Musculoskeletal care · 2025
Effectiveness of Isostretching on Pain and Disability in Individuals Diagnosed With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Silva José Renato Costa da, Grigoletto Douglas Augusto de Oliveira, Souza Cesário da Silva, Senem Iara, Conde Rodrigo Melo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of Isostretching on pain, physical function and quality of life in individuals with Low Back Pain (LBP).
DATA SOURCES: We searched the following databases until November 11, 2024: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro, Virtual Health Library Regional Portal, Scopus, Web of Science, SportDiscus and Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine. PRISMA-S was used to strengthen the reporting quality of our search strategy.
METHODS: This review followed the PRISMA checklist. Randomized clinical trials that investigated the effects of Isostretching against any control intervention in individuals with non-specific LBP were eligible. Literature screening and data extraction were performed independently by the authors. The PEDro scale, the GRADE approach and the TIDier checklist were used to assess the risk of bias, quality of the evidence and reporting quality of the intervention, respectively. Results were analysed and synthesised narratively.
RESULTS: Five articles were included (pooled n = 155). Only adults (76% female) between 19 and 60 years were included. The PEDro score ranged from 2-8 points (mean of 5.6). Very-low quality evidence suggests that isostretching may reduce pain and improve functional capacity in the short term when compared with no intervention. Also, very-low quality evidence suggests that isostretching is not superior to any active intervention to reduce pain and improve functional capacity and quality of life. The mean number of reported TIDier items was 6.4.
CONCLUSION: This review supports Isostretching to reduce pain and improve physical function and quality of life in patients with non-specific LBP.
DATA SOURCES: We searched the following databases until November 11, 2024: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro, Virtual Health Library Regional Portal, Scopus, Web of Science, SportDiscus and Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine. PRISMA-S was used to strengthen the reporting quality of our search strategy.
METHODS: This review followed the PRISMA checklist. Randomized clinical trials that investigated the effects of Isostretching against any control intervention in individuals with non-specific LBP were eligible. Literature screening and data extraction were performed independently by the authors. The PEDro scale, the GRADE approach and the TIDier checklist were used to assess the risk of bias, quality of the evidence and reporting quality of the intervention, respectively. Results were analysed and synthesised narratively.
RESULTS: Five articles were included (pooled n = 155). Only adults (76% female) between 19 and 60 years were included. The PEDro score ranged from 2-8 points (mean of 5.6). Very-low quality evidence suggests that isostretching may reduce pain and improve functional capacity in the short term when compared with no intervention. Also, very-low quality evidence suggests that isostretching is not superior to any active intervention to reduce pain and improve functional capacity and quality of life. The mean number of reported TIDier items was 6.4.
CONCLUSION: This review supports Isostretching to reduce pain and improve physical function and quality of life in patients with non-specific LBP.