Effectiveness of muscle energy technique in patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Gabriela K Santos, Raphael Gonçalves de Oliveira, Laís Campos de Oliveira and 6 others
PMID 36169931WHAT IT FOUND
Muscle energy technique reduced pain in chronic and subacute low back pain, but did not improve disability.
The effect was small for chronic pain and moderate for subacute pain. Most trials had poor methodological quality, so these findings offer weak evidence for changing practice.
Key findings
01For chronic low back pain, MET showed a small but significant reduction in pain intensity compared to other therapies, but no significant effect on disability.
02For subacute low back pain, MET showed a moderate reduction in pain intensity compared to control groups, but data was insufficient to analyze disability.
03The overall evidence quality is low, with only 4 of 22 included trials rated as high quality on the PEDro scale.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The majority of included trials had low methodological quality, with only 4 of 22 studies scoring 6 or higher on the PEDro scale. Most studies did not adequately blind participants or therapists, and allocation concealment was often poor. The analysis was restricted to immediate post-intervention effects, so long-term benefits or harms are unknown. Heterogeneity was high in several analyses, suggesting variability in how MET was applied across studies. The review excluded acute low back pain, limiting applicability to patients with pain duration under six weeks.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the significant pain reduction as strong evidence of efficacy. The effect sizes were small to moderate, and the primary outcome of disability showed no improvement. The low methodological quality of the underlying trials means these results are fragile and may change with better research.