Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Low Back Pain”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Application of spinal pain mapping in the diagnosis of low back pain--analysis of 104 cases.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is probably the most common pain problem seen in a general pain clinic and the cause of low back pain can be enigmatic at times. Often the pain sources are difficult to identify with the conventional diagnostic modalities. Spinal pain mapping is a sequence of well organized nerve block procedures. We undertook this study to evaluate the usefulness of this modality in diagnosing low back pain of uncertain etiology. METHODS: In this prospective study, 104 consecutive adult patients who underwent spinal pain mapping were examined and analyzed. All patients had intractable low back pain of undetermined etiology after medical history, physical examination and 4-view roentgenographic evaluation of the lumbar spine had been undertaken to locate it. In addition, 41 patients (39%) had one or more of the following tests done, which included CT, MRI, EMG/NC but all failed to delineate the causes of the pain. All patients failed to respond to the conservative therapies. RESULTS: With pain mapping the source of pain was found to be caused by sacro-iliac joint in 6%, lumbar nerve root in 20%, facet joint in 24%, combined lumbar nerve root and facet disease in 24%, internal disc disorder in 7%, combined facet and sacro-iliac joint in 4% and lumbar sympathetic dystrophy in 2% of patients. Pain mapping failed to demonstrate the causes of the pain in the remaining 13% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the difficult nature of this group of patients, spinal pain mapping provided a useful functional approach to the diagnosis of low back pain with obscure etiology in 87% of patients in our series.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A randomized trial of chiropractic and medical care for patients with low back pain: eighteen-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for low back pain in managed care and to assess the effectiveness of physical therapy and modalities among patients receiving medical or chiropractic care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence comparing the long-term relative effectiveness of common treatment strategies offered to low back pain patients in managed care is lacking. METHODS: A total of 681 low back pain patients presenting to a managed-care facility were randomized to chiropractic with or without physical modalities, or medical care with or without physical therapy, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome variables are low back pain intensity, disability, and complete remission. The secondary outcome is participants' perception of improvement in low back symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 681 patients, 610 (89.6%) were followed through 18 months. Among participants not assigned to receive physical therapy or modalities, the estimated improvements in pain and disability and 18-month risk of complete remission were a little greater in the chiropractic group than in the medical group (adjusted RR of remission = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.80-2.07). Among participants assigned to medical care, mean changes in pain and disability and risk of remission were larger in patients assigned to receive physical therapy (adjusted RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.08-2.66). Among those assigned to chiropractic care, however, assignment to methods was not associated with improvement or remission (adjusted RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.62-1.55). Compared with medical care only patients, chiropractic and physical therapy patients were much more likely to perceive improvement in their low back symptoms. However, less than 20% of all patients were pain-free at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in outcomes between medical and chiropractic care without physical therapy or modalities are not clinically meaningful, although chiropractic may result in a greater likelihood of perceived improvement, perhaps reflecting satisfaction or lack of blinding. Physical therapy may be more effective than medical care alone for some patients, while physical modalities appear to have no benefit in chiropractic care.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1989

Independent evaluation of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain.

Severe chronic low back pain was diagnosed in 236 patients by one physician and they were referred to the University of Miami Comprehensive Pain and Rehabilitation Center (UMCPRC) over a 5-year period for an intensive 4-week inpatient treatment program. Of these 143 (61%) were able to be contacted by telephone and given a structured interview designed for the study. The average time elapsed at follow-up from referral for all patients was 22.5 months. Outcome was measured in the following terms: current levels of pain, percent decrease in pain, subsequent health care utilization, activities of daily living, and attitudes toward treatment. After completion of the interview, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were sent to the patients. The patients fell into five groupings: Group 1--participants in the UMCPRC program (n = 39); Group 2--those whose participation was not approved by insurance (n = 30); Group 3--those who declined participation (n = 46); Group 4--participants in other programs (n = 14); Group 5--dropouts (n = 14). The five groups were not meaningfully different with regard to prereferral demographics. Interestingly, Group 1 patients exhibited significantly greater prereferral pain and unemployment levels. Despite this, at follow-up significantly more Group 1 members were employed and they exhibited a greater percent decrease in pain as compared to the nonparticipant groups. Returned McGill and Oswestry Questionnaires mirrored these findings. Group 1 members also demonstrated significantly lower rates of subsequent health care utilization, i.e., physician visits, hospitalizations, and surgery than the nonparticipant groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Comparison of the effects of perceived self-efficacy on coping with chronic cancer pain and coping with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to explore the differences between chronic cancer pain and chronic low back pain with respect to (a) the use of coping strategies to manage pain and (b) the relationship between self-efficacy for attenuating pain and pain outcomes. DESIGN: Descriptive correlational design. PATIENTS: Eighty-five patients experiencing chronic low back pain (n = 85) and 88 patients with chronic cancer pain (n = 88) were recruited for this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified Coping Strategies Questionnaire, self-efficacy expectancies, and the Brief Pain Inventory. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The major findings of this study were that (a) patients with chronic cancer pain reported significantly lower pain intensity and pain interference than did patients with chronic low back pain; (b) the most frequently used coping strategies were almost the same between the low back pain group and the cancer pain group; (c) for both chronic cancer pain and chronic low back pain groups, patients' perceived self-efficacy was significantly inversely correlated with pain intensity and pain interference with daily life; and (d) patients' use of coping strategies was positively correlated with pain intensity and pain interference with daily life. These findings were discussed in terms of implications for clinical practice and future research.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1998

Low back pain in college athletes. A prospective study correlating lower extremity overuse or acquired ligamentous laxity with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective evaluation of the incidence of low back pain in college athletes was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate prospectively leg length discrepancy, hip flexor tightness, and lower extremity acquired laxity or overuse as predictive factors for low back pain in college athletes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A pilot study found an association between low back pain and the factors to be studied. Several allusions to the kinetic chain theory appear in the literature, but little prospective research has been done in examining the effects of lower extremity involvement on the back. METHODS: Two-hundred fifty-seven college athletes representing nine varsity sports were screened during a preseason sports physical examination. Measures of flexibility, ligamentous stability, leg length discrepancy, and overuse syndromes were recorded. Athletes were observed throughout the ensuing year for low back pain requiring treatment by the athletic trainer. Those athletes with low back pain as the result of direct trauma to the region were excluded from the data. RESULTS: Twenty-four athletes (9.3%) received treatment for low back pain. Thirteen of 87 women (15%) compared with 11 of 170 men (6%) required treatment for low back pain (P = 0.048). Of 57 athletes with lower extremity acquired laxity or overuse, low back pain developed in 14 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Athletes with lower extremity acquired ligamentous laxity or overuse may be at risk for the development of noncontact low back pain during athletic competition. Female athletes with lower extremity involvement appeared to have a higher incidence of low back pain treatment compared with their male counterparts. Inflexibility of the lower extremities or leg length discrepancy were not associated with future low back pain treatment.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Epidemiology of low-back pain in industry.

Low-back pain and back injuries are of such a complex nature that any one criterion cannot be applied by itself to give a valid assessment of the risk associated with manual materials-handling jobs. There is no question that low-back pain is an extremely significant cause of disability and has a major socioeconomic impact, but many different personal and job factors are associated with the incidence and prevalence of these complaints. There is a need for ongoing systematic investigations of the multiple risk factors that may be causally related to low-back pain and may possibly be amendable to preventive interventions. Knowledge of workplace and individual risk factors is far from complete. Prospective studies are needed so that factors contributing to the development of low-back pain can be separated from factors resulting from low-back pain. It is difficult to relate low-back pain to the workplace because it occurs quite often in workers employed in sedentary occupations. However, incidence, severity, and disability are all related to the physical demands of the job. In this regard, jobs involving lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, and holding; body movements such as frequent bending, twisting, and sudden movements; and working in bent-over postures appear to have a significant potential for producing low-back pain. A combination of lifting, bending, and twisting appears to be most hazardous. It is concluded that lifting heavy loads contributes to increased frequency and severity rates for low-back pain. This is true regardless of whether the lifting is performed over a short period or throughout the day and whether it is performed a few times per day of repetitively. If, however, such lifting is performed repetitively, the medical hazard extends beyond low-back problems to other musculoskeletal strain and sprain injuries and to fatigue-related injuries, particularly for weaker workers. In this latter regard, gender, age, anthropometry, and previous history of back pain are known to modify these risks for populations of workers. The inherent variability between workers and within any worker over time precludes the use of such factors to assign risk to any particular individual.

Female↗
PubMed1996

Low back pain and its relationship to back strength and physical activity in children.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the occurrence of low back pain and its relationship to back strength and physical activity in children. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study included 53 boys and 43 girls aged 10 to 19 years from a group of 116 children who had undergone isometric strength testing 4 years previously. No intervention was performed. Each child was asked five questions concerning low back pain. A questionnaire to quantify participation in athletic activities and manual labor was used as the basis for calculation of each child's activity level. Isometric back flexor and extensor strength were measured with the same method used 4 years previously. Statistical analyses were performed with appropriate correction for confounding factors. RESULTS: The frequency of low back pain and the relationship between low back pain and age, between low back pain and back strength, and between low back pain and physical activity were determined. There was a history of low back pain in 51%, and the frequency of low back pain in the past year was 35%. Eight percent of the children had been limited by low back pain, and 7% had seen a doctor for the pain. The first incident of low back pain occurred at a mean age of 12.3 years. The frequencies of a history of low back pain and of low back pain in the past year increased significantly with age (p = 0.02 and 0.01 respectively). Increased physical activity was significantly associated with a history of low back pain (p = 0.03), and increased back flexor strength was significantly associated with a history of low back pain and of low back pain in the past year (p = 0.03 and 0.008, respectively). The rate of low back flexor or strength over 4 years had a significantly positive association with the occurrence of low back pain in the past year (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Low back pain is common in children, and, in contrast to adults, low back pain in these children was more common with increased physical activity and stronger back flexors. We believe the main causes of low back pain in children are musculotendinous strains and ligamentous sprains.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain.

The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of treatments for discogenic low back pain (LBP) by examining all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of discogenic LBP published in the English language literature between 1975 and 1993 with "return to work" (RTW) as the end point. From more than 4,000 LBP citations, nearly 600 articles were initially reviewed; 35 studies met our selection criteria. Twenty-two studies were discussed in Part 1 (Acute Interventions) or will be discussed in Part 3 (Chronic Interventions). In this review, of 13 RCTs assessing interventions for LBP with sciatica, 9 were appropriate for their focus on, and radiologic confirmation of, discogenic LBP. The treatments assessed included chemonucleolysis, surgical discectomy, and epidural steroid injection. A 26-point system to assess the quality of methodologic rigor was used for each article. Our literature survey found a need for additional studies comparing surgery, conservative care, epidural steroids, traction, and other approaches to determine their individual effects for RTW after discogenic disease.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗
PubMed1984

Medication usage, emotional disturbance, and pain behavior in chronic low back pain patients.

Examined chronic low back pain outpatients (N = 126) at a university hospital outpatient back clinic. Prior to their orthopedic examination, patients were given the MMPI, the Pain Experience Questionnaire (a modified form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire), and a medical history form that indicated onset of injury, number of surgeries, functional limitations, and use of medications. Four patterns of drug usage emerged with sufficient number to permit statistical analysis: (1) none; (2) aspirin-type medications; (3) single narcotics alone; and (4) narcotics combined with other medications. Group 4 patients scored significantly higher on the Hypochondriasis and Hysteria scales than the others, whereas Group 3 patients scored higher on the PD (acting out) scale. Group 4 patients reported more intense pain and chose more affective terms (punishing/terrorizing/sickening) in describing their pain than the other three groups. Group 1 patients reported significantly less limitation in walking, running, and climbing.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in chronic low back pain.

This prospective study was designed to determine the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in a consecutive series of patients with chronic low back pain treated at an interventional, multidisciplinary private pain management practice utilizing double diagnostic blocks, to determine the prevalence of false positive rate of uncontrolled facet joint blocks, and to determine the relationship of clinical features of responders and non-responders to double diagnostic blocks. One hundred and twenty patients with low back pain with or without lower extremity pain were selected. The procedure consisted of diagnostic blocks using lidocaine and bupivacaine on separate occasions, usually two weeks apart. Each facet joint nerve was infiltrated with either 0.4 to 0.6 ml of 1% lidocaine (Xylocaine(R)) or 1% lidocaine (Xylocaine(R)) and 0.25% bupivacaine (Marcaine(R)). A definite response was defined as substantial with at least 75% relief of pain in the symptomatic area following local anesthetic block. Confirmatory blocks using bupivacaine 0.25% were performed at the same levels as the first injection if definite relief was obtained. The response to bupivacaine blocks which lasted longer than the lidocaine blocks was accepted as a positive response. All blocks were performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Eighty-one patients (67.5%) reported a definite response to lidocaine blocks. Confirmatory blocks with bupivacaine were performed in all 81 patients with 54 patients, i.e. 45% of total sample or 66.6% of lidocaine positive group reporting definite response with a false positive rate of 41%. Prevalence and relationship of pain referral pattern in patients with and without facet joint pain confirmed by double blocks showed no significant correlation. We found no relationship between the history, physical findings, age, gender, trauma, duration of pain, and diagnostic blocks. However, history of previous surgery showed a negative correlation as only 29% of the patients after previous surgery were positive in contrast to 51% of the nonsurgical population. The results of this study echo previous concerns of reliability of uncontrolled single blocks, history, and clinical features. This study demonstrated that the facet joint is a source of pain in 45% of the patients suffering with chronic low back pain in an interventional pain management setting in a private practice.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2004

An analysis of the relationship between activity and pain in chronic and acute low back pain.

We studied the temporal relationship between pain and activity in patients with acute or chronic low back pain. We studied 15 patients with acute low back pain and 15 patients with chronic low back pain over 3 wk. The activity levels were collected automatically using a wrist accelerometer and were sampled every minute. The pain levels were recorded at least every 90 min using a pocket-sized electronic diary. The time series from each patient were then analyzed using the cross-correlation function at various time offsets. We found that during the first 7 days of acute low back pain, there was a significant (P < 0.01) degree of cross-correlation between activity and pain. On average, pain followed activity by approximately 30 min. As these patients improved and reported less pain, the relationship between activity and pain disappeared. There was no such relationship at any point among the patients with chronic low back pain.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1997

[Are low back pain and radiological changes during puberty risk factors for low back pain in adult age? A 25-year prospective cohort study of 640 school children].

Recent reports have stated that low back pain (LBP) among children is a common problem comparable with that in adults. This 25-year prospective cohort study confirms that 11% of the cohort have had a history of LBP in adolescence with an 84% lifetime prevalence of LBP in these subjects as adults compared with 70% in the rest of the cohort. LBP was associated with increased morbidity and decreased working capacity. Thirteen percent of the cohort had radiological abnormalities, mainly Scheuermann changes, in the thoracic and lumbar spine as adolescents, with no positive correlation to LBP in this period. Unlike other reports our results did not show any association between X-ray changes in the lower spine in adolescents and a higher prevalence of LBP in adults. Stepwise logistic regression analyses showed that LBP in the growth period and familial occurrence of back disease are important risk factors for LBP later in life, with an observed probability of 88% if both factors are present. Preventive measures in the school period seem to be of great importance.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1982

Comparison of three measures for detecting psychological disturbance in patients with low back pain.

The MMPI Low Back Scale, the 'Conversion V' MMPI profile and the Back Pain Classification Scale were compared for accuracy in detecting psychological disturbance in a sample of 91 patients with low back pain. These patients were classified as to the presence or absence of organic findings and psychological disturbance on the basis of objective and independent evaluations. Hit rates or 37.4%, 64.5% and 78.0% were produced by the 3 measures, respectively. The Back Pain Classification Scale was the most accurate measure, and the only scale to exceed base rate. The implications of these findings for clinical practice are discussed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain in patients with subacute low back pain.

The fear-avoidance beliefs of patients with subacute low back pain (LBP) considered at risk for chronic disabling LBP are not well known. The objectives of this cross-sectional descriptive survey, conducted in secondary care practice, were to assess fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain in patients with subacute LBP and to seek an association between physician or patient characteristics and level of fear-avoidance beliefs. A total of 286 rheumatologists completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing physicians' demographic, professional data, personal history of back pain, and back pain fear-avoidance beliefs (on the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire [FABQ]) and 443 patients with sLBP completed one on pain, perceived handicap and disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression questionnaire), and back pain beliefs (FABQ). Mean FABQ scores for rheumatologists for physical activities (FABQ Phys) and occupational activities (FABQ Work) were 9.2+/-4.4 (range 0-21) and 16.7+/-6.9 (range 2-37), respectively, and patient scores were 16.7+/-5.2 and 19.3+/-12.4, respectively. A total of 68% of patients and 10% of physicians had a high rating on the FABQ Phys (>14). Patients' fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity were associated with low level of education (odds ratio [OR] 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-9.57), patients' perceived disability (OR 1.05; CI 1.03-1.07), and physicians' high FABQ Phys score (OR 5.92; CI 1.31-26.32). Here we show that fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain were high in patients with subacute LBP and their rheumatologists.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1980

Emotional disturbance and chronic low back pain.

Treated chronic low back pain patients (N = 102) in a university hospital clinic. Ss were given the EPI, the Recent LIfe Changes Questionnaire, and the Locus of Control Scale in order to isolate the principal dimensions of emotional disturbance in such patients and to see whether derived dimensions were related to response to conservative treatment for back pain. Self-report ratings of current pain intensity were obtained approximately 1 year after the start of treatment. Factor analysis revealed five factors: Distrust and alienation, somatic concern, vulnerability, extraversion, and social desirability; these accounted for 71% of the total variance among patients. Patients with above-average pretreatment distrust and alienation scores more frequently failed to return the follow-up form than patients with below-average scores. Low scores on somatic concern were related to good outcome. Results suggest that patients in alienation and distrust may be prone to be poor compliers. Because only the somatic concern dimension predicted outcome, a single scale that measures this characteristic may be sufficient for effective identification of the potential good vs. poor responders to conservative treatment of low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Using the dallas pain questionnaire to classify individuals with low back pain in a working population.

STUDY DESIGN: Individuals with low back pain were classified by cluster analysis of their responses to the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. These results enabled development of an alternative simple classification tool that yielded results close to those obtained by the cluster analysis. OBJECTIVES: To use the Dallas Pain Questionnaire to classify workers with low back pain, and to develop a practical classification tool for physicians. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The severity of low back pain is important information for patient management. Questionnaires exploring the multidimensional aspect of low back pain have been used to classify individuals with low back pain. The Dallas Pain Questionnaire is a short self-administered questionnaire that explores the functional and emotional aspects of chronic low back pain. It was tested in a population still at work using a simplified scoring system. METHODS: The study included 765 persons with low back pain still at work who completed the self-administered questionnaire. Of these patients, 732 could be classified by cluster analysis according to their answers to the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. A classification tool was developed to categorize them. Using external variables, the groups thus formed were compared. RESULTS: Respondents were classified into four classes: class 1 (minor disability), class 2 (intermediate disability), class 3 (disability for some physical activities), and class 4 (physical disability and emotional disturbance). External pain-related variables were clearly associated with increasing low back pain severity as measured by this classification tool. CONCLUSIONS: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire discriminated between different groups of persons with low back pain. The proposed classification uses a short, simple practical tool to assess different levels of low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bed rest for patients with acute low back pain or sciatica. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trial register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Sport, Scisearch, and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted authors of relevant articles. Date of the most recent searches: December 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised studies or quasi randomised studies where at least one comparison group of adult patients with acute low back pain with or without radiation of pain below the knee was advised to rest in bed for at least two days and one group was not, or where comparison groups were advised to stay in bed for different lengths of time. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 1435 patients were included. Five trials met all four validity criteria and were assessed to have low risk of bias, while four trials were assessed to have moderate to high risk of bias. Four trials compared bed rest with advice to stay active, and overall the results were heterogeneous. Overall results from two high quality studies indicate no difference in pain intensity at three weeks follow-up [Standardized Mean Difference 0.0 (95%CI: -0.3, 0.2)], and a small difference in functional status in favour of staying active [Weighted Mean Difference 3.2 (on a 0-100 scale) (95%CI 0.6, 5.8)]. Two high quality trials reported no differences in pain intensity between two to three days of bed rest and seven days of bed rest. Another two high-quality trials found no differences between bed rest and exercises in pain intensity or functional status. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Bed rest compared to acvice to stay active will at best have small effects, and at worst might have small harmful effects on acute LBP. Differences in effects of advice to stay in bed compared with advice to stay active are small for patients with low back pain with or without sciatica. There is not an important difference in the effects of bed rest compared with exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain, or seven days compared with two to three days of bed rest in patients with low back pain of different duration with and without radiating pain.

Acute Disease↗