Cochrane · systematic review · CD009852
Muscle energy technique for non‐specific low‐back pain
Franke, H, Fryer, G, Ostelo, RWJG, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Back and NeckAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
35
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
22
Included studies
NR
No studies 22 · 62.9%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 2.9%Low 12 · 34.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
MET plus any intervention compared to other therapies plus that intervention for chronic non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 to 100 visual or numerical scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 232 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status Oswestry; 100‐point scale where 0 equals no disability and 100 is seriously disabled MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 232 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
General well‐being MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
MET compared to sham MET for acute non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 to 100 visual analogue scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET vs sham MET | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Functional status MET vs sham MET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
General well‐being MET vs sham MET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET vs sham MET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET vs sham MET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
MET compared to all other therapies for acute non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 t o 100 visual or numerical scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 88 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Functional status Oswestry; 100‐point scale where 0 equals no disability and 100 is seriously disabled. MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
General well‐being MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
MET compared to all other therapies for chronic non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 to 100 visual analogue scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status Oswestry; 100‐point scale where 0 equals no disability and 100 is seriously disabled MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
General well‐being MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET vs all other therapies | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
MET plus any intervention compared to that same intervention alone for acute non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 to 100 visual analogue scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status Oswestry; 100‐point scale where 0 equals no disability and 100 is seriously disabled MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
General well‐being MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
MET plus any intervention compared to that same intervention alone for chronic non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 to 100 visual analogue scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status Oswestry; 100‐point scale where 0 equals no disability and 100 is seriously disabled MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
General well‐being MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET plus any intervention vs that same intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
MET plus any intervention compared to other therapies plus that intervention for acute non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
Population: patients with non‐specific low‐back pain (LBP)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain A 0 to 100 visual analogue scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 100 is the worst pain imaginable MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Functional status Oswestry; 100‐point scale where 0 equals no disability and 100 is seriously disabled MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
General well‐being MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CI: confidence interval MET plus any intervention vs other therapies plus that intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |