Treatment of Low Back Pain with Different Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To systematically assess the effect size of different methods for patients with low back pain. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. databases were searched in January 2023. This study has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. The key search terms were: “Low back pain”, “Back pain”, “SF-36”, “VAS”, “VASP”, “Roland-Morris”, “Oswestry Disability Index”, and “conservative treatment”. The risk of bias was determined for each randomized trial using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). The outcomes included SF-36 Mental, SF-36 Physical, VAS, Roland-Morris, and Oswestry Disability Index. R 4.0.5 software was used, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes, random model. Twenty-five studies were included. Depending on the outcome being measured, the effect size of different methods in treating low back pain varies from small to large as follows: SF-36 Mental (SMD = 0.39, p < 0.0001), SF-36 Physical (SMD = 0.55, p < 0.0001), VAS (SMD = -0.84, p < 0.0001), Roland-Morris (SMD = -0.45, p < 0.0001), and Oswestry Disability Index (SMD = -0.61, p < 0.0001). Our meta-analysis indicates the positive effects of applying different methods in the treatment of low back pain. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022371282