Traction for low‐back pain with or without sciatica

Judy A Clarke; Maurits W. van Tulder; Stefan EI Blomberg; Henrica CW de Vet; Geert JMG van der Heijden; Gert Bronfort

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003010.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 1 Pain intensity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 2 Function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 3 Work absence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 7 Global perceived effect.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Physiotherapy, Outcome 2 Global.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 LBP with/without radiation, Physiotherapy with Traction vs Physiotherapy without Traction, Outcome 1 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 LBP with/without radiation, Physiotherapy with Traction vs Physiotherapy without Traction, Outcome 2 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 LBP with/without radiation, Physiotherapy with Traction vs Physiotherapy without Traction, Outcome 3 Function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 LBP with/without radiation Traction vs Exercise, Outcome 1 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 LBP with/without radiation Traction vs Exercise, Outcome 2 Global.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 LBP with/without radiation, Two types of traction, Outcome 1 Autotraction vs Mechanical traction.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 LBP with/without radiation, Two types of traction, Outcome 2 Static vs Intermittent traction.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Interferential therapy, Outcome 1 Function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Interferential therapy, Outcome 2 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Ineffective Treatment (sub‐thermal SWD; bedrest and analgesics), Outcome 2 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 LBP with/without radiation, Underwater traction vs Underwater massage, Outcome 1 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 LBP with/without radiation, Underwater traction vs Balneotherapy, Outcome 1 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 LBP with/without radiation, Underwater Traction vs No treatment, Outcome 1 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 1 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 3 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 4 RTW.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.5

Comparison 11 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 5 Back pain improvement after treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.6

Comparison 11 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 6 Leg pain improvement after treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.7

Comparison 11 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment, Outcome 7 Number of patients pain‐free.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Physiotherapy, Outcome 1 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Exercise, Outcome 1 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Exercise, Outcome 2 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Exercise, Outcome 3 RTW.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.4

Comparison 13 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Exercise, Outcome 4 Function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Manipulation, Outcome 1 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Manipulation, Outcome 2 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 15.3

Comparison 15 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Manipulation, Outcome 3 RTW.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Corset, Infrared, Outcome 1 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 16.2

Comparison 16 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Corset, Infrared, Outcome 2 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 16.3

Comparison 16 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Corset, Infrared, Outcome 3 RTW.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 16.4

Comparison 16 LBP with radiation, Traction vs Corset, Infrared, Outcome 4 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 17.1

Comparison 17 LBP with radiation, Autotraction vs Manual traction, Outcome 1 Pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 17.2

Comparison 17 LBP with radiation, Autotraction vs Manual traction, Outcome 2 Global improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Methodological quality assessment criteria (van Tulder 2003)

1. Was the method of randomisation adequate? A random (unpredictable) assignment sequence. Examples of adequate methods are computer generated random number table and use of sealed opaque envelopes. Methods of allocation using date of birth, date of admission, hospital numbers, or alternation should not be regarded as appropriate.

2. Was the treatment allocation concealed? Assignment generated by an independent person not responsible for determining the eligibility of the patients. This person has no information about the persons included in the trial and has no influence on the assignment sequence or on the decision about eligibility of the patient.

3. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? In order to receive a "yes," groups have to be similar at baseline regarding demographic factors, duration and severity of complaints, percentage of patients with neurologic symptoms, and value of main outcome measure(s).

4. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? Was the blinding evaluated and adequate? If only self‐reported (by the patients) outcome measures are used, and the patients have not been blinded, and no outcomes are measured by an observer, then score "negative"; if the patients have been successfully blinded, it is scored "positive".

5. Was the patient blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

6. Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

7. Were co‐interventions avoided or similar? Co‐interventions should either be avoided in the trial design or be similar between the index and control groups.

8. Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? The review author determines if the compliance to the interventions is acceptable, based on the reported intensity, duration, number and frequency of sessions for both the index intervention and control intervention(s).

9. Was the intervention drop‐out rate described and acceptable? If the percentage of withdrawals and drop‐outs during the intervention period does not exceed 20% and does not lead to substantial bias a "yes" is scored.

10. Was the follow‐up drop‐out rate described and acceptable? If the percentage of withdrawals and drop‐outs does not exceed 20% for follow‐ups and does not lead to substantial bias a "yes" is scored.

11. Did the analysis include an intention‐to‐treat analysis? All randomized patients are reported/analyzed in the group they were allocated to by randomization for the most important moments of effect measurement (minus missing values) irrespective of noncompliance and co‐interventions.

