Objective

To determine the effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of MDT compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions in individuals with CLBP were considered eligible. For the purpose of this review, MDT was compared to active and passive physical therapy interventions. Independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes investigated were pain and disability.

Results

Fourteen studies were included in the review. Of these, 11 provided data to be included in the meta-analyses. Our findings showed that MDT was no more effective in decreasing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.44, 0.46) and disability (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI: −0.53, 0.68) than other active treatments. Similar results were found when comparing MDT to other passive treatments for pain (SMD = −0.39, 95% CI: −0.90, 0.11) and disability (SMD = −0.13, 95% CI: −0.29, 0.03).

Conclusion

There is low to moderate quality evidence that MDT is not superior than other traditional physical therapy interventions in improving pain and disability in people with CLBP.

中文翻译：

---

非特异性慢性腰痛患者机械诊断和治疗的有效性：文献综述和荟萃分析

客观的

与其他传统物理治疗干预相比，确定机械诊断和治疗 (MDT) 在慢性腰痛 (CLBP) 患者中的有效性。

方法

研究 MDT 与其他传统物理治疗干预对 CLBP 患者的影响的随机对照试验被认为是合格的。出于本次审查的目的，将 MDT 与主动和被动物理治疗干预进行了比较。独立审查员评估研究的资格、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。调查的主要结果是疼痛和残疾。

结果

该评价纳入了 14 项研究。其中，11 个提供了要包含在荟萃分析中的数据。我们的研究结果表明，MDT 在减轻疼痛（标准化平均差 [S​​MD]  =  0.01，95% 置信区间 [CI]：-0.44，0.46）和残疾（SMD  =  0.08，95% CI：-0.53，0.68 ) 比其他积极治疗。在将 MDT 与其他被动治疗疼痛（SMD  =  -0.39, 95% CI: -0.90, 0.11）和残疾（SMD  =  -0.13, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.03）进行比较时，发现了类似的结果。

结论

有低到中等质量的证据表明 MDT 在改善 CLBP 患者的疼痛和残疾方面并不优于其他传统物理治疗干预措施。