Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months. CONCLUSION Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes

The effect of dual-task conditions on postural control in adults with low back pain:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Dual-task conditions, which involve performing two tasks simultaneously, may exacerbate pain and further impair daily functioning in individuals with low back pain (LBP). Understanding the effects of dual-task conditions on postural control in patients with LBP is crucial for the development of effective rehabilitation programs. Our objective was to investigate the impact of dual-task conditions on postural control in individuals with LBP compared to those without LBP. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline via PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases, with no language restrictions, from inception to January 1, 2023. The primary outcome measures of the study were velocity, area, amplitude, phase plane portrait, and path/sway length of the center of pressure (CoP). Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes were calculated, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: From 196 studies, five involving 242 adults (≥ 18 years) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were rated as high quality, while two were deemed moderate. In the included studies, 140 participants had non-specific LBP, while 102 participants did not report any symptoms, with mean ages of 36.68 (± 14.21) and 36.35 (± 15.39) years, respectively. Three studies had both genders, one exclusively included females, and one did not specify gender. Meta-analyses of primary outcomes revealed no significant differences in postural control between patients with LBP and pain-free controls during both easy and difficult postural tasks and cognitive load for velocity (easy: SMD - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.91 to 0.74; difficult: SMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.67 to 0.91), area (easy: SMD 0.82, 95% CI - 2.99 to 4.62; difficult: SMD 0.14, 95% CI - 2.62 to 2.89), phase plane (easy: SMD - 0.59, 95% CI - 1.19 to 0.02; difficult: SMD - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.77 to 0.42), path/sway length (easy: SMD - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.77 to 0.42; difficult: SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.84 to 0.55), and amplitude (easy: SMD 0.89, 95% CI - 1.62 to 3.39; difficult: SMD 1.31, 95% CI - 1.48 to 4.10). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that there are no significant differences in postural control parameters during dual-task conditions between individuals with non-specific LBP and pain-free subjects. However, due to the limited number of available studies, significant publication bias, and considerable statistical heterogeneity, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Therefore, further research comprising high-quality studies with larger sample sizes is necessary to obtain conclusive results. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022359263.</p

Biological sex influences psychological aspects of the biopsychosocial model related to chronic pain intensity and interference among South Korean patients with chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain in rheumatic diseases

IntroductionPain is a prominent contributor to negative personal and social outcomes, including increased disability and mortality, in many rheumatic diseases. In the Biopsychosocial model of chronic pain, psychological and social factors share roles with the biology of the injury in determining each patient’s pain and suffering. The current study explored factors associated with clinical pain intensity and interference among patients with chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain in rheumatic diseases.MethodsIn total, 220 patients experiencing chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain participated. Biological factors (age, biological sex, pain condition, pain duration, pain sensitivity, and comorbidity), socio-economic factors, psychological factors (pain catastrophizing and depressive symptoms), and pain intensity and interference were measured. Descriptive, multivariable linear regression and partial correlation analyses were conducted. Subgroup analysis by sex was conducted to examine differences in how different factors affect the pain experience.ResultsThe mean age of the participants was 52.3 years (SD = 12.07) and ranged from 22 to 78. Average pain intensity was 3.01 (0–10 scale) and average total pain interference score was 21.07 (0–70 scale). Partial correlation found positive correlations between pain intensity and interference with depression (intensity: R = 0.224; p = 0.0011; interference: R = 0.351; p &lt; 0.001) and pain catastrophizing (intensity: R = 0.520; p &lt; 0.001; interference: R = 0.464; p &lt; 0.001). In males, pain condition (β = −0.249, p = 0.032) and pain catastrophizing (R = 0.480, p &lt; 0.001) were associated with pain intensity. In males, the simple correlation between pain intensity and depression (R = 0.519; p &lt; 0.001) was driven by pain catastrophizing. In females, pain catastrophizing (R = 0.536, p &lt; 0.001) and depressive symptoms (R = 0.228, p = 0.0077) were independently associated with pain intensity. Age (β = −0.251, p = 0.042) and pain catastrophizing (R = 0.609, p &lt; 0.001) were associated with pain interference in males, while depressive symptoms (R = 0.439, p &lt; 0.001) and pain catastrophizing (R = 0.403, p &lt; 0.001) were associated with pain interference in females. Again, in males, the simple correlation between pain interference and depression (R = 0.455; p &lt; 0.001) was driven by pain catastrophizing.DiscussionIn this study, females were more directly affected by depressive symptoms than males, regarding pain intensity and interference. Pain catastrophizing was a significant factor influencing chronic pain for both males and females. Based on these findings, a sex-specific approach to the Biopsychosocial model should be considered in understanding and managing pain among Asians with chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain