The efficacy of conservative treatment of XXXX on @entity12761 relief: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

@entity1340 @entity1288 @entity3522 @entity3814 @entity158 @entity20708 @entity12761
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of commonly used non-surgical treatments in acute care of adults with @entity3814 ( @entity3814 ). METHODS: A systematic approach was used to search eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining analgesic medications, passive physical therapies, bed rest or orthoses. Data on @entity158 , activity/participation and adverse events were extracted. Methodological quality and quality of evidence were assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (score range 0-10) and the GRADE criteria, respectively. RESULTS: Five RCTs (total n  =  350) were identified including one placebo-controlled and four controlled trials examining analgesics (2 studies) and orthoses (3). PEDro scores ranged from 4 to 7. The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. In two trials, spinal orthoses provided significantly higher medium-term @entity158 relief [pooled standardized mean differences (SMD): -1.47, 95  % confidence interval (CI) -1.82, -1.13; I (2)  =  0  %] and disability reduction (pooled SMD: -1.73, 95  % CI -2.09, -1.37; I (2)  =  0  %) than no intervention. Immediate- and short-term @entity158 effects of @entity3522 (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and @entity1340 (a strong opioid) were demonstrated when compared to a Chinese medicine, whereas non-significant effects were found for @entity1288 and @entity20708 (strong opioids) in a placebo-controlled trial. Low/insufficient statistical power, co-interventions and potential conflict of interest might have influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is insufficient evidence to inform conservative care for @entity12761 related to VCF. Large, multinational, placebo/sham-controlled trials to address this gap in evidence are needed.
