Compliance effects in a randomised controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: a methodological study

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.

Compliance with telephone-based lifestyle weight loss programs improves low back pain but not knee pain outcomes: complier average causal effects analyses of 2 randomised trials

ABSTRACT

We conducted a complier average causal effect (CACE) analyses for 2 pragmatic randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of telephone-based lifestyle weight loss interventions compared with usual care among compliers. Participants from 2 trials with low back pain (n = 160) and knee osteoarthritis (n = 120) with a body mass index ≥27 kg/m2 were included. We defined adherence to the telephone-based lifestyle weight loss program as completing 60% (6 from 10) of telephone health coaching calls. The primary outcomes for CACE analyses were pain intensity (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for knee osteoarthritis). Secondary outcomes were weight, physical activity, and diet. We used an instrumental variable approach to estimate CACE in compliers. From the intervention groups of the trials, 29% of those with low back pain (n = 23/80) and 34% of those with knee osteoarthritis (n = 20/60) complied. Complier average causal effect estimates showed potentially clinically meaningful effects, but with low certainty because of wide confidence intervals, for pain intensity (-1.4; 95% confidence interval, -3.1, 0.4) and small but also uncertain effects for disability (-2.1; 95% confidence interval, -8.6, 4.5) among compliers in the low back pain trial intervention compared with control but not in the knee osteoarthritis trial. Our findings showed that compliers of a telephone-based weight loss intervention in the low back pain trial generally had improved outcomes; however, there were inconsistent effects in compliers from the knee osteoarthritis trial. Complier average causal effect estimates were larger than intention-to-treat results but must be considered with caution.

Do recommended interventions widen or narrow inequalities in musculoskeletal health? An equity-focussed systematic review of differential effectiveness

Background

It is unclear whether seven interventions recommended by Public Health England for preventing and managing common musculoskeletal conditions reduce or widen health inequalities in adults with musculoskeletal conditions.

Methods

We used citation searches of Web of Science (date of ‘parent publication’ for each intervention to April 2021) to identify original research articles reporting subgroup or moderator analyses of intervention effects by social stratifiers defined using the PROGRESS-Plus frameworks. Randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, systematic reviews presenting subgroup/stratified analyses or meta-regressions, individual participant data meta-analyses and modelling studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently assessed the credibility of effect moderation claims using Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Moderation Analyses. A narrative approach to synthesis was used (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019140018).

Results

Of 1480 potentially relevant studies, seven eligible analyses of single trials and five meta-analyses were included. Among these, we found eight claims of potential differential effectiveness according to social characteristics, but none that were judged to have high credibility.

Conclusions

In the absence of highly credible evidence of differential effectiveness in different social groups, and given ongoing national implementation, equity concerns may be best served by investing in monitoring and action aimed at ensuring fair access to these interventions.

Yoga for treating low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Yoga is frequently used for back pain relief. However, evidence was judged to be of only low- or moderate. To assess the efficacy and safety of yoga in patients with low back pain a meta-analysis was performed. Therefore Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was searched to May 26 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Yoga with passive control (usual care or waitlist), or an active comparator, for patients with low back pain, that assessed pain intensity or pain-related disability as a primary outcome were considered to be eligible. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and results at short-term and long-term follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. 30 articles on 27 individual studies (2702 participants in total) proved eligible for review. Compared to passive control, yoga was associated with short-term improvements in pain intensity (15 RCTs; Mean Difference (MD)=-0.74 points on a numeric rating scale; 95%CI=-1.04,-0.44; Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)=-0.37 95%CI=-0.52,-0.22), pain-related disability (15 RCTs; MD=-2.28; 95%CI=-3.30,-1.26; SMD=-0.38 95%CI=-0.55,-0.21), mental health (7 RCTs; MD=1.70; 95%CI=0.20,3.20; SMD=0.17 95%CI=0.02,0.32) and physical functioning (9 RCTs; MD=2.80; 95%CI=1.00,4.70; SMD=0.28 95%CI=0.10,0.47). Except for mental health all effects sustained long-term. Compared to an active comparator, yoga was not associated with any significant differences in short- or long-term outcomes.In conclusion, yoga revealed robust short- and long-term effects for pain, disability, physical function and mental health, when compared to non-exercise controls. However these effects were mainly not clinically significant.

Do patients with low back pain remember physiotherapists' advice? A mixed-methods study on patient-therapist communication

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to determine if the advice physiotherapists think they provide to patients with low back pain (LBP) is what the patients remember and take away from the clinical encounter. The secondary aim was to determine which factors may influence the retention of this advice.

METHODS

The first component of the study used questionnaires completed by patients and therapists after the initial visit. Related questionnaires of patients and therapists were screened for inconsistencies. The second component of the study involved semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Ninety pairs of questionnaires were completed. Therapists provided patients with one (N = 90), two (N = 85) or three (N = 51) items of advice regarding the management of their LBP. All patients remembered the first item of advice, 92% remembered a second, and 67% remembered the third piece of advice. All items of advice were deemed either 'relevant' or 'very relevant' by 97% of the patients. After the analysis of 14 interviews, data saturation was reached. Four themes emerged from the data analysis of the interviews: (a) Evaluation type, (b) Exercise factors, (c) Patient concerns about their diagnosis, and (d) Patient expectations.

DISCUSSION

In most cases, patients remembered what therapists told them and considered that the advice provided was relevant. Based on the qualitative data, patients were more likely to remember what therapists said when: (a) shared decision making was used during the initial encounter, (b) prescribed exercises were simple to perform and few in number, (c) patients' concerns about their diagnosis were addressed, and (d) patients' expectations were identified and addressed.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

Yoga treatment 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 state that exercise therapy may be beneficial. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain, compared to no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, with a focus on pain, function, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and four trials registers to 11 March 2016 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of yoga treatment in people with chronic non-specific low back pain. We included studies comparing yoga to any other intervention or to no intervention. We also included studies comparing yoga as an adjunct to other therapies, versus those other therapies alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials (1080 participants) carried out in the USA (seven trials), India (three trials), and the UK (two trials). Studies were unfunded (one trial), funded by a yoga institution (one trial), funded by non-profit or government sources (seven trials), or did not report on funding (three trials). Most trials used Iyengar, Hatha, or Viniyoga forms of yoga. The trials compared yoga to no intervention or a non-exercise intervention such as education (seven trials), an exercise intervention (three trials), or both exercise and non-exercise interventions (two trials). All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment assignment, and outcomes were self-assessed. Therefore, we downgraded all outcomes to 'moderate' certainty evidence because of risk of bias, and when there was additional serious risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity between studies, or the analyses were imprecise, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence further.For yoga compared to non-exercise controls (9 trials; 810 participants), there was low-certainty evidence that yoga produced small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three to four months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.14; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of mean difference (MD) -2.18, 95% -3.60 to -0.76), moderate-certainty evidence for small to moderate improvements at six months (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.22; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -2.15, 95% -3.23 to -1.08), and low-certainty evidence for small improvements at 12 months (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -1.36, 95% -2.41 to -0.26). On a 0-100 scale there was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga was slightly better for pain at three to four months (MD -4.55, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.06), six months (MD -7.81, 95% CI -13.37 to -2.25), and 12 months (MD -5.40, 95% CI -14.50 to -3.70), however we pre-defined clinically significant changes in pain as 15 points or greater and this threshold was not met. Based on information from six trials, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, was higher in yoga than in non-exercise controls (risk difference (RD) 5%, 95% CI 2% to 8%).For yoga compared to non-yoga exercise controls (4 trials; 394 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference in back-related function at three months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.20; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.99, 95% -2.87 to 0.90) and six months (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.19; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.90, 95% -2.61 to 0.81), and no information on back-related function after six months. There was very low-certainty evidence for lower pain on a 0-100 scale at seven months (MD -20.40, 95% CI -25.48 to -15.32), and no information on pain at three months or after seven months. Based on information from three trials, there was low-certainty evidence for no difference in the risk of adverse events between yoga and non-yoga exercise controls (RD 1%, 95% CI -4% to 6%).For yoga added to exercise compared to exercise alone (1 trial; 24 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference at 10 weeks in back-related function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.42 to 0.22; corresponding to a change in the Oswestry Disability Index of MD -17.05, 95% -22.96 to 11.14) or pain on a 0-100 scale (MD -3.20, 95% CI -13.76 to 7.36). There was no information on outcomes at other time points. There was no information on adverse events.Studies provided limited evidence on risk of clinical improvement, measures of quality of life, and depression. There was no evidence on work-related disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to non-exercise controls results in small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three and six months. Yoga may also be slightly more effective for pain at three and six months, however the effect size did not meet predefined levels of minimum clinical importance. It is uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for back-related function or pain, or whether yoga added to exercise is more effective than exercise alone. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than non-exercise controls, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other back-focused exercise. Yoga is not associated with serious adverse events. There is a need for additional high-quality research to improve confidence in estimates of effect, to evaluate long-term outcomes, and to provide additional information on comparisons between yoga and other exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.

Adherence-adjusted estimates of benefits and harms from treatment with amoxicillin for LRTI: secondary analysis of a 12-country randomised placebo-controlled trial using randomisation-based efficacy estimators

OBJECTIVES

Estimate the efficacy of amoxicillin for acute uncomplicated lower-respiratory-tract infection (LRTI) in primary care and demonstrate the use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a two-arm individually-randomised placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care practices in 12 European countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 or older consulting with an acute LRTI in whom pneumonia was not suspected by the clinician.

INTERVENTIONS

Amoxicillin (two 500 mg tablets three times a day for 7 days) or matched placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinician-rated symptom severity between days 2-4; new/worsening symptoms and presence of side effects at 4-weeks. Adherence was captured using self-report and tablet counts.

RESULTS

2061 participants were randomised to the amoxicillin or placebo group. On average, 88% of the prescribed amoxicillin was taken. The original analysis demonstrated small increases in both benefits and harms from amoxicillin. Minor improvements in the benefits of amoxicillin were observed when an adjustments for adherence were made (mean difference in symptom severity -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.01, OR for new/worsening symptoms 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98) as well as minor increases in harms (OR for side effects 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to amoxicillin was high, and the findings from the original analysis were robust to non-adherence. Participants consulting to primary care with an acute uncomplicated LRTI can on average expect minor improvements in outcome from taking amoxicillin. However, they are also at an increased risk of experiencing side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

Eudract-CT 2007-001586-15 and ISRCTN52261229. The trial was registered at EudraCT in 2007 due to an administrative misunderstanding that EudraCT was a suitable registry--which it was not in 2007, but has become since. On discovery of this error, the trial was also registered at ISRCTN (January 2009). Trial procedures did not change between the two registrations.