Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38167170›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

How to tackle non-specific low back pain among adult patients? A systematic review with a meta-analysis to compare four interventions.

Yawen Jiang, Yaping Xu, Xiangrui Kong, En Zhao, Chunxia Ma, Yihang Lv, Hongqi Xu, He Sun, Xiaojuan Gao

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Nail-plate combination versus single construct for the management of distal femoral fractures: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yawen JiangKey Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences of Ministry of Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Yaping XuDepartment of Public Physical and Art Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Xiangrui KongSchool of Physical Education (Main Campus), Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
En ZhaoSchool of Physical Education (Main Campus), Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Chunxia MaSchool of Physical Education (Main Campus), Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Yihang LvSchool of Physical Education (Main Campus), Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Hongqi XuResearch Center of Sports and Health Science, School of Sports Science and Physical Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China.
He SunSchool of physical education, Henan university, Zhengzhou, China.
Xiaojuan GaoSchool of Physical Education (Main Campus), Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. xiaojuan812@126.com.
Zhengzhou University · CNNortheast Normal University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

The National Social Science Fund of China 22BTY075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo tackle non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) among patients and find the most effective solution and to quantitatively synthesize the overall effect of motor control training (MCT) compared with Pilates, McKenzie method, and physical therapy (PT) in pain and physical function.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of four types of intervention (MCT, Pilates, McKenzie method, and PT) for LBP were collected by searching PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases from the establishment of the database to September 30, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated for included studies using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Taking pain and physical function in the experimental and control groups as outcome indicators, subgroup analysis was performed according to the intervention method to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

resultsA total of 25 RCTs, including 1253 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed that MCT effectively relieved pain [SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (- 1.00, - 0.29), p < 0.01] and improved physical function [SMD = -0.76, 95% CI (- 1.22, - 0.31), p < 0.01] comparing with other 3 types of intervention. Subgroup analysis suggested that MCT could alleviate pain [SMD = -0.92, 95% CI (- 1.34, - 0.50), p < 0.01] and improve physical function [SMD = -1.15, 95% CI (- 1.72, - 0.57), p < 0.01] compared with PT, but it had no statistical significance compared with Pilates [pain: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (- 0.56, 0.83), p = 0.71; physical function: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI (- 0.72, 0.91), p = 0.81] and the McKenzie method [pain: SMD = -0.03, 95% CI (- 0.75, 0.68), p = 0.93; physical function: SMD = -0.03, 95% CI (- 1.00, 0.94), p = 0.95].

conclusionsMCT can effectively relieve pain and improve physical function in patients with NSLBP. It is more effective compared with PT for LBP, while no differences were detected between MCT and Pilates, as well as McKenzie method. Therefore, MCT, Pilates, and the McKenzie method should be encouraged as exercise interventions for NSLBP rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAdultBack PainHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesMcKenzieMotor control trainingNon-specific low back painPhysical therapyPilates

Identifiers

PMID38167170
PMCPMC10763207
OpenAlexW4390518991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.