Cargando…
Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searche...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8910008/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35270557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052863 |
_version_ | 1784666340249829376 |
---|---|
author | Sutanto, Dhananjaya Ho, Robin S. T. Poon, Eric T. C. Yang, Yijian Wong, Stephen H. S. |
author_facet | Sutanto, Dhananjaya Ho, Robin S. T. Poon, Eric T. C. Yang, Yijian Wong, Stephen H. S. |
author_sort | Sutanto, Dhananjaya |
collection | PubMed |
description | We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8910008 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89100082022-03-11 Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis Sutanto, Dhananjaya Ho, Robin S. T. Poon, Eric T. C. Yang, Yijian Wong, Stephen H. S. Int J Environ Res Public Health Review We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk. MDPI 2022-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8910008/ /pubmed/35270557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052863 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Sutanto, Dhananjaya Ho, Robin S. T. Poon, Eric T. C. Yang, Yijian Wong, Stephen H. S. Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis |
title | Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | effects of different trunk training methods for chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8910008/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35270557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052863 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sutantodhananjaya effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis AT horobinst effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis AT poonerictc effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis AT yangyijian effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis AT wongstephenhs effectsofdifferenttrunktrainingmethodsforchroniclowbackpainametaanalysis |