Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively). RESULTS: 27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".