanalysis