Background
Non‐specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for ...patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co‐ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.
Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non‐specific LBP.
Search methods
We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non‐specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.
Data collection and analysis
Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12‐item criteria. We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short‐term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long‐term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow‐up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi2 test and the I2 statistic. We combined results in a meta‐analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
Main results
We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow‐up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long‐term follow‐up with medium effect sizes (long‐term, MD –12.97; 95% CI –18.51 to –7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow‐up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD –30.18; 95% CI –35.32 to –25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.
Authors' conclusions
There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.
Purpose
Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core ...outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP.
Methods
An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions.
Results
A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45 %. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’ and ‘health-related quality of life’. Consensus on ‘physical functioning’ and ‘pain intensity’ was consistent across all stakeholders, ‘health-related quality of life’ was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain ‘number of deaths’.
Conclusions
The following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’, ‘health-related quality of life’ and ‘number of deaths’. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.
Although low-back pain is a highly prevalent condition, its clinical course remains uncertain. Our main objective was to systematically review the literature on the clinical course of pain and ...disability in patients with acute and persistent low-back pain. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether pain and disability have similar courses.
We performed a meta-analysis of inception cohort studies. We identified eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We included prospective studies that enrolled an episode-inception cohort of patients with acute or persistent low-back pain and that measured pain, disability or recovery. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality. We used mixed models to determine pooled estimates of pain and disability over time.
Data from 33 discrete cohorts (11 166 participants) were included in the review. The variance-weighted mean pain score (out of a maximum score of 100) was 52 (95% CI 48-57) at baseline, 23 (95% CI 21-25) at 6 weeks, 12 (95% CI 9-15) at 26 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3-10) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain for cohorts with acute pain. Among cohorts with persistent pain, the variance-weighted mean pain score (out of 100) was 51 (95% CI 44-59) at baseline, 33 (95% CI 29-38) at 6 weeks, 26 (95% CI 20-33) at 26 weeks and 23 (95% CI 16-30) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain. The course of disability outcomes was similar to the time course of pain outcomes in the acute pain cohorts, but the pain outcomes were slightly worse than disability outcomes in the persistent pain cohorts.
Patients who presented with acute or persistent low-back pain improved markedly in the first six weeks. After that time improvement slowed. Low to moderate levels of pain and disability were still present at one year, especially in the cohorts with persistent pain.
Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and ...meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain.
To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval CI) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry.
We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (
= 17 974) and 47 cohorts (
= 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain.
Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain.
PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.
STUDY DESIGN.A systematic review.
OBJECTIVE.The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of motor control exercise (MCE) in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).
SUMMARY OF ...BACKGROUND DATA.MCE is a common form of exercise used for managing LBP. MCE focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and coordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles.
METHODS.We conducted electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases, and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. We included randomized controlled trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment, or as a supplement to other interventions in patients with nonspecific LBP. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group 12-item criteria. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference and 95% confidence interval. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS.We included 32 trials (n = 2628). Most included trials had a low risk of bias. For acute LBP, low to moderate quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy or other forms of exercise. There is very low-quality evidence that the addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvements. For recurrence at one year, there is very low-quality evidence that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence. For chronic LBP, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for reducing pain compared with minimal intervention. There is low to high-quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises or manual therapy. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPAs) or telerehabilitation for pain and disability.
CONCLUSION.MCE is probably more effective than a minimal intervention for reducing pain, but probably does not have an important effect on disability, in patients with chronic LBP. There was no clinically important difference between MCE and other forms of exercises or manual therapy for acute and chronic LBP.Level of Evidence1
Pilates for low back pain Yamato, Tiê P; Maher, Christopher G; Saragiotto, Bruno T ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
07/2015, Letnik:
2015, Številka:
7
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Background
Non‐specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past ...few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice.
Objectives
To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non‐specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain.
Search methods
We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication.
Selection criteria
We only included randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non‐specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life.
Data collection and analysis
Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used.
Main results
The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.
