Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency. RESULTS: 97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: For people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019138074.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".