Most treatments for back pain do not work – and even the few that do, bring little relief, a global review of the evidence on one of the world’s commonest health problems has found.
The wide range of treatment available includes painkillers, acupuncture, stretching, massage, anti-inflammatory drugs, laser and light therapy, and manipulation of the spine. However, reports The Guardian, the bad news for the many who endure back pain is that only 10% of these non-surgical treatments usually deployed actually have any effect – and the rest provide little or no benefit.
Only six out of the 56 treatments analysed are effective and even those yield only “small” relief. The other 50 treatments either do not work, only modestly reduce pain or may even worsen it.
That is the conclusion of the most comprehensive review yet of the worldwide evidence surrounding what non-surgical treatments have analgesic effects on back pain.
Australian researchers led by Dr Aidan Cashin at the pain impact centre at Neuroscience Research Australia examined 301 previously published randomised controlled trials that investigated the 56 treatments or combinations of treatments, such as anti-inflammatories and muscle relaxants.
The trials were carried out in 44 countries worldwide, including in Europe, North America and Asia.
“The current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low-back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo,” conclude the authors, whose findings are published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.
“The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain. Our review did not find reliable evidence of large effects for any of the included treatments.”
The one treatment that does help those with acute low-back pain is non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), they found. In addition, five treatments also bring some relief for chronic low-back pain: exercise, spinal manipulative therapy, taping, antidepressants and what are known as transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TPRV1) drugs.
But three treatments for acute back pain do not work – exercise, glucocortisoid injections and taking paracetamol. And two for chronic back pain are also ineffective – antibiotics and anaesthetics.
However, the evidence for the other 45 treatments is “inconclusive”. The researchers assessed and offered a judgment on the extent to which they all relieved pain. Despite some of them being very popular, most “may provide modest reductions in pain”, they said.
Interventions that “probably provide little to no difference in pain” include exercise, paracetamol, glucocortisoid injections, anaesthetics and antibiotics or antimicrobial drugs.
But having a massage, taking painkillers and wearing foot orthotics “may provide” large reductions in pain.
Heat, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may produce a “moderate” reduction in pain. Osteopathic treatment and using muscle relaxants and NSAIDs together may produce a small lessening of pain.
They found two treatments may increase someone’s pain, including extracorporeal shockwaves and the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.
Professor Kamila Hawthorne, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that family doctors often refer patients with back pain for physiotherapy as a first-line treatment, to be assessed and given exercises to perform, or to link workers, who suggest non-medical interventions.
“Many patients do report feeling some relief from the interventions – medical or not – that we suggest,” Hawthorne said.
Tim Button, the president of the British Chiropractic Association, welcomed the study’s endorsement of spinal manipulation and taping as effective treatments.
“Our members are increasingly seeing patients come to them with back pain, worried that they can’t work and being stuck on NHS waiting lists,” he said.
“While this may not always be a ‘miracle cure’ to chronic musculoskeletal conditions, it is as effective as other non-invasive treatments and makes a real difference to how quickly people can get back to work and normal life.”
A Chartered Society of Physiotherapy spokesperson said: “Physiotherapists carry out an in-depth assessment to identify the root causes of back pain, which will be different for everyone and can range widely from stress, fear of movement and poor sleep to smoking, obesity, job-related strain, and insufficient physical activity.
“Exercise has been shown to be the most helpful treatment for back pain. Hands-on treatments have been shown to have a small benefit to back pain, but only when used as part of a whole treatment programme, which includes exercise.
“Similarly, injections may be beneficial as part of a treatment programme, but not on their own.”
Study details
Analgesic effects of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised trials
Aidan G Cashin, Bradley Furlong, Steven Kamper et al.
Published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
Abstract
Objectives
To investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo.
Eligibility criteria
Randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or sham in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.
Information sources
MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 April 2023.
Risk of bias
Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the 0 to 10 PEDro Scale.
Synthesis of results
Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals on outcome pain intensity (0 to 100 scale) at first assessment post-treatment for each treatment type and by duration of low back pain—(sub)acute (<12 weeks) and chronic (≥12 weeks). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.
Results
A total of 301 trials (377 comparisons) provided data on 56 different treatments or treatment combinations. One treatment for acute low back pain (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), and five treatments for chronic low back pain (exercise, spinal manipulative therapy, taping, antidepressants, transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonists) were efficacious; effect sizes were small and of moderate certainty. Three treatments for acute low back pain (exercise, glucocorticoid injections, paracetamol), and two treatments for chronic low back pain (antibiotics, anaesthetics) were not efficacious and are unlikely to be suitable treatment options; moderate certainty evidence. Evidence is inconclusive for remaining treatments due to small samples, imprecision, or low and very low certainty evidence.
Conclusions
The current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo. The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain due to the limited number of randomised participants and poor study quality. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled trials are warranted to address the remaining uncertainty in treatment efficacy along with greater consideration for placebo-control design of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Steroid jabs for backache have limited efficacy, review finds
Little benefit found in common back pain treatment method
How effective are analgesics for non-specific low back pain?
Walking staves off lower back pain for longer – Australian study