A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short‐term follow‐up (less than three months after randomisation) (MD ‐14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐18.91 to ‐9.19). For intermediate‐term follow‐up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD ‐10.54, 95% CI ‐18.46 to ‐2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short‐term follow‐up (MD ‐7.95, 95% CI ‐13.23 to ‐2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate‐term effect with a medium effect size (MD ‐11.17, 95% CI ‐18.41 to ‐3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short‐term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate‐term follow‐up for either outcome.
Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short‐term follow‐up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate‐term follow‐up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non‐significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD ‐3.29, 95% CI ‐6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD ‐0.91, 95% CI ‐5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short‐term follow‐up (MD 0.10, 95% CI ‐2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate‐term function, with a small effect size (MD ‐3.60, 95% CI ‐7.00 to ‐0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events.
Authors' conclusions
We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow‐up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate‐term follow‐up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.
To standardize outcome reporting in clinical trials of patients with nonspecific low back pain, an international multidisciplinary panel recommended physical functioning, pain intensity, and ...health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as core outcome domains. Given the lack of a consensus on measurement instruments for these 3 domains in patients with low back pain, this study aimed to generate such consensus. The measurement properties of 17 patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning, 3 for pain intensity, and 5 for HRQoL were appraised in 3 systematic reviews following the COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 207) were invited in a 2-round Delphi survey to generate consensus (≥67% agreement among participants) on which instruments to endorse. Response rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. In round 1, consensus was achieved on the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a for physical functioning (78% agreement) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (75% agreement). No consensus was achieved on any HRQoL instrument, although the Short Form 12 (SF12) approached the consensus threshold (64% agreement). In round 2, a consensus was reached on an NRS version with a 1-week recall period (96% agreement). Various participants requested 1 free-to-use instrument per domain. Considering all issues together, recommendations on core instruments were formulated: Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a or 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, and SF12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health form for HRQoL. Further studies need to fill the evidence gaps on the measurement properties of these and other instruments.
Background
Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP ...remains unclear.
Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non‐specific LBP.
Search methods
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.
Selection criteria
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non‐specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow‐up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).
Main results
We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low‐quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low‐quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow‐up. Moderate‐quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow‐up. Finally, very low‐quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow‐up. For recurrence at one year, very low‐quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.
Authors' conclusions
We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.
Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery Oosterhuis, Teddy; Costa, Leonardo OP; Maher, Christopher G ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
03/2014, Letnik:
2014, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Background
Several rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery.
Objectives
To determine whether active rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is more effective ...than no treatment, and to describe which type of active rehabilitation is most effective. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002.
First, we clustered treatments according to the start of treatment.
1. Active rehabilitation that starts immediately postsurgery.
2. Active rehabilitation that starts four to six weeks postsurgery.
3. Active rehabilitation that starts longer than 12 months postsurgery.
For every cluster, the following comparisons were investigated.
A. Active rehabilitation versus no treatment, placebo or waiting list control.
B. Active rehabilitation versus other kinds of active rehabilitation.
C. Specific intervention in addition to active rehabilitation versus active rehabilitation alone.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO to May 2013.
Selection criteria
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Data collection and analysis
Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. Meta‐analyses were performed if studies were clinically homogeneous. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall quality of evidence.
Main results
In this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight‐week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13‐week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low‐ to very low‐quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low‐quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co‐ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high‐ versus low‐intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low‐quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short‐term follow‐up (standard mean difference (SMD) ‐0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.55 to ‐0.24), and low‐quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short‐term follow‐up (SMD ‐0.67; 95% CI ‐1.22 to ‐0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long‐term follow‐up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD ‐0.22; 95% CI ‐0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low‐quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high‐intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low‐intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) ‐10.67; 95% CI ‐17.04 to ‐4.30), and low‐quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD ‐0.77; 95% CI ‐1.17 to ‐0.36). Very low‐quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short‐term pain relief (SMD ‐0.76; 95% CI ‐2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD ‐0.36; 95% CI ‐0.88 to 0.15).
Authors' conclusions
Considerable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high‐ or moderate‐quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high‐intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low‐intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first‐time lumbar surgery. High‐quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.
PDF
