Yoga for chronic non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines recommend exercise therapy. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham yoga, no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, focusing on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 August 2021 without language or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of yoga compared to sham yoga, no intervention, any other intervention and yoga added to other therapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. back-specific function, 2. pain, 3. clinical improvement, 4. mental and physical quality of life, 5. depression, and 6.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our minor outcome was 1. work disability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for the major outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (2223 participants) from the USA, India, the UK, Croatia, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. Participants were recruited from both clinical and community settings. Most were women in their 40s or 50s. Most trials used iyengar, hatha, or viniyoga yoga. Trials compared yoga to a non-exercise control including waiting list, usual care, or education (10 trials); back-focused exercise such as physical therapy (five trials); both exercise and non-exercise controls (four trials); both non-exercise and another mind-body exercise (qigong) (one trial); and yoga plus exercise to exercise alone (one trial). One trial comparing yoga to exercise was an intensive residential one-week program, and we analyzed this trial separately. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment, and outcomes were self-assessed. We found no trials comparing yoga to sham yoga. Low-certainty evidence from 11 trials showed that there may be a small clinically unimportant improvement in back-specific function with yoga (mean difference [MD] -1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.73 to -0.65 on the 0- to 24-point Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ], lower = better, minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 5 points; 1155 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence from nine trials showed a clinically unimportant improvement in pain (MD -4.53, 95% CI -6.61 to -2.46 on a 0 to 100 scale, 0 no pain, MCID 15 points; 946 participants) compared to no exercise at three months. Low-certainty evidence from four trials showed that there may be a clinical improvement with yoga (risk ratio [RR] 2.33, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.71; assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved; 353 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials showed that there is probably a small improvement in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.33 on the 36-item Short Form [SF-36] physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 2.38, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 686 participants). Low-certainty evidence from three trials showed little to no improvement in depression (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.90 to 0.46 on the Beck Depression Inventory, lower = better; 241 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from eight trials that yoga increased the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, at six to 12 months (RR 4.76, 95% CI 2.08 to 10.89; 43/1000 with yoga and 9/1000 with no exercise; 1037 participants). For yoga compared to back-focused exercise controls (8 trials, 912 participants) at three months, we found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials for little or no difference in back-specific function (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.62 on the RMDQ, lower = better; 575 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from two trials for little or no difference in pain (MD 2.68, 95% CI -2.01 to 7.36 on a 0 to 100 scale, lower = better; 326 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence from three trials for no difference in clinical improvement assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 433 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from one trial for little or no difference in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.30, 95% CI -0.95 to 3.55 on the SF-36 physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.17 to 4.97 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 237 participants). No studies reported depression. Low-certainty evidence from five trials showed that there was little or no difference between yoga and exercise in the risk of adverse events at six to 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.53; 84/1000 with yoga and 91/1000 with non-yoga exercise; 640 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to no exercise results in small and clinically unimportant improvements in back-related function and pain. There is probably little or no difference between yoga and other back-related exercise for back-related function at three months, although it remains uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for pain and quality of life. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than no exercise, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other exercise. In light of these results, decisions to use yoga instead of no exercise or another exercise may depend on availability, cost, and participant or provider preference. Since all studies were unblinded and at high risk of performance and detection bias, it is unlikely that blinded comparisons would find a clinically important benefit.

A comprehensive search string informed by an operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine for systematic bibliographic database search strategies

BACKGROUND

Determining which therapies fall under the umbrella of complementary, alternative, and/or integrative medicine (CAIM) is difficult for several reasons. An operational definition is dynamic, and changes depending on both historical time period and geographical location, with many countries integrating or considering their traditional system(s) of medicine as conventional care. We have previously reported the first operational definition of CAIM informed by a systematic search. In the present study, we have developed a comprehensive search string informed by an operational definition of CAIM for systematic bibliographic database search strategies.

METHODS

We developed a single search string for the most common bibliographic databases, including those searchable on the OVID platform (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED), the EBSCO platform (e.g., ERIC, CINAHL), Scopus, and Web of Science, using the finalised operational definition of CAIM's 604 therapies. We searched the Therapeutic Research Center's "Natural Medicines" database for all 604 therapies, and each item's scientific name and/or synonym was included as a keyword or phrase in the search string.

RESULTS

This developed search string provides a standardised list of CAIM terms (i.e., keywords and phrases) that may be searched on bibliographic databases including those found on the OVID platform (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED), the EBSCO platform (e.g., ERIC, CINAHL), Scopus, and Web of Science.

CONCLUSION

Researchers can select relevant terms for their CAIM study and insert the keywords/phrases into these databases to receive all accessible data. This search technique can simply be copied and pasted into the search bar of each database to identify research by keywords, which is the most inclusive, or by words in the article title, which is more selective. Given its versatility across multiple commonly used academic platforms/databases, it is expected that this search string will be of great value to those conducting research on CAIM topics involving systematic search strategies.

Operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine derived from a systematic search

BACKGROUND

Identifying what therapies constitute complementary, alternative, and/or integrative medicine (CAIM) is complex for a multitude of reasons. An operational definition is dynamic, and changes based on both historical time period and geographical location whereby many jurisdictions may integrate or consider their traditional system(s) of medicine as conventional care. To date, only one operational definition of "complementary and alternative medicine" has been proposed, by Cochrane researchers in 2011. This definition is not only over a decade old but also did not use systematic methods to compile the therapies. Furthermore, it did not capture the concept "integrative medicine", which is an increasingly popular aspect of the use of complementary therapies in practice. An updated operational definition reflective of CAIM is warranted given the rapidly increasing body of CAIM research literature published each year.

METHODS

Four peer-reviewed or otherwise quality-assessed information resource types were used to inform the development of the operational definition: peer-reviewed articles resulting from searches across seven academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science); the "aims and scope" webpages of peer-reviewed CAIM journals; CAIM entries found in online encyclopedias, and highly-ranked websites identified through searches of CAIM-related terms on HONcode. Screening of eligible resources, and data extraction of CAIM therapies across them, were each conducted independently and in duplicate. CAIM therapies across eligible sources were deduplicated.

RESULTS

A total of 101 eligible resources were identified: peer-reviewed articles (n = 19), journal "aims and scope" webpages (n = 22), encyclopedia entries (n = 11), and HONcode-searched websites (n = 49). Six hundred four unique CAIM terms were included in this operational definition.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated operational definition is the first to be informed by systematic methods, and could support the harmonization of CAIM-related research through the provision of a standard of classification, as well as support improved collaboration between different research groups.

Cochrane systematic reviews on traditional Chinese medicine: What matters-the quantity or quality of evidence?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are constantly increasing. However, if these reviews are to be of practical value, the evidence needs to be relevant, valid, and adequately reported. Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) are considered as high-quality systematic reviews that can inform health care decision making. Our aim was to provide an overview of the scope, findings, quality and impact of CSRs on the benefits and harms associated with TCM interventions for the treatment and prevention of disease to provide new information for clinical practice and future research.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched up to May 2021, and descriptive characteristics were extracted. The correspondence between the questions asked in the CSRs and the available evidence, conclusions and certainty of findings (according to GRADE assessment), methodological quality (AMSTAR 2), and impact (Altmetric Attention Score [AAS], total citations by guideline, and total citations in Web of Science [WoS]) of CSRs were extracted. Tabular and graphical summaries of these descriptive characteristics were constructed.

RESULTS

Of 104 CSRs on TCM identified, 70 diseases belonged to 16 disease systems and contained 1642 primary studies with 157,943 participants. Interventions included Chinese herbal medicine (n = 70), acupuncture (n = 28), TCM exercises (n = 4), and moxibustion (n = 2). Among 1642 primary studies, 662 studies included an intervention group treated with at least one TCM therapy and 980 studies included a combination of therapies. Promising outcomes from the 104 CSRs were divided into endpoint outcomes (34 diseases), doctor- or patient-reported outcomes (27 diseases), and surrogate outcomes (37 diseases). Despite the presence of promising outcomes, only 5/104 CSRs drew overall positive conclusions, 42 CSRs concluded the evidence was insufficient, and 54 failed to draw firm conclusions. GRADE assessments were reported in 41.3% of the CSRs, and the ratings were mostly low or very low. Comparing the questions asked and results obtained, there was frequently a lack of information about specific outcomes. Only 16 CSRs obtained results for all outcomes listed in the methods section. According to AMSTAR 2, 51 CSRs (49.0%) were of low quality. The total number of citations in the WoS was 2135 (mean ± SD: 20.8 ± 21.2), and 38.5% of the CSRs had been cited in guidelines 95 times.

CONCLUSION

Although TCM is commonly used, evidence of its effectiveness remains largely inconclusive. Rigorous high-quality trials are needed to support the performance of high-quality reviews and to increase the evidence base. It is critical to emphasize quality over quantity in future TCM research.

Evidence on yoga for health: A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To support the research agenda in yoga for health by comprehensively identifying systematic reviews of yoga for health outcomes and conducting a bibliometric analysis to describe their publication characteristics and topic coverage.

METHODS

We searched 7 databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PROSPERO) from their inception to November 2019 and 1 database (INDMED) from inception to January 2017. Two authors independently screened each record for inclusion and one author extracted publication characteristics and topics of included reviews.

RESULTS

We retrieved 2710 records and included 322 systematic reviews. 157 reviews were exclusively on yoga, and 165 were on yoga as one of a larger class of interventions (e.g., exercise). Most reviews were published in 2012 or later (260/322; 81 %). First/corresponding authors were from 32 different countries; three-quarters were from the USA, Germany, China, Australia, the UK or Canada (240/322; 75 %). Reviews were most frequently published in speciality journals (161/322; 50 %) complementary medicine journals (66/322; 20 %) or systematic review journals (59/322; 18 %). Almost all were present in MEDLINE (296/322; 92 %). Reviews were most often funded by government or non-profits (134/322; 42 %), unfunded (74/322; 23 %), or not explicit about funding (111/322; 34 %). Common health topics were psychiatric/cognitive (n = 56), cancer (n = 39) and musculoskeletal conditions (n = 36). Multiple reviews covered similar topics, particularly depression/anxiety (n = 18), breast cancer (n = 21), and low back pain (n = 16).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research should explore the overall quality of reporting and conduct of systematic reviews of yoga, the direction and certainty of specific conclusions, and duplication or gaps in review coverage of topics.

Risks and benefits of antioxidant dietary supplement use during cancer treatment: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Antioxidant dietary supplements are used by many patients with cancer to reduce the side effects of chemotherapy and improve prognosis. While some research indicates oral antioxidant supplementation reduces side effects and improves patient survival, other studies suggest the use of antioxidant dietary supplements may interfere with chemotherapy and reduce its curative effects. There is a need to clarify the evidence base on the impact of dietary antioxidant supplementation during chemotherapy on both side effect and treatment efficacy outcomes. We will use a scoping review approach to identify what systematic review evidence exists regarding beneficial and harmful effects of dietary antioxidant supplements when used during cancer treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use Arksey & O'Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute methods for scoping reviews. We will systematically search PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Dissertations & Theses Global and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of oral dietary antioxidant supplements used by participants receiving curative chemotherapy, radiotherapy or other biological therapy for cancer will be eligible. Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts for inclusion and chart data on research questions from included reviews. Two reviewers will assess the overall confidence in systematic review results using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2), and summarised evidence will focus on reviews rated at high or moderate overall confidence. Tables will be used to map existing evidence and identify evidence gaps for safety and effectiveness outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review does not require ethical approval as it is a secondary assessment of available literature. The results will be presented at conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We will also disseminate results to community and clinical stakeholders and involve them in developing subsequent research to address critical existing gaps in the evidence as identified by the scoping review.

Elderberry for prevention and treatment of viral respiratory illnesses: a systematic review

Background

Elderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to treat or prevent illness, but also concern that elderberry might overstimulate the immune system and increase the risk of ‘cytokine storm’. We aimed to determine benefits and harms of elderberry for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections, and to assess the relationship between elderberry supplements and negative health impacts associated with overproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and searched six databases, four research registers, and two preprint sites for studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools, and evaluated certainty of estimates using GRADE. Outcomes included new illnesses and the severity and duration of illness.

Results

We screened 1187 records and included five randomized trials on elderberry for the treatment or prevention of viral respiratory illness. We did not find any studies linking elderberry to clinical inflammatory outcomes. However, we found three studies measuring production of cytokines ex vivo after ingestion of elderberry. Elderberry may not reduce the risk of developing the common cold; it may reduce the duration and severity of colds, but the evidence is uncertain. Elderberry may reduce the duration of influenza but the evidence is uncertain. Compared to oseltamivir, an elderberry-containing product may be associated with a lower risk of influenza complications and adverse events. We did not find evidence on elderberry and clinical outcomes related to inflammation. However, we found evidence that elderberry has some effect on inflammatory markers, although this effect may decline with ongoing supplementation. One small study compared elderberry to diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and provided some evidence that elderberry is as effective or less effective than diclofenac in cytokine reduction over time.

Conclusions

Elderberry may be a safe option for treating viral respiratory illness, and there is no evidence that it overstimulates the immune system. However, the evidence on both benefits and harms is uncertain and information from recent and ongoing studies is necessary to make firm conclusions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-021-03283-5.

Benefits and harms of medical cannabis: a scoping review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.

METHODS

A protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.

RESULTS

After screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

Barriers to the registration and conduct of Cochrane systematic reviews of traditional East Asian medicine therapies

INTRODUCTION

Traditional East Asian medicine (TEAM) is widely used in Asia and increasingly in the West. Systematic reviews (SRs) are the best summaries of the potential benefits or harms of interventions, and Cochrane is a leading international SR organization. Cochrane perspectives on the barriers to the initiation and completion of Cochrane SRs of TEAM therapies were solicited.

METHODS

Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) were identified from the online listing of CRGs at cochrane.org and a link to an online survey was e-mailed to the primary contact for each CRG.

RESULTS

Forty-eight responses were received on behalf of 49/53 (92%) CRGs. Most CRGs had experience producing TEAM reviews, primarily in acupuncture or herbal medicine. The main barriers to taking on a new TEAM review were difficulty in understanding and assessing the intervention, and the low priority of TEAM topics. Problems with the quality and accessibility of randomized trials in TEAM were cited as a major concern. CRGs suggested that the quality and accessibility of randomized trials should be improved, that the methodological and language expertise of authors should be enhanced, and that further peer review expertise should be made available to CRGs.

CONCLUSIONS

TEAM topics are covered in Cochrane reviews but are often considered low-priority. This survey highlights Cochrane concerns about the quality of the underlying evidence base and the training of the author teams as barriers to successful SR completion. Specific approaches are proposed to increase the number of TEAM reviews and address the limitations of TEAM research processes within Cochrane.

Cochrane reviews on acupuncture therapy for pain: A snapshot of the current evidence

Cochrane is an international non-profit organization established in 1993 to produce and disseminate high quality and unbiased systematic reviews of evidence on health care interventions. At the forefront of systematic review methodology, Cochrane is generally accepted to be among the most carefully prepared and rigorous sources of systematic review evidence. There are numerous Cochrane reviews on nonpharmacologic interventions for pain and multiple Cochrane reviews evaluating acupuncture therapy in pain conditions. But how complete and up to date are those reviews relative to other rigorous systematic reviews with meta-analyses of acupuncture therapy for pain published in the literature? In this 'snapshot' overview, we found 22 relevant Cochrane reviews, some concluding that acupuncture therapy is probably useful for treating specific pain conditions. However, many of the conditions for which acupuncture is most commonly used are either not represented in Cochrane reviews or the existing Cochrane reviews are seriously outdated and do not reflect current evidence. This creates confusion with the risks of adverse effects and addiction liability associated with pain medications, the prevalence of chronic pain, the ongoing opioid epidemic and the need for evidence-based options for pain as part of comprehensive pain care. Clinicians and patients want clarification on safe and effective options to treat pain. Issues involving reviewed trials' inadequate use of sham comparators, of acupuncture as a complex intervention with interactive components and a shift in research focus from efficacy trials to real-world pragmatic trials are discussed in relation to updating Cochrane reviews of acupuncture therapy for pain.