Table 1. Methodological quality assessment criteria (van Tulder 2003)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain intensity Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.2 3‐5 weeks	1	150	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 12‐16 weeks	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.4 six months	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Function Show forest plot	1	150	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 3‐5 weeks	1	150	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.3 12‐16 weeks	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.4 six months	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Work absence Show forest plot	1	150	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.1 3‐5 weeks	1	150	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.2 12‐15 wks	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.3 6 months	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Disability	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.2 3‐5 weeks	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Global perceived effect Show forest plot	3	400	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.26 [0.85, 1.87]

7.1 1‐2 weeks	1	200	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.64 [0.93, 2.88]
7.2 3‐5 weeks	2	175	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.50, 1.62]
7.3 12‐16 weeks	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7.4 six months	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7.5 6‐11 weeks	1	25	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.87 [0.34, 10.46]

Comparison 1. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Physiotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
2 Global Show forest plot	1	30	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	167.4 [7.37, 3801.64]

2.1 3‐5 weeks	1	30	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	167.4 [7.37, 3801.64]

Comparison 2. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Physiotherapy

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. LBP with/without radiation, Physiotherapy with Traction vs Physiotherapy without Traction

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Global improvement Show forest plot	1	81	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.07 [1.25, 7.58]

1.1 1‐2 weeks	1	42	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.36, 4.06]
1.2 12‐16 weeks	1	39	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	15.43 [2.73, 87.28]
2 Pain Show forest plot	1	81	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.50 [‐0.57, 1.57]

2.1 1‐2 weeks	1	42	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.2 12‐16 weeks.	1	39	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.50 [‐0.57, 1.57]
3 Function Show forest plot	1	79	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.94 [‐0.53, 8.42]

3.1 1‐2 weeks	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.90 [‐2.06, 9.86]
3.2 12‐16 weeks	1	39	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.0 [‐2.78, 10.78]

Comparison 3. LBP with/without radiation, Physiotherapy with Traction vs Physiotherapy without Traction

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. LBP with/without radiation Traction vs Exercise

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain Show forest plot	1	200	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.1 1‐2 weeks	1	200	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Global Show forest plot	2	326	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.51 [0.94, 2.43]

2.1 1‐2 weeks	2	242	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.40 [0.84, 2.33]
2.2 3‐5 weeks	1	42	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.97 [0.51, 17.42]
2.3 12‐16 weeks	1	42	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.11 [0.18, 25.17]

Comparison 4. LBP with/without radiation Traction vs Exercise

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. LBP with/without radiation, Two types of traction

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Autotraction vs Mechanical traction Show forest plot	1	67	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	10.5 [3.31, 33.35]

1.1 Global improvement at 1‐2 weeks	1	67	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	10.5 [3.31, 33.35]
2 Static vs Intermittent traction Show forest plot	1	26	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.15, 3.47]

2.1 Pain after treatment	1	26	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.15, 3.47]

Comparison 5. LBP with/without radiation, Two types of traction

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Interferential therapy

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Function Show forest plot	1	266	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.19 [‐3.69, 3.32]

1.1 1‐2 weeks	1	138	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.90 [‐5.74, 3.94]
1.2 12‐16 weeks	1	128	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.60 [‐4.48, 5.68]
2 Pain Show forest plot	1	186	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	18.81 [14.88, 22.75]

2.1 1‐2 weeks	1	101	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.20 [‐6.74, 4.34]
2.2 12‐16 weeks	1	85	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	39.2 [33.61, 44.79]

Comparison 6. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Interferential therapy

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Ineffective Treatment (sub‐thermal SWD; bedrest and analgesics)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
2 Global improvement Show forest plot	2	229	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.13 [1.28, 3.55]

2.1 1‐2 weeks	1	200	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.50 [0.86, 2.63]
2.2 3‐5 weeks	1	29	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	156.6 [6.88, 3566.11]

Comparison 7. LBP with/without radiation, Traction vs Ineffective Treatment (sub‐thermal SWD; bedrest and analgesics)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. LBP with/without radiation, Underwater traction vs Underwater massage

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain Show forest plot	1	140	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐8.9 [‐16.06, ‐1.74]

1.1 3‐5 weeks	1	70	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐8.90 [‐17.04, ‐0.76]
1.2 1 year	1	70	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐8.90 [‐23.99, 6.19]

Comparison 8. LBP with/without radiation, Underwater traction vs Underwater massage

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 9. LBP with/without radiation, Underwater traction vs Balneotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain Show forest plot	1	158	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐6.29 [‐11.90, ‐0.69]

