Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain.
Aust J Physiother. 2004; 50(4):209-16.AJ

Abstract

A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to investigate the efficacy of McKenzie therapy in the treatment of spinal pain. Databases searched included DARE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PEDro. To be eligible for inclusion trials had to provide treatment according to McKenzie principles and report on one of the following outcomes: pain, disability, quality of life, work status, global perceived effect, medication use, health care contacts, or recurrence. Six trials were found to be eligible, all comparing McKenzie therapy to a comparison treatment. These included NSAIDS, educational booklet, back massage and back care advice, strength training, and spinal mobilisation and general exercises. The data from five lumbar trials were pooled at short term (less than three months) and from three at intermediate (3-12 months) follow-up. At short term follow-up the McKenzie therapy provided a mean 8.6 point greater pain reduction on a 0 to 100 point scale (95% CI 3.5 to 13.7) and a 5.4 point greater reduction in disability on a 0 to 100 point scale (95% CI 2.4 to 8.4) than comparison. At intermediate follow-up, relative risk of work absence was 0.81 (0.46 to 1.44) favouring McKenzie, however the comparison treatments provided a 1.2 point greater disability reduction (95% CI -2.0 to 4.5). In the one cervical trial, McKenzie therapy provided similar benefits to an exercise program. The results of this review show that for low back pain patients McKenzie therapy does result in a greater decrease in pain and disability in the short term than other standard therapies. Making a firm conclusion on low back pain treatment effectiveness is difficult because there are insufficient data on long term effects on outcomes other than pain and disability, and no trial has yet compared McKenzie to placebo or no treatment. There are also insufficient data available on neck pain patients.

Authors+Show Affiliations

The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. clare.ha@bigpond.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15574109

Citation

Clare, Helen A., et al. "A Systematic Review of Efficacy of McKenzie Therapy for Spinal Pain." The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 50, no. 4, 2004, pp. 209-16.
Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG. A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. Aust J Physiother. 2004;50(4):209-16.
Clare, H. A., Adams, R., & Maher, C. G. (2004). A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 50(4), 209-16.
Clare HA, Adams R, Maher CG. A Systematic Review of Efficacy of McKenzie Therapy for Spinal Pain. Aust J Physiother. 2004;50(4):209-16. PubMed PMID: 15574109.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain. AU - Clare,Helen A, AU - Adams,Roger, AU - Maher,Christopher G, PY - 2004/12/3/pubmed PY - 2005/2/11/medline PY - 2004/12/3/entrez SP - 209 EP - 16 JF - The Australian journal of physiotherapy JO - Aust J Physiother VL - 50 IS - 4 N2 - A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to investigate the efficacy of McKenzie therapy in the treatment of spinal pain. Databases searched included DARE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PEDro. To be eligible for inclusion trials had to provide treatment according to McKenzie principles and report on one of the following outcomes: pain, disability, quality of life, work status, global perceived effect, medication use, health care contacts, or recurrence. Six trials were found to be eligible, all comparing McKenzie therapy to a comparison treatment. These included NSAIDS, educational booklet, back massage and back care advice, strength training, and spinal mobilisation and general exercises. The data from five lumbar trials were pooled at short term (less than three months) and from three at intermediate (3-12 months) follow-up. At short term follow-up the McKenzie therapy provided a mean 8.6 point greater pain reduction on a 0 to 100 point scale (95% CI 3.5 to 13.7) and a 5.4 point greater reduction in disability on a 0 to 100 point scale (95% CI 2.4 to 8.4) than comparison. At intermediate follow-up, relative risk of work absence was 0.81 (0.46 to 1.44) favouring McKenzie, however the comparison treatments provided a 1.2 point greater disability reduction (95% CI -2.0 to 4.5). In the one cervical trial, McKenzie therapy provided similar benefits to an exercise program. The results of this review show that for low back pain patients McKenzie therapy does result in a greater decrease in pain and disability in the short term than other standard therapies. Making a firm conclusion on low back pain treatment effectiveness is difficult because there are insufficient data on long term effects on outcomes other than pain and disability, and no trial has yet compared McKenzie to placebo or no treatment. There are also insufficient data available on neck pain patients. SN - 0004-9514 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15574109/A_systematic_review_of_efficacy_of_McKenzie_therapy_for_spinal_pain_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0004-9514(14)60110-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -