Next Article in Journal
Targeting the Gut Microbiome in Prader-Willi Syndrome
Next Article in Special Issue
Expert Consensus on the Contraindications and Cautions of Foam Rolling—An International Delphi Study
Previous Article in Journal
Deep Learning on Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Ex Vivo Fluorescent Confocal Microscopy Data: A Feasibility Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Median Nerve Neural Mobilization Adds No Additional Benefit When Combined with Cervical Lateral Glide in the Treatment of Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 22
10.3390/jcm10225327
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Effectiveness of Global Postural Re-Education in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Gloria Gonzalez-Medina
1,2,
Veronica Perez-Cabezas
3,*,
Carmen Ruiz-Molinero
1,2,
Gema Chamorro-Moriana
4,5,
Jose Jesus Jimenez-Rejano
4,5 and
Alejandro Galán-Mercant
1,3
1
Department Nursing and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Cadiz, 11009 Cadiz, Spain
2
Research Group: CTS-986 Physical Therapy and Health (FISA), Institute of Research in Social Sustainable Development (INDESS), 11009 Cadiz, Spain
3
Biomedical Research and Innovation Institute of Cadiz (INiBICA), Research Group: [CTS1038] eMpOwering Health by Physical Activity, Exercise and Nutrition (MOVEIT), Research Unit, Puerta del Mar University Hospital, 11009 Cadiz, Spain
4
Department of Physiotherapy, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
5
Research Group [CTS305] “Area of Physiotherapy CTS305”, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(22), 5327; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225327
Submission received: 7 October 2021 / Revised: 27 October 2021 / Accepted: 11 November 2021 / Published: 16 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physiotherapy in Muscle Pain: Current Updates from Theory to Clinical Practice)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the global postural re-education (GPR) program’s effectiveness compared to other exercise programs in subjects with persistent chronic low back pain. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out using PRISMA2020. An electronic search of scientific databases was performed from their inception to January 2021. Randomized controlled trials that analyzed pain and patient-reported outcomes were included in this review. Four meta-analyses were performed. The outcomes analyzed were disability due to back pain and pain. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated. The final search was conducted in March. Results: Seven trials were included, totaling 334 patients. The results showed improvement in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) = −0.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), −1.01 to −0.37; p < 0.0001), Numerical Pain Scale (NRS) (SMD = −0.40; 95% CI, −0.87 to 0.06); p = 0.022), VAS + NRS (SMD = −1.32; 95% CI, −1.87 to −0.77; p < 0.0001) and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)) (SMD = −0.55; 95% CI, −0.83 to −0.27; p < 0.0001) after GPR treatment. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that GPR may be an effective method for treating LBP by decreasing pain and improving function, with strong evidence.

1. Introduction

Global postural re-education (GPR) is a physical therapy method, developed by Phillipe Souchard in the 1950s. This therapeutic approach is based on an integrated idea of the muscular system as formed by muscle chains, which can be shortened resulting from constitutional, behavioral and psychological factors [1]. Physical therapists use exercise to eccentrically stretch muscle chains. For this purpose, a series of active gentle movements and postures was aimed at realigning joints, stretching shortened muscles and enhancing the contraction of antagonist muscle. The program implies an active involvement of the patient [2]. This physical therapy modality has been used to improve the health status of patients with various pathologies [2,3,4,5,6], although the available studies do not provide sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions.
This study focused on the analysis of GPR efficacy for chronic low back pain (LBP) patients, since we found several authors who have studied this topic [7,8,9]. The LBP therapeutic approach for physical therapists should be a priority, since, according to the World Health Organization [10], it is not only a musculoskeletal health problem, but also involves other dimensions of the individual. In addition, is one of the most common health problems worldwide [3,4]. As described by Popescu and Lee [11], its prevalence is very high, reaching 84% in adults. It is the most common musculoskeletal complaint in the emergency department and 2% of these patients require hospitalization [12]. The causes of chronic LBP are numerous, including many musculoskeletal, inflammatory, malignant, or visceral problems [10,11,12]. According to previous studies, risk factors are related to being female, being older and having a family history or a personal history of LBP [13].
The most common chronic LBP treatments are pharmacological, minimally invasive interventional therapy and rehabilitation, within which exercise is recommended [14]. Previous reviews have been conducted on the effectiveness of different therapies in the LBP [7,15,16]; however, none of them focus on the effectiveness of RPG in the chronic LBP.
Because of this, the objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of global postural re-education in chronic non-specific low back pain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Following the criteria of the PRISMA statement [17], a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. The study has been registered in the PROSPERO platform in December 2019 (CRD42020161157). Bibliographic searches were conducted between 4 December 2019 and 12 January 2020. A final search in March was conducted before the manuscript was finally finalized. Searches were carried out using PubMed, Physiotherapy Database (PEDro), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and Web of Science (WoS) databases.

2.2. Search Strategy

The search strategy was: (“Pain”[Mesh] OR “Acute Pain”[Mesh] OR “Pelvic Girdle Pain”[Mesh] OR “Musculoskeletal Pain”[Mesh] OR “Chronic Pain”[Mesh] OR “Visceral Pain”[Mesh] OR “Nociceptive Pain”[Mesh] OR “Pain Perception”[Mesh] OR “Pain, Referred”[Mesh] OR “Shoulder Pain”[Mesh] OR “Neck Pain”[Mesh] OR “Pelvic Pain”[Mesh]) AND “Global Postural Reeducation”; (“Range of Motion, Articular”[Mesh]) AND “Global Postural Reeducation); (“Quality of Life/psychology”[Majr]) AND (Global Postural Reeducation); (“Urogenital System”[Mesh] OR “Male Urogenital Diseases”[Mesh] OR “Female Urogenital Diseases”[Mesh] OR “Urogenital Surgical Procedures”[Mesh] OR “Pelvic Organ Prolapse”[Mesh]) AND (Global Postural Reeducation); Global Postural Reeducation.
Filters were used to include studies conducted in humans; age of participants: over 18 years; type of study: clinical trials and reviews. We excluded those published in Korean, clinical trials without control groups, duplicates and those in which the main pathology is not chronic LBP. The flowchart describes the process of obtaining the results, selection and eligibility.

2.3. Criteria for Considering Studies for This Review

The eligibility criteria were clinical trials and studies conducted in people over 18 years old with chronic non-specific low back pain [18]. The main intervention was global postural re-education. The comparisons were isostretching [9,19], standard chronic LBP protocol [20,21], back school exercises [22], stabilization exercises [8] and drug treatment [23].
The outcome measures considered were level disability perception due to back pain using the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI). For pain measure, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NSR) were used. In addition, other outcome measures were the fingertip-to-floor test (FFT), the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Borg Scale, the Beck Inventory and Range of Articular Motion (ROM).
The grey literature was reviewed. The studies considered important for this research were requested from the main authors. The studies were selected by two blinded and independent researchers. For the final selection, a discussion was held to determine the outcome. In cases of disagreement, the help of a third investigator was sought who determined, through a vote, whether or not to include the study. The Mendeley platform was used to register the studies included.

2.4. Data Extraction

Data extracted from clinical trials were: bibliography (authors, journal, year of publication, database(s)); study characteristics (topic, study aim, study design, sample size, groups—number of groups and size—dropout, randomized—yes/no); participant characteristics (gender, age, symptoms, characteristics); description of the intervention (intervention and control groups, number of treatment sessions, duration of each session, total treatment time); results assessed; study results and DOI. The information was obtained with an in-depth, unbiased reading by one of the researchers and verified by another. Only publicly available data were taken into account. Stratified data were managed with the Excel 2016 program (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The variables for which the data were sought were perceived level of disability and pain.

2.5. Data Analysis and Outcomes

The Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) software version (Cochrane IMS) [24] was used for the calculation of the meta-analysis, forest plot and funnel plot. Epidat software version 3.1 (Public Health Information Service of the General Direction of Public Health of the Regional Ministry of Health (Xunta de Galicia) and the Health Analysis and Health Information Systems Unit of the Health Information Systems of the Panamerican Health Organisation (OPS-OMS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Washington DC, USA) [25] was used to calculate the risk of publication bias and sensitivity.
Subgroup calculation was used for the meta-analysis. The generic inverse of variance with standardized mean difference was applied. Scales measuring the same variable were associated in these subgroups. In all cases, the confidence interval (CI) was 95%.
The I2 coefficient was used to determine the degree of heterogeneity. More specifically, the following values were taken: I2 > 50% and/or Chi2 test (p < 0.05), indicating substantial heterogeneity where random effect models were applied and I2 < 50% and/or Chi2 test (p > 0.05), indicating substantial homogeneity where the fixed effect model was applied. For the calculation of the risk of publication bias, the Begg and Egger tests were applied where possible.

2.6. Evaluation of the Quality and Clinical Relevance

The Physiotheray Evidence Database (PEDro) scale [26] was applied to determine the quality of the studies. It is a tool to assess the internal validity of clinical trials and guide researchers in their decision making. It scores clinical trials with 11 items. Each item is scored with 0 or 1. The trials are scored with the sum of the scored items, up to a total of 10 points, since item 1 does not count in the overall sum. The higher the value of PEDro, the higher the internal validity. Two independent blinded researchers selected the studies. Subsequently, a discussion took place for the final selection and the arithmetic mean was used to obtain the final results.
The classification of the evidence was carried out with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADEPro) [27]. It consists of the following five items: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and other considerations. Each domain was defined as not serious, serious, or very serious. The resulting quality assessment of the evidence was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low.

3. Results

The number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility and included in the review with reasons for exclusions is shown in the flow chart (Figure 1).

3.1. Data Extraction

The selected studies were published between 2010 and 2016, with 2015 being the year with the most studies published on this subject. The main objective of the studies included was to test the effectiveness of RPG in the chronic LBP. For this purpose, RCTs were developed. The sample size for all studies was 357 participants. Three studies reported the loss of patients [8,9,20]. A total of 45 subjects did not complete the trial. The sample was mainly divided into two groups [8,9,20,21,23], although in some studies, there were three groups [8,19,22]. All group allocation was random with the exception of two studies [8,20].
Regarding the gender of the subjects, in all the studies, the number of females was greater than that of males. However, the proportion varies according to the study. In some, the number of female participants was four times that of male participants [20,23]. In others, the number of participants by sex was more equal [8,19]. In relation to the age of the participants, there was homogeneity among all the authors, with an average age of 49.73–60.4 years [8,9,20,21,22,23], with the exception of Guimarães [19] who applied an age range between 19 and 60 years.
The main intervention in all studies was GPR. The comparisons were isostretching [9,19], standard chronic LBP protocol [20,21], back school exercises [22], stabilization exercises [8] and drug treatment [23]. The number of GPR sessions varied between ten [8,21,22], twelve [9,19] and fifteen [20] sessions. Their duration ranged from thirty [21], forty [22] and forty-five [9] minutes to one hour [8,19,20] (see Table 1).

3.2. Data Analysis and Meta-Analyses

After the study selection process, two articles were selected for the qualitative study and five for the quantitative study. A total of three meta-analyses were performed. Disability due to back pain using the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), pain by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NSR) and quality of life by the SF36 questionnaire.
In addition, other outcomes measured have been found such as the fingertip-to-floor test (FFT), Borg Scale, Beck Inventory and Range of Articular Motion (ROM). In these cases, they were only used once, so a meta-analysis could not be performed.
Figure 2 demonstrates the effects of GPR on disability. It was suggested that GPR could significantly improve the perceived level of disability, with no heterogeneity (p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). A small effect (SMD = −0.49, CI 95%: −0.70 to −0.27) was found in the intervention groups using GPR compared to other treatments/control.
A meta-analysis by subgroups was performed for the pain variable, since different outcome measures were included: VAS, NSR and SF36 pain (Figure 3). Regarding the effect of the RPG on pain, it was observed to significantly improve with heterogeneity (p = 0.03, I2 = 55%). A small effect (SMD = −0.38, CI 95%: −0.72 to −0.04) was found in the intervention groups using GPR compared to other treatments/control.
Nevertheless, the effect of GPR on quality of life became non-significant (p = 0.90), with no heterogeneity but close to it (I2 = 49%) (Figure 4).

3.3. Risk of Bias, Sensitivity and Heterogeneity

The results of the Begg and Egger tests (p > 0.05) (Table 2) indicate that there is no publication bias. The funnel diagram corroborates this information (Figure 5). On the other hand, the sensitivity analysis indicated that none of the studies included in this meta-analysis substantially modified the overall results when eliminated. In the case of the ODI and NRS variables, neither the Egger test nor the sensitivity analysis could be performed because only two studies were included in these meta-analyses. This is also shown in the following funnel plots (Figure 5). The sensitivity analysis indicated that no study substantially modified the overall results when eliminated.

3.4. Evaluation of Clinical Relevance

The results for the quality of the studies, measured with the PEDro scale, are shown in Table 3. In this case, the quality of all the selected RCTs was measured, regardless of whether they were included in the meta-analysis or not.
The quality of studies, in general, is average. The quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis is medium-high, with the exception of the study of Guimarães, M.L. et al. [19], which is very low.
The items that were least met in the methodology of these studies were: item 3 (allocation was concealed); item 5 (there was blinding of all subjects) and item 6 (there was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy), those who did not complete any of the studies; and item 9 (intention to treat).
The quality of the evidence, as measured by GRADEPro, is shown in Table 4. The quality of the evidence is moderately high.

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of global postural re-education in chronic low back pain. Taking into account our results, this meta-analysis suggests that global postural re-education is effective as a treatment in adults diagnosed with chronic LBP in terms of perceived level of disability and pain reduction. These results agree with previous studies, which have shown the effectiveness of GPR treatment [11]. In other pathologies, GPR acts on muscle flexibility [9,12,13,14,15,16,28,29], postural organization [3,29,30], functionality [6,20,23], quality of life [6,15,21,30,31], reducing pain [3,15,16,19], fatigue [23] and others [20,22,32,33,34].
There are many measurement tools to assess low back pain/disorders and their ability has been demonstrated [15,35,36,37]. The RMQ was used in five of the studies included in this review [8,9,20,21,23]. This questionnaire is a gold standard for the measure of perceived level of disability in chronic LBP [38,39]. The ODI scale was used in two studies [8,23]. These scales are considered the gold standard for measuring disability and quality of life (QoL) impairment for adults with chronic LBP [40]. Likewise, pain was measured with validated scales such as VAS [8,19,23], NRS [20,21] and SF36 [19,23]. The quality of life variable was measured with the SF36 questionnaire [19,23]. This fact made the development of the meta-analysis possible. The statistical analysis could not be performed with the other measurements performed (fingertip-to-floor test [8], sit and reach test [9], dynamometry [9], ultrasound examination [21], Beck Inventory [23], postural analysis [9], Borg Scale CR10 [23] and goniometry [23].
A meta-analysis by subgroups was carried out for the disability variable, since different outcome measures were included: RMDQ and ODI. The meta-analysis showed significant results with a small effect in favor of the GPR intervention for the perceived level of disability measured with RMDQ and ODI and pain reduction. These results are important, since all the objectives proposed for the clinical significance of these variables are met [36,37,41]. In the case of RMDQ, both the range of improvement (from 0 to 20 points) [42] and the percentage of improvement (30%) were met [37]. Other authors who analyzed interventions in chronic LBP, i.e., yoga [43], obtained a lower SMD value (SMD = −0.30, 95% CI = −0.51 to −0.10, p = 0.003, I2 = 0%) than that found in the present study with the RMDQ.
The meta-analysis by subgroups was performed for the pain variable, since different outcome measures were included: VAS, NSR and SF36 pain. Regarding the effect of the RPG on pain, it was observed to significantly improve with heterogeneity (p = 0.03, I2 = 55%). A small effect (SMD = −0.38, CI 95%: −0.72 to −0.04) was found in the intervention groups using GPR compared to other treatments/control. These results coincide with Lomas et al.’s study [44], in which the effects of GPR for the treatment of spinal disorders on pain were studied (SMD = −0.63; 95% CI, −0.43 to −0.83). However, in other types of diseases of rheumatic origin such as ankylosing spondylitis, GPR did not show significant results in reducing pain [45]. However, the included studies did not have enough evidence to perform meta-analysis segregating pain in the short, medium and long term.
Nevertheless, the effect of GPR on quality of life became non-significant. The characteristics of the sample studied differ from other studies that analyzed chronic LBP. In this review, the number of women was greater than that of men. This fact is in line with previous studies that indicate that women are more affected with chronic LBP [46,47]. In relation to the age, there is homogeneity among all the authors [8,9,19,20,21,22,23]. Both options can be accepted, as the literature indicates that adults of working age are the most vulnerable group for low back pain worldwide [32].
The RPG interventions used in the studies included in this review were very similar. Two to three postures were used, mainly focused on the treatment of the posterior chain [8,9,19,21,22,23]. Castagnoli [20] applied the posture depending on the muscular imbalance, but indicated which ones he used. The treatment time was around 30–60 min. The comparisons were isostretching [9,23], standard chronic LBP protocol [20,21], back school exercises [21], stabilization exercises [8] and drug treatment [23].
It should be noted that in the qualitative analysis of the studies, we observed that there were no significant differences between the groups when stretching exercises were applied in the comparison [9,19,20]. Studies whose comparison was isostretching [9,19] could not be included in the meta-analysis. An intervention study was included that contained some type of muscle stretching [20]. Likewise, another was included that did not specify the intervention and whose sample was very small [22]. These last two unsettle the meta-analysis results.
The isostretching exercise has principles in common with the GPR. In both cases, the same process, that is, viscoelastic stress relaxation, takes place and muscles are maintained in a static elongated position, regardless of the type of stretching [48]. This fact could justify the non-difference between the groups.
The overall quality of the studies was medium to high. Bonetti et al. [8] and Moreschi et al.’s [9] studies stand out as the ones that obtained the highest scores on the PEDro scale and Lawand’s study [23] for being the one with the lowest score. The difficulty in obtaining the maximum score on the PEDro scale was mainly because it is very complicated in this type of intervention to blind the patient and the physiotherapist: because, on the one hand, the patient has to perform the posture as correctly as possible and, on the other hand, the physiotherapist has to re-evaluate the treatment according to the patient’s evolution [1].
The important points of this review and meta-analysis are that the grey literature has been explored and a specific and in-depth study of the RPG in the LBP has been carried out based on the literature review and its statistical study. However, there are limitations such as the number of studies found, the heterogeneity in the use of measurement tools and the low quality of some of these. Therefore, we suggest that these points should be considered in further studies.

5. Conclusions

GPR is beneficial for chronic LBP in improving functional limitation and reducing pain perception. We suggest more future studies of good methodological quality to clarify the usefulness of RPG in other parameters such as the measurement of disability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.G.-M., V.P.-C. and A.G.-M.; methodology, G.G.-M. and C.R.-M.; formal analysis, J.J.J.-R. and G.G.-M.; investigation, V.P.-C., A.G.-M. and G.C.-M.; data curation, J.J.J.-R. and G.C.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.G.-M. and V.P.-C.; writing—review and editing, C.R.-M.; supervision, A.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially financially supported by the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership for Higher Education Programme (Key Action 203) [Grant number: 2018-1-PL01-KA203-051055].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Souchard, P.E. GPR Principles of Global Postural Re-Education; Editorial Paidotribo: Barcelona, Spain, 2005; ISBN 978-84-8019-830-1. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lawand, P.A.; Jones, A.; Sardim, C.C.; Ribeiro, L.H.; Lombardi, I.; Natour, J. Global postural reeducation to treat chronic low back pain: Randomized, controlled trial. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2013, 72, A991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Todri, J.; Lena, O.; Martínez Gil, J.L. An experimental pilot study of Global Postural Reeducation concerning the cognitive approach of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Demen. 2019, 35, 1533317519867824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. O’Keeffe, M. Non-pharmacological treatment of low back pain in primary care. Drug Ther. Bull. 2019, 57, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. de Oliveira Rocha, L.S.; Mineshita, L.N.H.; Sobral, L.L.; Dias Magno, L.; De Souza Santos, M.C.; Barbosa Rocha, R.S. Influence of global postural reeducation method on respiratory muscle strength and parkinsonian quality of life. Man. Ther. Posturol. Rehabil. J. 2018, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Agosti, V.; Vitale, C.; Avella, D.; Rucco, R.; Santangelo, G.; Sorrentino, P.; Varriale, P.; Sorrentino, G. Effects of Global Postural Reeducation on gait kinematics in parkinsonian patients: A pilot randomized three-dimensional motion analysis study. Neurol. Sci. 2015, 37, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cuenca-Martínez, F.; Cortés-Amador, S.; Espí-López, G.V. Effectiveness of classic physical therapy proposals for chronic non-specific low back pain: A literature review. Phys. Ther. Res. 2018, 21, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Bonetti, F.; Curti, S.; Mattioli, S.; Mugnai, R.; Vanti, C.; Violante, F.S.; Pillastrini, P. Effectiveness of a “Global Postural Reeducation” program for persistent Low Back Pain: A non-randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2010, 11, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Guastala, F.A.M.; Guerini, M.H.; Klein, P.F.; Leite, V.C.; Cappellazzo, R.; Facci, L.M. Effect of global postural re-education and isostretching in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: A randomized clinical trial. Fisioter. Mov. 2016, 29, 515–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ehrlich, G.E. Low back pain. Bull. World Health Organ. 2003, 81, 671–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Popescu, A.; Lee, H. Neck Pain and Lower Back Pain. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 104, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Corwell, B.N.; Davis, N.L. The Emergent Evaluation and Treatment of Neck and Back Pain. Emerg. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 38, 167–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Beynon, A.M.; Hebert, J.J.; Lebouef-Yde, C.; Walker, B.F. Potential risk factors and triggers for back pain in children and young adults. A scoping review, part I: Incident and episodic back pain. Chiropr. Man. Ther. 2019, 27, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ma, K.; Zhuang, Z.G.; Wang, L.; Liu, X.G.; Lu, L.J.; Yang, X.Q.; Lu, Y.; Fu, Z.J.; Song, T.; Huang, D.; et al. The Chinese Association for the Study of Pain (CASP): Consensus on the Assessment and Management of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain. Pain Res. Manag. 2019, 2019, 8957847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Grotle, M.; Brox, J.I.; Vøllestad, N.K. Functional status and disability questionnaires: What do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine 2005, 30, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ferreira, G.E.; Barreto, R.G.P.; Robinson, C.C.; Plentz, R.D.M.; Silva, M.F. Global Postural Reeducation for patients with musculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2016, 20, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Page, M.; McKenzie, J.; Bossuyt, P.; Boutron, I.; Hoffman, T.; Mulrow, C.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.; Akl, E.; Brennan, S.; et al. The PRISMA 2020statement: An updated guidelinefor reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. O’Sullivan, P. It’s time for change with the management of non-specific chronic low back pain. Br. J. Sports Med. 2012, 46, 224–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Guimarães Resende Adorno, M.L.; Pereira Brasil-Neto, J. Assessment of the quality of life through the SF-36 questionnaire in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Acta Ortop. Bras. 2013, 21, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Castagnoli, C.; Cecchi, F.; Del Canto, A.; Paperini, A.; Boni, R.; Pasquini, G.; Vannetti, F.; Macchi, C. Effects in short and long term of Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) on Chronic Low Back Pain: A controlled study with one-year follow-up. Sci. World J. 2015, 2015, 271436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Longo, C.A.; Ferrari, S.; Lanza, A.; Vanti, C.; Stradiotti, P.A. Effects of the “standing posture with flexion of the trunk” on the lumbar multifidus tropism in patients with chronic low back pain. A randomized, controlled pilot study. Sci. Riabil. 2016, 18, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  22. Soares, P.; Cabral, V.; Mendes, M.; Vieira, R.; Aviolo, G.; de Souza Vale, R.G. Efeitos do Programa Escola de Postura e Reeducacão Postural Global sobre a amplitude de movimento e níveis de dor em pacientes com lombalgia crônica. Rev. Andaluza Med. Deport. 2016, 9, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lawand, P.; Lombardi, I., Jr.; Jones, A.; Sardim, C.; Ribeiro, L.H.; Natour, J. Effect of a muscle stretching program using the global postural reeducation method for patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Jt. Bone Spine 2015, 82, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cochrane. Cochrane Training. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman (accessed on 3 February 2019).
  25. Epidemiología General y Demografía Sanitaria, 2010–2011. Open Course Ware (16633). In Epidat: Pruebas Diagnósticas [Internet]; Universidad, Campus de Excelencia: Salamanca, Spain, 2005; [Citado 1 de Mayo de 2014]; Available online: http://ocw.usal.es/ciencias-biosanitarias/epidemiologia-general-y-demografia-sanitaria/contenidos/01PROGRAMATE0RICO/01EPIDEMIOLOGIAenPDF/Tema08enPDF/08Tema8EstudiosEpidemiologicosDescriptivos.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2019).
  26. Neura. University of Sydney Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Available online: https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/ (accessed on 1 March 2019).
  27. McMaster University and Evidence Prime Inc. GRADEPro. GTD. Available online: https://gradepro.org/ (accessed on 4 May 2019).
  28. Dönmez, U.; Ozturk, C.; Kocanaogullari, H.; Gucenmez, S.; Hepguler, S. Do physical therapy modalities have additional benefit over exercise therapy in the management of ankylosing spondylitis? A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2014, 73, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Melo Gomes, A.V.; Lopes, D.C.; Veloso, E.M.C.; da Costa, R.C.T.S. A influência do método de reeducação postural global sobre a flexibilidade dos músculos da cadeia posterior. Fisioter. Bras. 2014, 15, 203–209. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lozano-Quijada, C.; Poveda-Pagán, E.J.; Segura-Heras, J.V.; Hernández-Sánchez, S.; Prieto-Castelló, M.J. Changes in postural sway after a single global postural reeducation session in university students: A randomized controlled trial. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2017, 40, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. De Amorim, C.S.M.; Gracitelli, M.E.C.; Marques, A.P.; Dos Santos Alves, V.L. Effectiveness of global postural reeducation compared to segmental exercises on function, pain, and quality of life of patients with scapular dyskinesis associated with neck pain: A preliminary clinical trial. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2014, 37, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fatoye, F.; Gebrye, T.; Odeyemi, I. Real-world incidence and prevalence of low back pain using routinely collected data. Rheumatol. Int. 2019, 39, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C.; Alonso-Blanco, C.; Morales-Cabezas, M.; Miangolarra-Page, J.C. Two exercise interventions for the management of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005, 84, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mota, Y.L.; Barreto, S.L.; Bin, P.R.; Simões, H.G.; Campbell, C.S.G. Cardiovascular responses in the seated posture of the Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) method. Rev. Bras. Fisioter. 2008, 12, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kovacs, F.M.; Abraira, V.; Royuela, A.; Corcoll, J.; Alegre, L.; Cano, A.; Muriel, A.; Zamora, J.; Gil Del Real, M.T.; Gestoso, M.; et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 2007, 32, 2915–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smeets, R.; Köke, A.; Lin, C.W.; Ferreira, M.; Demoulin, C. Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res. 2011, 63, 158–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ostelo, R.W.J.G.; Deyo, R.A.; Stratford, P.; Waddell, G.; Croft, P.; Von Korff, M.; Bouter, L.M.; De Vet, H.C. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: Towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008, 33, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Searle, A.; Spink, M.; Ho, A.; Chuter, V. Exercise interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin. Rehabil. 2015, 29, 1155–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Matarán-Peñarrocha, G.; Lara Palomo, I.; Soler, E.A.; Gil-Martínez, E.; Fernández-Sánchez, M.; Aguilar-Ferrándiz, M.; Castro-Sánchez, A. Comparison of efficacy of a supervised versus non-supervised physical therapy exercise program on the pain, functionality and quality of life of patients with non-specific chronic low-back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2020, 34, 948–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yates, M.; Shastri-Hurst, N. The oswestry disability index. Occup. Med. 2017, 67, 241–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Revicki, D.; Hays, R.D.; Cella, D.; Sloan, J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Stratford, P.W.; Binkley, J.; Solomon, P.; Finch, E.; Gill, C.; Moreland, J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the roland morris questionnaire. Phys. Ther. 1996, 76, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhu, F.; Zhang, M.; Wang, D.; Hong, Q.; Zeng, C.; Chen, W. Yoga compared to non-exercise or physical therapy exercise on pain, disability, and quality of life for patients with chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lomas-Vega, R.; Garrido-Jaut, M.V.; Rus, A.; Del-Pino-Casado, R. Effectiveness of Global Postural Re-education for Treatment of Spinal Disorders. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 96, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gonzalez-Medina, G.; Perez-Cabezas, V.; Marin-Paz, A.-J.; Galán-Mercant, A.; Ruiz-Molinero, C.; Jimenez-Rejano, J.J. Effectiveness of Global Postural Reeducation in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hoy, D.; Bain, C.; Williams, G.; March, L.; Brooks, P.; Blyth, F.; Woolf, A.; Vos, T.; Buchbinder, R. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012, 64, 2028–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Taylor, J.B.; Goode, A.P.; George, S.Z.; Cook, C.E. Incidence and risk factors for first-time incident low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2014, 14, 2299–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kumar, S.; Martin, P.; Buist, L. An active finite viscoelastic model for gastric smooth muscle contraction. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 10 05327 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart.
Figure 1. Flow chart.
Jcm 10 05327 g001
Jcm 10 05327 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of GPR on disability.
Figure 2. Effects of GPR on disability.
Jcm 10 05327 g002
Jcm 10 05327 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects by subgroups of GPR on pain.
Figure 3. Effects by subgroups of GPR on pain.
Jcm 10 05327 g003
Jcm 10 05327 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of GPR on quality of life.
Figure 4. Effects of GPR on quality of life.
Jcm 10 05327 g004
Jcm 10 05327 g005 550
Figure 5. Publication bias.
Figure 5. Publication bias.
Jcm 10 05327 g005
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies.
The Authors
Year/Objective		SampleInterventionTimeline and Follow-UpOutcome MeasureStudy Results
Bonetti, F. et al., 2010 [8]
To evaluate the GPR effectiveness as compared to a Stabilization Exercise (SE) program in subjects with persistent low back pain (LBP) at short- and mid-term follow-up.		n = 100
Gender
G1: M:22; F: 28
G2: M:18; F:32
Age (years):
G1: 45.5 (12.2) G2:48.2 (13.2) 		G1: GRP (n = 42)
G2: stabilization exercise (n = 36)
Drop out n = 22
-
Baseline (T0)
-
3 months (T1)
-
6 months (T2)
Follow-up, 4 months after treatment		RMDQ
VAS
ODI
FFT		G1 vs. G2
RMDQ, p < 0.001
VAS, p < 0.001
ODI, p = 0.003
FFT, p = 0.008
Guimarães, ML. et al., 2013 [19]
To evaluate the quality of life (QL) with the use of the SF-36 questionnaire in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP).		n = 30
Gender
G1: M:4; F: 6
G2: M:3; F:7
G3: M:3; F:7		G1: isostretching (n = 10)G2: GRP (n = 10)
G3: isostretching + GPR (n = 10)
-
Baseline (T0)
-
3 months (T1)
Follow-up, 2 months after treatment		VASSF-36VAS
G1: N/A; G2: p < 0.001; G: N/A
SF36
G1: N/A; G2: p < 0.001; G: N/A
Castagnoli, C. et al., 2015 [20]
Comparing global postural re-education (GPR) to a standard physiotherapy treatment (PT) based on active exercises, stretching and massaging to improve pain and function in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients.		n = 79
Gender
G1: M:4; F: 26
G2: M:7; F:23
Age (years):
G1: 58.97 (0.44) G2: 62.54 (13.19)		G1: GRP (n = 30)
G2: protocol treatment (n = 30)
Drop out n = 19
-
Baseline (T0)
-
Discharge, after 15 sessions (approx. 2 months) (T1)
Follow-up 12 months after treatment (T2)		RMDQNRSRMDQ
G1(T0 vs. T1) p < 0.00; G1 (T0 vs. T2) p = 0.24
G2(T0 vs. T1) p < 0.00; G2 (T0 vs. T2) p = 0.12
NRSG1(T0 vs. T1) p < 0.00; G1 (T0 vs. T2) p = 0.02
G2(T0 vs. T1) p < 0.00; G2 (T0 vs. T2) p = 0.12
Lawand, P. et al., 2015 [23]
To assess to assess the effect of a muscle stretching program using the GPR method in pain, function, quality of life and depressive symptoms in patients with chronic low back pain.		n = 61
Gender
G1: M:6; F: 25
G2: M:8; F:22
Age (years):
G1: 49.4 (12.0)
G2: 47.5 (11.9)		G1: GRP (n = 31)
G2: drug treatment (n = 30)
-
Baseline (T0)
-
3 months (T1)
Follow-up, 6 months (T2)		RMQ
VAS
SF-36
Beck Inventory		RMQ
G1 p < 0.001; G2 p = 0.264;
G1 vs. G2 p < 0.001
VASG1 p < 0.001; G2 p = 0.340;
G1 vs. G2 p < 0.001
SF36 G1 vs. G2
  • Functional capacity p = 0.396
  • Limitation in physical aspects p = 0.040
  • Pain p = 0.047
  • General health p = 0.363
  • Vitality p = 0.003
  • Social aspects p = 0.103
  • Emotional aspects p = 0.008
  • Mental health p = 0.034
Beck Inventory (no differences)
Soares, P. et al., 2015 [22]
To compare the effects of the school of posture program (PEP) and global postural re-education (RPG) on pain levels and range of motion in patients with chronic low back pain.		n = 30
Gender N/A
Age (years):
G1: 46.3 (8.5)
G2: 43.6 (10.93)
G3: 44.30 (10.68)		G1: GRP (n = 10)
G2: back school exercises and muscle strengthening (n = 10)
G3: control (n = 10)
-
Baseline (T0)
-
3 months (T1)
Borg scale CR10
Goniometry		Borg Scale
G1 vs. G3, p < 0.0001
G2 vs. G3, p < 0.0001
G1 vs. G2, p > 0.05
Hip extension
G1 vs. G3, p = 0.019
G2 vs. G3, p = 0.006
G1 vs. G2, p > 0.05
Lumbar spine flexion
G1 vs. G3, p = 0.020
G2 vs. G3, p = 0.018
G1 vs. G2, p > 0.05
Reduction of pain scores in back
Moreschi, F. et al., 2016 [9]
To analyze changes in muscle strength, flexibility, function and pain in patients with chronic low back pain who underwent isostretching and global posture re-education (GPR).		n = 43
Gender
G1: M:5; F:16
G2: M:3; F: 15
Age (years):
G1: 50.50
G2: 52		G1: GRP (n = 21)
G2: isostretching (n = 18)
Drop out n = 4
-
Baseline (T0)
-
1.5 months (T1)
RMQ
VAS
Sit and reach test Dynamometry
postural analysis		RMQ
G1 p = 0.000; G2 p = 0.000;
G1 vs. G2 p = 0.192
VAS
G1 p = 0.001; G2 p = 0.000;
G1 vs. G2 p = 0.494
Sit and reach test
G1 p = 0.006; G2 p = 0.039; G1 vs. G2 p > 0.15
Dynamometry
G1 p = 0.002; G2 p = 0.000; G1 vs. G2 p > 0.15
Postural analysis
G1 p = 0.001; G2 p = 0.007; p > 0.15
Longo, C. et al., 2016 [21]
To investigate whether the standing posture with flexion of the trunk added to a standard group physical therapy may increase the LM thickness (primary aim) and reduce pain and disability (secondary aim) in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.		n = 14
Gender
G1: M:2; F:5
G2: M:2; F: 5
Age (years):
G1: 54.57 (8.16)
G2: 49.14 (9.92)		G1: GRP (n = 7)
G2: standard protocol (n = 7)
-
Baseline (T0)
-
1 month (T1)
-
2 months (T2)
RMQ
NRS
Ultrasound examination		RMQ
(T1-T0) G1 vs. G2 p = 0.018
(T2-T0) G1 vs. G2 p = 0.042
NRS
(T1-T0) G1 vs. G2 p = 0.071
(T2-T0) G1 vs, G2 p = 0.891
Ultrasound examination
(T1-T0) G1 vs. G2 p > 0.05
Table
Table 2. Begg and Egger tests.
Table 2. Begg and Egger tests.
VariableBegg (p)Egger (p)
RMDQp = 0.3082p = 0.3670
ODIp = 1.0000
VASp = 0.2963p = 0.3247
NRSp = 1.000
VAS + NRSp = 0.8065p = 0.5766
Table
Table 3. Evaluation of the quality of the studies according to the PEDro scale.
Table 3. Evaluation of the quality of the studies according to the PEDro scale.
Evaluation Criteria (Items)1234567891011Total Score
Author, Year
Bonetti, F. et al., 2010100100011116
Guimarães, M.L. et al., 2013110000000102
Castagnoli, C. et al., 2015100100000114
Lawand, P. et al., 2015111100111118
Soares, P. et al., 2015111100000104
Moreschi, F.A. et al., 2016111100110117
Longo, C. et al., 2016110100011116
Pecorone, F. et al., 2020110100010115
Score 0: the criterion is not met. Score 1: the criterion is met. 1. Eligibility criteria were specified (This item is not used to calculate the PEDro score). 2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups. 3. Allocation was concealed. 4. The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators. 5. There was blinding of all subjects. 6. There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy. 7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome. 8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups. 9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated, or, where this was not the case, data for at least on key outcome were analyzed by “intention to treat”. 10. The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome. 11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome.
Table
Table 4. Quality of the evidence.
Table 4. Quality of the evidence.
Certainty AssessmentNo. of PatientsEffectCertaintyImportance
No. of StudiesStudy DesignRisk of BiasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther ConsiderationsRPGPlaceboRelative
(95% CI)		Absolute
(95% CI)
RMDQ (follow-up: range 2 months to 7 months; scale: from 0 to 24)
4randomized trials not seriousnot seriousnot serious not seriousnone 109 103 - SMD 0.55 lower
(0.83 lower to 0.27 lower) 		⨁⨁⨁⨁
HIGH 		IMPORTANT
ODI
2randomized trialsnot serious not seriousnot serious not serious none 72 66 - SMD 0.48 lower
(0.82 lower to 0.14 lower) 		⨁⨁⨁⨁
HIGH 		IMPORTANT
VAS
3randomized trialsnot serious not serious not serious seriousstrong association8276-SMD 0.69 lower
(1.01 lower to 0.37 lower)		⨁⨁⨁⨁
HIGH 		IMPORTANT
NSR
3randomized trialsnot seriousnot seriousnot serious not serious none 58 55 -SMD 0.49 lower
(0.87 lower to 0.12 lower) 		⨁⨁⨁⨁
HIGH 		NO
IMPORTANT
VAS + NRS
5randomized trialsnot seriousnot seriousnot serious not serious none 119 113 -MD 1.32 lower
(1.87 lower to 0.77 lower) 		⨁⨁⨁⨁
HIGH 		IMPORTANT
SF36
3randomized trials not seriousnot seriousnot seriousnot seriousnone 50/50 (100.0%) 50/50 (100.0%)not estimable ⨁⨁⨁⨁
HIGH 		NO
IMPORTANT
⨁ The number of symbols indicates the degree of certainty.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gonzalez-Medina, G.; Perez-Cabezas, V.; Ruiz-Molinero, C.; Chamorro-Moriana, G.; Jimenez-Rejano, J.J.; Galán-Mercant, A. Effectiveness of Global Postural Re-Education in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5327. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225327

AMA Style

Gonzalez-Medina G, Perez-Cabezas V, Ruiz-Molinero C, Chamorro-Moriana G, Jimenez-Rejano JJ, Galán-Mercant A. Effectiveness of Global Postural Re-Education in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(22):5327. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225327

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gonzalez-Medina, Gloria, Veronica Perez-Cabezas, Carmen Ruiz-Molinero, Gema Chamorro-Moriana, Jose Jesus Jimenez-Rejano, and Alejandro Galán-Mercant. 2021. "Effectiveness of Global Postural Re-Education in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 22: 5327. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225327

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop