SynthesisPloS one2025
The effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for low back pain in China: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clinical outcomes associated with adding pelvic correction manipulation to adjacent needling for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective comparative cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low back pain (LBP) is the most common and incapacitating musculoskeletal disorder globally. The use of non-pharmacological interventions for the management of LBP is recommended by global clinical practice guidelines. However, existing guidelines often exhibit poor quality, as evidenced by inadequate systematic reviews of evidence. This necessitates further reviews tailored to the specific context of different countries. This review searched the CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Wanfang databases from their inception to May 14, 2024. After data extraction by two independent researchers, a total of 57 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The Bayesian network meta-analysis results demonstrated that: (1) non-pharmacological therapies generally exhibited superior efficacy over pharmaceuticals in improving functional disability and overall efficacy; (2) pharmaceuticals, both alone and in combination with non-pharmacological therapies, were generally more effective than most non-pharmacological therapies in reducing pain intensity. High heterogeneity was observed, which could be explained by LBP subtypes in the analysis of functional disability. While heterogeneity had a limited impact on the confidence of results for pain intensity and functional disability, it significantly influenced the assessment of overall efficacy with major concerns of imprecision. The high volume of studies with a high risk of overall bias necessitates cautious interpretation of these findings. Chinese LBP patients may benefit most from non-pharmacological interventions, particularly those rooted in Traditional Chinese Medicine, for improving disability. For pain intensity reduction, pharmaceuticals and multi-component therapies incorporating pharmaceuticals may be more effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.