IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0134192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Richmond
  • Amanda M Hall
  • Bethan Copsey
  • Zara Hansen
  • Esther Williamson
  • Nicolette Hoxey-Thomas
  • Zafra Cooper
  • Sarah E Lamb

Abstract

Objectives: To assess whether cognitive behavioural (CB) approaches improve disability, pain, quality of life and/or work disability for patients with low back pain (LBP) of any duration and of any age. Methods: Nine databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to November 2014. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual trials. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for two contrasts: CB versus no treatment (including wait-list and usual care (WL/UC)), and CB versus other guideline-based active treatment (GAT). Results: The review included 23 studies with a total of 3359 participants. Of these, the majority studied patients with persistent LBP (>6 weeks; n=20). At long term follow-up, the pooled SMD for the WL/UC comparison was -0.19 (-0.38, 0.01) for disability, and -0.23 (-0.43, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. For the GAT comparison, at long term the pooled SMD was -0.83 (-1.46, -0.19) for disability and -0.48 (-0.93, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. While trials varied considerably in methodological quality, and in intervention factors such as provider, mode of delivery, dose, duration, and pragmatism, there were several examples of lower intensity, low cost interventions that were effective. Conclusion: CB interventions yield long-term improvements in pain, disability and quality of life in comparison to no treatment and other guideline-based active treatments for patients with LBP of any duration and of any age. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42014010536.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Richmond & Amanda M Hall & Bethan Copsey & Zara Hansen & Esther Williamson & Nicolette Hoxey-Thomas & Zafra Cooper & Sarah E Lamb, 2015. "The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0134192
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134192
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134192&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0134192?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giorgia Petrucci & Giuseppe Francesco Papalia & Fabrizio Russo & Gianluca VadalĂ  & Michela Piredda & Maria Grazia De Marinis & Rocco Papalia & Vincenzo Denaro, 2021. "Psychological Approaches for the Integrative Care of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Pinky Budhrani-Shani & Donna L. Berry & Patricia Arcari & Helene Langevin & Peter M. Wayne, 2016. "Mind-Body Exercises for Nurses with Chronic Low Back Pain: An Evidence-Based Review," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-10, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0134192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.