Gill Jones

Abstract

Purpose

Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.

Methods

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).

Results

Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD − 0.34 [95%CI − 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I2 = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI − 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I2 = 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI − 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I2 = 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD − 0.00 [95%CI − 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I2 = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI − 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I2 = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI − 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I2 = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

Conclusion

Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

Purpose: To determine if physiotherapist-led cognitive-behavioural (CB) interventions are effective for low back pain (LBP) and described sufficiently for replication.

Method: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with LBP treated by physiotherapists using a CB intervention were included. Outcomes of disability, pain, and quality of life were assessed using the GRADE approach. Intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication.

Results: Of 1898 titles, 5 RCTs (n = 1390) were identified. Compared to education and/or exercise interventions, we found high-quality evidence that CB had a greater effect (SMD; 95% CI) on reducing disability (-0.19; -0.32, -0.07), pain (-0.21; -0.33, -0.09); and moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quality of life (-0.06; -0.18 to 0.07). Sufficient information was provided on dose, setting, and provider; but not content and procedural information. Studies tended to report the type of CB component used (e.g., challenging unhelpful thoughts) with little detail on how it was operationalised. Moreover, access to treatment manuals, patient materials and provider training was lacking.

Conclusions: With additional training, physiotherapists can deliver effective CB interventions. However, without training or resources, successful translation and implementation remains unlikely. Researchers should improve reporting of procedural information, provide relevant materials, and offer accessible provider training. Implications for Rehabilitation Previous reviews have established that traditional biomedical-based treatments (e.g., acupuncture, manual therapy, massage, and specific exercise programmes) that focus only on physical symptoms do provide short-term benefits but the sustained effect is questionable. A cognitive-behavioural (CB) approach includes techniques to target both physical and psychosocial symptoms related to pain and provides patients with long-lasting skills to manage these symptoms on their own. This combined method has been used in a variety of settings delivered by different health care professionals and has been shown to produce long-term effects on patient outcomes. What has been unclear is if these programmes are effective when delivered by physiotherapists in routine physiotherapy settings. Our study synthesises the evidence for this context. We have confirmed with high-quality evidence that with additional training, physiotherapists can deliver CB interventions that are effective for patients with back pain. Physiotherapists who are considering enhancing their treatment for patients with low back pain should consider undertaking some additional training in how to incorporate CB techniques into their practice to optimise treatment benefits and help patients receive long-lasting treatment effects. Importantly, our results indicate that using a CB approach, including a variety of CB techniques that could be easily adopted in a physical therapy setting, provides greater benefits for patient outcomes compared to brief education, exercise or physical techniques (such as manual therapy) alone. This provides further support that a combined treatment approach is likely better than one based on physical techniques alone. Notably, we identified a significant barrier to adopting any of these CB interventions in practice. This is because no study provided a description of the intervention or accessible training materials that would allow for accurate replication. Without access to provider training and/or resources, we cannot expect this evidence to be implemented in practice with optimal effects. Thus, we would urge physiotherapists to directly contact authors of the studies for more information on how to incorporate their interventions into their settings.

Interhemispheric connections have been demonstrated between the motor cortex controlling muscle pairs. However, these investigations have tended to concentrate upon hand muscles. We have extended these investigations to proximal muscles that control the scapula upon the trunk and help to move and stabilise the shoulder. Using a paired pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation protocol, the interhemispheric interactions between different shoulder girdle muscle pairs, serratus anterior, upper trapezius and lower trapezius were investigated. Test motor evoked potentials were conditioned using conditioning pulse intensities of 80% and 120% of active motor threshold at three different condition-test intervals, during three different tasks. Interhemispheric inhibition was observed in upper trapezius using a conditioning intensity of 120% and condition-test interval of 8 ms (17 ± 18%, p