INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively). RESULTS: 27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD -0.16 (95% CI -0.29 to -0.03)), short (SMD -0.44 (95% CI -0.88 to 0.00)), medium (SMD -0.53 (95% CI -1.01 to -0.05)), and long-term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.01)), medium-term disability (SMD -0.32 (95% CI -0.61 to -0.03)), quality of life at short (SMD -0.17 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.04)) and medium-term (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.04)) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD -0.40 (95% CI -0.58 to -0.21)), short (SMD -0.42 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.24)), medium (SMD = -0.46 (95% CI -0.65, -0.28)), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 (95% CI -0.61, -0.24)). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.03)), short (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.06)), medium (SMD = -0.23 (95% CI -0.41, -0.05)), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 (95% CI -0.50, -0.13)), and reduced medium-term fearavoidance beliefs (SMD -0.24 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.06)) and long-term stress (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.03)). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderatequality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD -0.24 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.06)) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD -0.24 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.07)). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD -0.51 (95% CI -0.72 to -0.31)), short (SMD -0.48 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.05)), and long-term (RR = 1.28 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.49)) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD -0.78 (95% CI -0.98 to -0.58)) and long-term (SMD -0.32 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.12)). We found moderate to very lowquality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD -0.35 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.08)), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.89)), and long-term physician visits (SMD -0.16 (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05)). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• PubMed Central
• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher