Unveiling the Efficacy of Physiotherapy Strategies in Alleviating Low Back Pain: A Comprehensive Review of Interventions and Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Low back pain (LBP) presents a significant burden globally, affecting individuals of all ages, but it is more common in adults aged 30-60 years old and demographics including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Physiotherapy interventions are commonly employed to manage LBP due to their non-invasive nature and potential for addressing underlying biomechanical dysfunctions. This comprehensive review aims to evaluate the efficacy of various physiotherapy strategies in alleviating LBP, considering a range of interventions and their associated outcomes. Through a thorough examination of existing literature from January 2017 to October 2023, this review synthesises evidence on the effectiveness of interventions such as manual therapy, exercise therapy, electrotherapy modalities, and education-based approaches. The review also scrutinizes the comparative effectiveness of different physiotherapy modalities and their suitability for specific patient populations, considering factors such as chronicity, severity, and underlying pathology. By critically evaluating the evidence base, this review aims to provide insights into the most effective physiotherapy strategies for alleviating LBP, chronic low back pain (CLBP) and chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) and guiding clinical practice toward evidence-based interventions. The Visual Analogue Scale and Numerical Pain Rating Scale for pain, Oswestry Disability Index and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for disability, Modified-Modified Schober Test for measurement of lumbar flexion and extension and static and dynamic balance for assessing postural stability and balance were among the measures used to foresee enhancements in pain, disability, balance, and LBP symptoms. Twenty-one studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion (aged 20 to 50 years and of both genders) were added to the review. Exercises for core stability, strengthening, orthosis (a medical device designed to support, align, stabilise, or correct musculoskeletal structures and functions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, heat massage therapy, interferential current (a form of electrical stimulation used in physical therapy), Mulligan's mobilization (a manual therapy technique), low-level laser therapy, and McGill stabilization exercises (core exercises) were among the therapeutic strategies. The McKenzie method (back exercises), ultrasound, sensory-motor training, Swiss ball exercises, and other techniques reduced pain and enhanced strength, balance, and ease of daily activities. Every therapeutic approach has an impact on recovery rates ranging from minimal to maximal. Conventional physical therapy is less effective than most recent advanced techniques like mobilisation and exercises. In summary, the integration of manual techniques, orthoses and alternative intervention strategies with conservative therapeutic approaches can effectively alleviate pain, enhance function and yield better overall outcomes. To get more information about the optimal dosage, therapeutic modalities and long-term effects of these treatments, more admirable research is required. This paper aims to expand the scientific discourse by exploring non-traditional physiotherapy interventions and assessing their efficacy in light of the rigorous standards set forth by the latest WHO guidelines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».