STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of neuroreflexotherapy (NRT) for low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Few of the alternatives for the management of LBP have a firm base of evidence for their effectiveness. Recently, a new intervention known as NRT has been developed in Spain and has been reported to have favorable results. METHODS Searches were undertaken according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated NRT as treatment for patients with nonspecific LBP were included. A qualitative synthesis and an assessment of methodological quality were undertaken. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials were included, with 125 and 148 subjects in control and intervention groups, respectively. NRT was compared with sham in two trials and standard care in one. Individuals receiving active NRT showed significantly better outcomes for pain, mobility, disability, medication use, consumption of resources, and costs. No major side effects were reported by those receiving active NRT. CONCLUSIONS NRT appears to be a safe and effective intervention for nonspecific LBP. This conclusion is limited to three trials conducted by a small number of experienced clinicians. Further trials in other settings are needed to determine whether these favorable results can be generalized.
Neuroreflexotherapy for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review
ZANOLI, Gustavo Alberto
2005
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of neuroreflexotherapy (NRT) for low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Few of the alternatives for the management of LBP have a firm base of evidence for their effectiveness. Recently, a new intervention known as NRT has been developed in Spain and has been reported to have favorable results. METHODS Searches were undertaken according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated NRT as treatment for patients with nonspecific LBP were included. A qualitative synthesis and an assessment of methodological quality were undertaken. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials were included, with 125 and 148 subjects in control and intervention groups, respectively. NRT was compared with sham in two trials and standard care in one. Individuals receiving active NRT showed significantly better outcomes for pain, mobility, disability, medication use, consumption of resources, and costs. No major side effects were reported by those receiving active NRT. CONCLUSIONS NRT appears to be a safe and effective intervention for nonspecific LBP. This conclusion is limited to three trials conducted by a small number of experienced clinicians. Further trials in other settings are needed to determine whether these favorable results can be generalized.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
