0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Prevention of Low Back Pain A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Daniel Steffens, PhD1,2; Chris G. Maher, PhD1; Leani S. M. Pereira, PhD2; Matthew L Stevens, MScMed (Clin Epi)1; Vinicius C. Oliveira, PhD2; Meredith Chapple, BPhty3; Luci F. Teixeira-Salmela, PhD2; Mark J. Hancock, PhD3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Physiotherapy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
3Discipline of Physiotherapy, Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):199-208. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7431.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Existing guidelines and systematic reviews lack clear recommendations for prevention of low back pain (LBP).

Objective  To investigate the effectiveness of interventions for prevention of LBP.

Data Sources  MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to November 22, 2014.

Study Selection  Randomized clinical trials of prevention strategies for nonspecific LBP.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to describe the quality of evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome measure was an episode of LBP, and the secondary outcome measure was an episode of sick leave associated with LBP. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs using random-effects models.

Results  The literature search identified 6133 potentially eligible studies; of these, 23 published reports (on 21 different randomized clinical trials including 30 850 unique participants) met the inclusion criteria. With results presented as RRs (95% CIs), there was moderate-quality evidence that exercise combined with education reduces the risk of an episode of LBP (0.55 [0.41-0.74]) and low-quality evidence of no effect on sick leave (0.74 [0.44-1.26]). Low- to very low–quality evidence suggested that exercise alone may reduce the risk of both an LBP episode (0.65 [0.50-0.86]) and use of sick leave (0.22 [0.06-0.76]). For education alone, there was moderate- to very low–quality evidence of no effect on LBP (1.03 [0.83-1.27]) or sick leave (0.87 [0.47-1.60]). There was low- to very low–quality evidence that back belts do not reduce the risk of LBP episodes (1.01 [0.71-1.44]) or sick leave (0.87 [0.47-1.60]). There was low-quality evidence of no protective effect of shoe insoles on LBP (1.01 [0.74-1.40]).

Conclusion and Relevance  The current evidence suggests that exercise alone or in combination with education is effective for preventing LBP. Other interventions, including education alone, back belts, and shoe insoles, do not appear to prevent LBP. Whether education, training, or ergonomic adjustments prevent sick leave is uncertain because the quality of evidence is low.

Figures in this Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Flow Diagram of Review Process

LBP indicates lower back pain; PEDro, Physiotherapy Evidence Database; and RCT, randomized clinical trial.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Relative Risk for Low Back Pain Episode in Controlled Trials on Efficacy of Low Back Pain Prevention Strategies

Studies are ordered chronologically within prevention strategies. Short-term indicates follow-up of 12 months or less; long-term, follow-up evaluation of more than 12 months.

aOnly the baseline sample size was available.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Relative Risk for Sick Leave in Controlled Trials on Efficacy of Low Back Pain Prevention Strategies

Studies are ordered chronologically within prevention strategies. Short-term indicates follow-up of 12 months or less; long-term, follow-up evaluation of more than 12 months.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

25,516 Views
1 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Low Back Pain

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Low Back Pain, Disabling

brightcove.createExperiences();