1.1 3‐5 weeks	1	79	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.10 [‐13.52, ‐0.68]
1.2 1 year	1	79	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.70 [‐15.21, 7.81]

Comparison 9. LBP with/without radiation, Underwater traction vs Balneotherapy

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 10. LBP with/without radiation, Underwater Traction vs No treatment

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain Show forest plot	1	194	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐22.33 [‐28.28, ‐16.39]

1.1 3‐5 weeks	1	97	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐29.10 [‐36.41, ‐21.79]
1.2 1 year	1	97	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐9.10 [‐19.32, 1.12]

Comparison 10. LBP with/without radiation, Underwater Traction vs No treatment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 11. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain Show forest plot	2	118	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.93 [‐14.73, 20.59]

1.1 1‐2 weeks	2	79	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.93 [‐14.73, 20.59]
1.2 3‐5 weeks	1	39	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Global improvement Show forest plot	2	85	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.05 [0.72, 5.83]

3.1 1‐2 weeks	1	44	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.13 [0.27, 4.61]
3.2 3‐5 weeks	1	41	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.5 [0.81, 25.12]
4 RTW Show forest plot	1	39	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.0 [0.50, 8.00]

4.1 2 years	1	39	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.0 [0.50, 8.00]
5 Back pain improvement after treatment Show forest plot	1	72	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.32, 2.08]

6 Leg pain improvement after treatment Show forest plot	1	72	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.25 [0.50, 3.16]

7 Number of patients pain‐free Show forest plot	1	163	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.12 [1.12, 4.02]

7.1 3‐5 weeks	1	82	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.93 [1.47, 10.53]
7.2 12‐16 weeks	1	81	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.28 [0.53, 3.07]

Comparison 11. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Placebo, Sham or No Treatment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 12. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Physiotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Global improvement Show forest plot	1	41	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.9 [1.82, 53.83]

1.2 3‐5 weeks	1	41	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.9 [1.82, 53.83]

Comparison 12. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Physiotherapy

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 13. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Exercise

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Global improvement Show forest plot	3	640	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.81, 1.66]

1.1 1‐2 weeks	2	100	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.14 [0.51, 2.55]
1.2 3‐5 weeks	1	293	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.13 [0.63, 2.02]
1.3 12‐16 weeks	1	247	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.20 [0.69, 2.08]
2 Pain Show forest plot	2	297	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.1 3‐5 weeks	1	247	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.2 1‐2 weeks	1	50	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 RTW Show forest plot	1	247	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.31 [0.64, 2.67]

3.1 3‐5 weeks	1	247	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.31 [0.64, 2.67]
4 Function Show forest plot	1	50	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.1 1‐2 weeks	1	50	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 13. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Exercise

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 15. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Manipulation

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Global improvement Show forest plot	1	841	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.66, 1.16]

1.2 3‐5 weeks	1	584	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.63, 1.21]
1.3 12‐16 weeks	1	257	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.51, 1.55]
2 Pain Show forest plot	1	298	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.1 3‐5 weeks	1	298	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 RTW Show forest plot	1	298	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.59, 2.28]

3.1 3‐5 weeks	1	298	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.59, 2.28]

Comparison 15. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Manipulation

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 16. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Corset, Infrared

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Global improvement Show forest plot	1	500	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.71, 1.64]

1.1 3‐5 weeks	1	267	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.58, 2.00]
1.2 12‐16 weeks	1	233	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.61, 1.90]
2 Pain Show forest plot	1	241	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 3‐5 weeks	1	241	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 RTW Show forest plot	1	267	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.28 [0.62, 2.65]

3.1 3‐5 weeks	1	267	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.28 [0.62, 2.65]
4 Pain Show forest plot	1	274	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.58 [0.95, 2.65]

4.1 1‐2 weeks	1	131	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.54, 2.17]
4.4 1 year	1	143	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.52 [1.14, 5.57]

Comparison 16. LBP with radiation, Traction vs Corset, Infrared

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 17. LBP with radiation, Autotraction vs Manual traction

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain Show forest plot	2	89	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.93 [‐14.73, 20.59]

1.1 1‐2 weeks	2	89	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.93 [‐14.73, 20.59]
2 Global improvement Show forest plot	1	49	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.24 [0.61, 8.21]

2.1 1‐2 weeks	1	49	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.24 [0.61, 8.21]

Comparison 17. LBP with radiation, Autotraction vs Manual traction

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Temas

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Contenido relacionado

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Temas

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso