Effects of Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation on Short-Term Pain and Disability in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis

Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP), defined as pain persisting for at least 12 weeks, is a significant public health issue, with prevalence intensifying due to an ageing global population, amassing approximately 619 million cases in 2020 and projected to escalate to 843 million by 2050. Given the multitude of therapeutic modalities available for CLBP, this research sought to ascertain their respective efficacies in ameliorating pain and disability. We specifically scrutinized Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation (MBR) among adults enduring non-specific low back pain for over 12 weeks, excluding acute pain conditions and pre-study surgical interventions. MBR is an approach encompassing various modalities, including exercise, behavioral therapies, educational programs, and work conditioning aspects, necessitating a comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) to fully grasp the extensive scope of its impact. The constructed network comprised diverse MBR modalities (behavioral, educational, and work conditioning) alongside exercise therapy (ET), minimal intervention, and usual care, serving as controls with pain and disability as outcomes. Through the analysis of 4,619 initially identified studies, 93 were included, encompassing a total of 8,059 participants. The NMA conducted substantiated that both ET and MBR modalities were notably effective in alleviating CLBP, with education-oriented MBR emerging as the most efficacious for pain mitigation and behavior-focused MBR for disability reduction. Nevertheless, the discerned differences amongst the treatments were minimal and uncertain, highlighting that no modality was definitively superior to the others. The analysis revealed low global and local inconsistency within the network, underscoring the reliability of the observed outcomes. Given the intricate nature of CLBP, embodying various facets, our findings advocate for a combined therapeutic approach to optimize treatment efficacy. Nonetheless, the presence of high study heterogeneity and potential biases necessitates cautious interpretation of the results, prompting future research.