Journal of pain research · 2026
Comparative Efficacy of Physical Agent Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Yuntong, Shen Wenchao, Jiang Xu, Zhao Xinyu, Huang Siqing, Adams Roger, Pranata Adrian, Chen Zhengquan, Jiang Chao, Han Jia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) involves peripheral nociception, central sensitization, and persistent disability. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may reduce pain by modulating cortical excitability and central pain processing, while electroacupuncture (EA) combines acupuncture with electrical stimulation to influence nociceptive pathways and improve function. However, the relative efficacy of these and other physical agent therapies remains clinically uncertain in CLBP management.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the efficacy of different PATs in pain relief and physical function improvement for CLBP patients via network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through November 2025 for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes were VAS/NRS pain scores and ODI disability. A bayesian random-effects NMA was used to estimate mean differences (MDs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and SUCRA rankings.
RESULTS: Fifty RCTs involving 2,811 participants evaluated nine interventions: TMS, PMS, ESWT, EA, tDCS, PEMF, TENS, IFC, and PMS+TMS. TMS ranked highest for pain relief (SUCRA=0.98), followed by PMS (0.82) and ESWT (0.71), although four TMS studies had a high risk of performance bias. EA ranked highest for ODI improvement (0.94), followed by ESWT (0.72) and PMS (0.68). PMS+TMS showed no additional benefit over monotherapy.
CONCLUSION: TMS may provide superior pain relief among physical agent therapies for CLBP, yet these results should be interpreted cautiously owing to potential bias in the available evidence. EA shows the greatest benefit for functional recovery, and moderate-to-large analgesic effects are also observed with ESWT and PMS. When choosing physical agent therapies, clinicians ought to weigh these comparative rankings against the methodological limitations of the analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the efficacy of different PATs in pain relief and physical function improvement for CLBP patients via network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through November 2025 for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes were VAS/NRS pain scores and ODI disability. A bayesian random-effects NMA was used to estimate mean differences (MDs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and SUCRA rankings.
RESULTS: Fifty RCTs involving 2,811 participants evaluated nine interventions: TMS, PMS, ESWT, EA, tDCS, PEMF, TENS, IFC, and PMS+TMS. TMS ranked highest for pain relief (SUCRA=0.98), followed by PMS (0.82) and ESWT (0.71), although four TMS studies had a high risk of performance bias. EA ranked highest for ODI improvement (0.94), followed by ESWT (0.72) and PMS (0.68). PMS+TMS showed no additional benefit over monotherapy.
CONCLUSION: TMS may provide superior pain relief among physical agent therapies for CLBP, yet these results should be interpreted cautiously owing to potential bias in the available evidence. EA shows the greatest benefit for functional recovery, and moderate-to-large analgesic effects are also observed with ESWT and PMS. When choosing physical agent therapies, clinicians ought to weigh these comparative rankings against the methodological limitations of the analysis.