Table 3 Outcomes
From: What is the effect of sensory discrimination training on chronic low back pain? A systematic review
study | groups | pre | post | 4 weeks post | 12 weeks post | 24 weeks post | change pre / post | between-group comparisons pre / post | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pain | function | pain | function | pain | function | pain | function | pain | function | pain | function | Pain | Function | ||
Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (SD) units | Mean (CI) units | Mean (CI) units | Difference in units | Difference in units | ||
Barker et al. (2008) [15] | Intervention group | 63 (19) | 40.8 (15.9) | 55 (18) | 40.2 (8.7) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - 8 (−15 to −1) | - 0.6 (−3.8 to 2.7) | 1 (p = 0.83) * | - 0.3 (p = 0.85) * |
Control group | 66 (14) | 42.8 (14.8) | 59 (14) | 41.9 (5.1) | - 7 (−13 to −1) | - 0.9 (−3.0 to 1.1) | |||||||||
Hohmann et al. (2012) [20] | Intervention group | 50 (23) | 22.8 (14.5) | 32 (22) | 18.8 (14.6) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - 18 (*+) | - 4.0 (*+) | 13 ( p = <0.001) | - 1.1 (p = 0.878) |
Control group | 49 (19) | 25.0 (13.9) | 54 (19) | 19.9 (10.9) | + 5 (*+) | - 5.1 (*+) | CI: −23 (−32 to −13) | CI: 0.4 (−4.8 t 5.6) | |||||||
Morone et al. (2011) [16] | Intervention group | 60 (10) | 34 (20) | 40 (20) | 16 (16) | - | - | 50 (10) | 16 (12) | 50 (40) | 20 (19) | - 20 (*+) | - 18 (*+) | 10 ( p <0.001) * | 8 / 16 |
Control group 1 | 70 (20) | 26 (24) | 60 (40) | 16 (18) | 50 (40) | 12 (16) | 40 (40) | 10 (12) | - 10 (*+) | - 10 (*+) | (Intervention group compared with control group 1 and control group 2) | (p = 0.403) * (Intervention group compared with control group 1 and control group 2) | |||
Control group 2 | 70 (20) | 24 (20) | 80 (10) | 22 (24) | 80 (10) | 26 (20) | 70 (30) | 26 (18) | + 10 (*+) | - 2 (*+) | |||||
Paolucci et al. (2012) [37] | Intervention group | 40 (15) | - | 23 (14) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - 17 (*+) | - 2 (p = 0.436) * | ||
Control group | 51 (32) | 32 (13) | - 19 (*+) | ||||||||||||
Ryan et al. (2014) [38] | Intervention group | 49 (19) | 38.8 (27.5) | 40.9 (27.8) | 31.7 (31.7) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - 8.1 (*+) | - 7.1 (*+) | - 24.8 (p = 0.056) | - 9.5 (p = 0.237) |
Control group | 48 (31) | 30.4 (12.9) | 15.2 (14.5) | 13.8 (14.1) | - 32.8 (*+) | - 16.6 (*+) | CI: 25.6 (−0.7 to 51.9) | CI: 2.2 (−1.6 to 6.0) | |||||||
Vetrano et al. (2013) [39] | Intervention group 1 | 75 (21) | 28 (14.5) | 50 (35) | 12 (11) | 40 (35) | 12 (9) | 20 (55) | 7 (13.5) | - | - | - 25 (*, p = 0.002) | - 16 (*, p = 0.003) | 5 (p = 0.179) * | 2 (p = 0.299) * |
Intervention group 2 | 50 (30) | 24 (16) | 30 (20) | 10 (8) | 30 (15) | 10 (8) | 20 (20) | 4 (11) | - 20 (*, p < 0.001) | - 14 (*, p < 0.003) | |||||