[Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar disk disease in outpatient rehabilitation]

Effects of early aquatic exercise intervention on trunk strength and functional recovery of patients with lumbar fusion: a randomized controlled trial

This study investigated the effectiveness of an early aquatic exercise program on trunk muscle function and functional recovery of patients with lumbar fusion. Twenty-eight subjects were divided into two equal groups. Patients in the aquatic group performed two 60-min aquatic exercise sessions and three 60-min home exercise sessions per week for 6 weeks, whereas those in the control group performed five sessions of 60-min home exercises per week for 6 weeks. The primary outcomes were the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the secondary outcomes were Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), trunk flexor and extensor muscle strength, lumbopelvic stability, and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness measured pre- and post-intervention. Compared with participants in the control group, those in the experimental group showed significant improvement in NPRS, ODI, trunk extensor strength, lumbopelvic control, lumbar multifidus muscle thickness, and relative change in multifidus muscle thickness (significant time by group interactions, P < 0.05). Participants in both groups showed significant time effects (P < 0.001) for TUGT and trunk flexor strength outcome. Aquatic exercise combined with home exercise was superior to home exercise alone in reducing pain, disability and improving muscle strength, lumbopelvic stability, and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness.

Best Exercise Options for Reducing Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: Pilates, Strength, Core-Based, and Mind-Body. A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine which type of exercise is best for reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

LITERATURE SEARCH

Six electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs testing the effects of exercise on reducing self-perceived pain or disability in adults (aged 18-65 years) with chronic LBP.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We followed the PRISMA-NMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, incorporating NMAs of health care interventions) statement when reporting our NMA. A frequentist NMA was conducted. The probability of each intervention being the most effective was conducted according to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

We included 118 trials (9710 participants). There were 28 head-to-head comparisons, 7 indirect comparisons for pain, and 8 indirect comparisons for disability. Compared with control, all types of physical exercises were effective for improving pain and disability, except for stretching exercises (for reducing pain) and the McKenzie method (for reducing disability). The most effective interventions for reducing pain were Pilates, mind-body, and core-based exercises. The most effective interventions for reducing disability were Pilates, strength, and core-based exercises. On SUCRA analysis, Pilates had the highest likelihood for reducing pain (93%) and disability (98%).

CONCLUSION

Although most exercise interventions had benefits for managing pain and disability in chronic LBP, the most beneficial programs were those that included (1) at least 1 to 2 sessions per week of Pilates or strength exercises; (2) sessions of less than 60 minutes of core-based, strength, or mind-body exercises; and (3) training programs from 3 to 9 weeks of Pilates and core-based exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):505-521. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10671.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

The effect of individualized gradable stabilization exercises in patients with chronic low back pain: Case-control study

BACKGROUND

There is no evidence that one exercise program is better than another for rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

OBJECTIVE

To identify the safety and efficacy of a gradable stabilization exercise protocol in patients with CLBP.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort study with 65 patients. The exercise group received the gradable stabilization exercise protocol for 3 weeks over 6-8 visits, while the control group did not receive any exercise protocol. All subjects were evaluated with the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ), the active sit-up test (AST), side support test (SST), and extensor endurance test (EET).

RESULTS

After gradable stabilization exercise, the exercise group showed significant improvement in VAS, FABQ-W, ODI, AST, SST and EET (p< 0.05). And the exercise group showed better improvement than the control group in VAS, FABQ-W, ODI, AST, SST and EET (p< 0.05). The rate of treatment success was 77.1% among patients assigned to the exercise group, as compared with 12.0% among those assigned to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the gradable stabilization exercise protocol has the possibility to improve clinical and physical findings.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

Motor control exercises reduces pain and disability in chronic and recurrent low back pain: a meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the short-term, intermediate, and long-term effectiveness of MCE, with regard to pain and disability, in patients with chronic and recurrent low-back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous meta-analyses have shown no difference between the effects of MCE and general exercise in the treatment of low back pain. Several high quality studies on this topic have been published lately, warranting a new meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases up to October 2011 for randomized controlled trials clearly distinguishing MCE from other treatments. We extracted pain and disability outcomes and converted them to a 0 to 100 scale. We used the RevMan5 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) software to perform pooled analyses to determine the weighted mean differences (WMDs) between MCE and 5 different control interventions.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. The pooled results favored MCE compared with general exercise with regard to disability during all time periods (improvement in WMDs ranged from -4.65 to -4.86), and with regard to pain in the short and intermediate term (WMDs were -7.80 and -6.06, respectively). Compared with spinal manual therapy, MCE was superior with regard to disability during all time periods (the WMDs ranged between -5.27 and -6.12), but not with regard to pain. Furthermore, MCE was superior to minimal intervention during all time periods with regard to both pain (the WMDs ranged between -10.18 and -13.32) and disability (the WMDs ranged between -5.62 and -9.00).

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic and recurrent low back pain, MCE seem to be superior to several other treatments. More studies are, however, needed to investigate what subgroups of patients experiencing LBP respond best to MCE.

Assessing dimensionality and responsiveness of outcomes measures for patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic literature review of the responsiveness of patient-reported health outcomes measures for the evaluation of low back pain (LBP).

METHODS AND DESIGN

Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were performed for articles published in English through June 29, 2009 using the search terms "back pain" or "low back pain" and "questionnaires" or "instrument" or "survey" or "measure" or "patient report outcome." Information on responsiveness was gathered through additional measure-specific searches that included the measure name, first author of the original paper, and "respons*" or "sensit*." Responsiveness was determined based on use of a receiver operating characteristics curve or effect size statistics.

RESULTS

Of 43 identified measures, 31 were reported as being responsive to treatment or clinical change, 25 of which were evaluated for responsiveness using methods considered adequate. When considering both the responsiveness evaluation and the underlying factor structure, 13 measures were identified as being adequately validated for use in evaluating responsiveness in the research or clinical practice setting. The majority of the LBP outcome assessment studies were comprised of patients undergoing physical and interventional therapies from clinical practice and clinical trials. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index were the most comprehensively validated measures with respect to responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 13 measures of LBP that can be used to evaluate responsiveness to change. Choice of a measure warrants careful evaluation of its construct and responsiveness properties in order to maximize the observed impact on pain and functional improvement in subjects with LBP.

Motor control exercise for persistent, nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have concluded that the effectiveness of motor control exercise for persistent low back pain has not been clearly established.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of motor control exercises for persistent low back pain.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to June 2008. Pain, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes were extracted and converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. Where possible, trials were pooled using Revman 4.2.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included. Seven trials compared motor control exercise with minimal intervention or evaluated it as a supplement to another treatment. Four trials compared motor control exercise with manual therapy. Five trials compared motor control exercise with another form of exercise. One trial compared motor control exercise with lumbar fusion surgery. The pooling revealed that motor control exercise was better than minimal intervention in reducing pain at short-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=-14.3 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-20.4 to -8.1), at intermediate follow-up (weighted mean difference=-13.6 points, 95% CI=-22.4 to -4.1), and at long-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=-14.4 points, 95% CI=-23.1 to -5.7) and in reducing disability at long-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=-10.8 points, 95% CI=-18.7 to -2.8). Motor control exercise was better than manual therapy for pain (weighted mean difference=-5.7 points, 95% CI=-10.7 to -0.8), disability (weighted mean difference=-4.0 points, 95% CI=-7.6 to -0.4), and quality-of-life outcomes (weighted mean difference=-6.0 points, 95% CI=-11.2 to -0.8) at intermediate follow-up and better than other forms of exercise in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=-5.1 points, 95% CI=-8.7 to -1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Motor control exercise is superior to minimal intervention and confers benefit when added to another therapy for pain at all time points and for disability at long-term follow-up. Motor control exercise is not more effective than manual therapy or other forms of exercise.

Segmental stabilizing exercises and low back pain. What is the evidence? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises for acute, subacute and chronic low back pain with regard to pain, recurrence of pain, disability and return to work.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PEDro and article reference lists were searched from 1988 onward. Randomized controlled trials with segmental stabilizing exercises for adult low back pain patients were included. Four comparisons were foreseen: (1) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises versus treatment by general practitioner (GP); (2) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises versus other physiotherapy treatment; (3) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises combined with other physiotherapy treatment versus treatment by GP and (4) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises combined with other physiotherapy treatment versus other physiotherapy treatment.

RESULTS

Seven trials were included. For acute low back pain, segmental stabilizing exercises are equally effective in reducing short-term disability and pain and more effective in reducing long-term recurrence of low back pain than treatment by GP. For chronic low back pain, segmental stabilizing exercises are, in the short and long-term, more effective than GP treatment and may be as effective as other physiotherapy treatments in reducing disability and pain. There is limited evidence that segmental stabilizing exercises additional to other physiotherapy treatment are equally effective for pain and more effective concerning disability than other physiotherapy treatments alone. There is no evidence concerning subacute low back pain.

CONCLUSION

For low back pain, segmental stabilizing exercises are more effective than treatment by GP but they are not more effective than other physiotherapy interventions.

Specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain: A systematic review

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain. Randomised clinical trials evaluating specific stabilisation exercise were identified and retrieved. Outcomes were disability, pain, return to work, number of episodes, global perceived effect, or health-related quality of life. A single trial reported that specific stabilisation exercise was more effective than no treatment but not more effective than spinal manipulative therapy for the management of cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain. Single trials reported that specific stabilisation exercise was effective for pelvic pain and for prevention of recurrence after an acute episode of low back pain but not to reduce pain or disability associated with acute low back pain. Pooled analyses revealed that, for chronic low back pain, specific stabilisation exercise was superior to usual medical care and education but not to manipulative therapy, and no additional effect was found when specific stabilisation exercise was added to a conventional physiotherapy program. A single trial reported that specific stabilisation exercise and a surgical procedure to reduce pain and disability in chronic low back pain were equally effective. The available evidence suggests that specific stabilisation exercise is effective in reducing pain and disability in chronic but not acute low back pain. Single trials indicate that specific stabilisation exercise can be helpful in the treatment of cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain, pelvic pain, and in reducing recurrence after acute low back pain.

Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Exercise therapy is widely used as an intervention in low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy in adult non-specific acute, subacute and chronic low-back pain versus no treatment and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL databases to October 2004; citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy for adult non-specific low-back pain and measuring pain, function, return-to-work/absenteeism, and/or global improvement outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one randomized controlled trials (6390 participants) met inclusion criteria: acute (11), subacute (6) and chronic (43) low-back pain (1 unclear). Evidence was found of effectiveness in chronic populations relative to comparisons at all follow-up periods; pooled mean improvement was 7.3 points (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.9) for pain (out of 100), 2.5 points (1.0 to 3.9) for function (out of 100) at earliest follow-up. In studies investigating patients (i.e. presenting to healthcare providers) mean improvement was 13.3 points (5.5 to 21.1) for pain, 6.9 (2.2 to 11.7) for function, representing significantly greater improvement over studies where participants included those recruited from a general population (e.g. with advertisements). There is some evidence of effectiveness of graded-activity exercise program in subacute low-back pain in occupational settings, though the evidence for other types of exercise therapy in other populations is inconsistent. There was evidence of equal effectiveness relative to comparisons in acute populations [pain: 0.03 points (95% CI, -1.3 to 1.4)].

LIMITATIONS

This review largely reflects limitations of the literature, including low quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures, inconsistent and poor reporting, and possibility of publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise therapy appears to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low-back pain, particularly in healthcare populations. In subacute low-back pain there is some evidence that a graded activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, though evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low-back pain, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments.