Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

Abstract

PurposeEvaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence.ResultsWe screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = − 1.21, 95%CI − 1.50; − 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = − 1.56, 95%CI − 2.80; − 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = − 1.39, 95%CI − 2.00; − 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = − 0.57, 95%CI − 0.92; − 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = − 1.10, 95%CI − 1.71; − 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = − 1.04, 95%CI − 1.66; − 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = − 1.35, 95%CI − 1.86; − 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = − 2.55, 95%CI − 3.70; − 1.40) at 3 months.ConclusionBased on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.