Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis
Dhananjaya Sutanto, Robin S.T. Ho, Eric Tsz‐Chun Poon, Yijian Yang, Stephen Heung‐Sang Wong
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = -1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-2.30, -1.01] in pain reduction; MD = -7.94, 95% CI [-10.29, -5.59] in ODI; MD = -3.21, 95% CI [-4.83, -1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = -2.44, 95% CI [-3.10, -1.79] in NPRS; MD = -8.32, 95% CI [-13.43, -3.22] in ODI; and MD = -3.58, 95% CI [-5.13, -2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk.