SEARCH · Search PubMed
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.
Low back pain is a rare phenomenon in children. The etiology differs from the degenerative and diskogenic disease in adults and is almost never a manifestation of psychological disturbance. Low back pain in children is often the harbinger of serious underlying pathologic changes and should be evaluated by state-of-the-art neuroradiologic tests.
The Low-Back Outcome Score has been devised as a new and accurate rating system for patients with low-back pain. Thirteen factors, such as pain, employment, sporting ability, rest required, and activities of daily living, were included; subjective opinion was excluded. Pain and active pursuits were weighted. Presentation of the score as a questionnaire, excluding examination findings, eliminated both interobserver variation and observer variation with time. The score was applied retrospectively in a follow-up study of conservatively treated patients and was found to be more comprehensive and more discriminating than the Oswestry Disability Score, the Waddell Disability Rating, or the Waddell Physical Impairment Rating. The Low-Back Outcome Score is recommended for further evaluation in future prospective studies in low-back pain.
The cause of low back pain is heterogeneous, it has been hypothesised that a latent chronic acidosis might contribute to these symptoms. It was tested whether a supplementation with alkaline minerals would influence symptoms in patients with low back pain symptoms. In an open prospective study 82 patients with chronic low back pain received daily 30 g of a lactose based alkaline multimineral supplement (Basica) over a period of 4 weeks in addition to their usual medication. Pain symptoms were quantified with the "Arhus low back pain rating scale" (ARS). Mean ARS dropped highly significant by 49% from 41 to 21 points after 4 weeks supplemention. In 76 out of 82 patients a reduction in ARS was achieved by the supplementation. Total blood buffering capacity was significantly increased from 77.69 +/- 6.79 to 80.16 +/- 5.24 mmol/L (mean +/- SEM, n = 82, p < 0.001) and also blood pH rose from 7.456 +/- 0.007 to 7.470 +/- 0.007 (mean +/- SEM, n = 75, p < 0.05). Only intracellular magnesium increased by 11% while other intracellular minerals were not significantly changed in sublingual tissue as measured with the EXA-test. Plasma concentrations of potassium, calcium, iron, copper, and zinc were within the normal range and not significantly influenced by the supplementation. Plasma magnesium was slightly reduced after the supplemenation (-3%, p < 0.05). The results show that a disturbed acid-base balance may contribute to the symptoms of low back pain. The simple and safe addition of an alkaline multimineral preparate was able to reduce the pain symptoms in these patients with chronic low back pain.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Although chiropractors often use physical modalities with spinal manipulation, evidence that modalities yield additional benefits over spinal manipulation alone is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to estimate the net effect of physical modalities on low back pain (LBP) outcomes among chiropractic patients in a managed-care setting. METHODS: Fifty percent of the 681 patients participating in a clinical trial of LBP treatment strategies were randomized to chiropractic care with physical modalities (n = 172) or without physical modalities (n = 169). Subjects were followed for 6 months with assessments at 2, 4, and 6 weeks and at 6 months. The primary outcome variables were average and most severe LBP intensity in the past week, assessed with numerical rating scales (0-10), and low back-related disability, assessed with the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. RESULTS: Almost 60% of the subjects had baseline LBP episodes of more than 3 months' duration. The 6-month follow-up was 96%. The adjusted mean differences between groups in improvements in average and most severe pain and disability were clinically insignificant at all follow-up assessments. Clinically relevant improvements in average pain and disability were more likely in the modalities group at 2 and 6 weeks, but this apparent advantage disappeared at 6 months. Perceived treatment effectiveness was greater in the modalities group. CONCLUSIONS: Physical modalities used by chiropractors in this managed-care organization did not appear to be effective in the treatment of patients with LBP, although a small short-term benefit for some patients cannot be ruled out.
Low back pain, secondary to a variety of musculoskeletal injuries, is common in individuals engaged in athletics. Sports-related stress reactions of the pars interarticularis are not uncommon. Stress reactions of the sacroiliac joint, on the other hand, are considered very rare. The limitations of plain radiographs and the ability of bone scintigraphy to detect stress lesions in athletes is well documented. In this paper we describe four young athletes with stress reactions of the sacroiliac region. We consider these to be uncommon but not rare, and probably self-limiting. Accurate diagnosis is important, however, to exclude more important causes of low back pain that require therapy. This type of injury also results in abnormal stresses to the lower extremities which can result in an independent and more serious injury. All sacroiliac stress reactions were unsuspected and were diagnosed only by bone scintigraphy after plain radiographs were noncontributory.
STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective 3-year follow-up study of randomized matched subgroups of 15-year-old school children with or without low back pain initially. OBJECTIVE: In addition to low back pain and leisure time physical activity, spinal mobility, trunk muscle strength, and early degenerative findings of the lumbar spine were evaluated. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reliable epidemiologic studies on the prevalence of low back pain and development of early degenerative changes of the lumbar spine in young persons have been sparse. Along with several other characteristics, the relationship of these changes to frequent low back pain in young persons is not known. METHODS: After a questionnaire-based survey was administered, subjects with or without low back pain were examined initially and at follow-up with special reference to leisure time physical activity, anthropometry, spinal mobility, trunk muscle strength, and magnetic resonance imaging findings of the lumbar spine. RESULTS: At baseline and at follow-up, those subjects with initial low back pain were characterized by a low frequency of physical activity and decreased spinal function. During follow-up, the occurrence of disc degeneration increased significantly more in the original group with low back pain than among asymptomatic subjects. Furthermore, disc degeneration at baseline significantly predicted future frequent low back pain. Initial disc protrusion also predicted future frequent low back pain. CONCLUSION: After the rapid physical growth period, there seemed to be a causal relationship between the early evolution of the degenerative processes of the lower lumbar discs and frequent low back pain in several subjects.
In studies evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions, it is of paramount importance that the functional outcome measures are responsive to clinically relevant change. Knowledge thereof is in fact essential for the choice of instrument in clinical trials and for clinical decision-making. This article endeavours to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement (responsiveness) of the Danish version of the Oswestry disability index (ODI) in two back pain populations. Two hundred and thirty three patients with low back pain (LBP) and/or leg pain completed a questionnaire booklet at baseline and 8 weeks follow-up. Half of the patients were seen in the primary (PrS) and half in the secondary sectors (SeS) of the Danish Health Care System. The booklet contained the Danish version of the ODI, along with the Roland Morris Questionnaire, the LBP Rating Scale, the SF36 (physical function and bodily pain scales) and a global pain rating. At follow-up, a 7-point transition question (TQ) of patient perceived change and a numeric rating scale relating to the importance of the change were included. Responsiveness was operationalised using three strategies: change scores, standardised response means (SRM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. All methods revealed acceptable responsiveness of the ODI in the two patient populations which was comparable to the external instruments. SRM of the ODI change scores at 2 months follow-up was 1.0 for PrS patients and 0.3 for SeS (raw and percentage). A minimum clinically important change (MCID) from baseline score was established at 9 points (71%) for PrS patients and 8 points (27%) for SeS patients using ROC analyses. This was dependable on the baseline entry score with the MCID increasing with 5 points for every 10 points increase in the baseline score. We conclude that the Danish version of the ODI has comparable responsiveness to other commonly used functional status measures and is appropriate for use in low back pain patients receiving conservative care in both the primary and secondary sector.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinical and statistically significant changes in back pain, shoulder pain, spine stiffness, and quality of sleep may be documented after use of a prescribed bedding system. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental field study of single group pretest-posttest design with subjects serving as their own controls. SETTING: Two chiropractic clinics and the Oklahoma State University Program of Health and Human Performance. SUBJECTS: Convenience sample of 22 subjects (women, n = 13; men, n = 9) between the ages of 25 and 75 years with documented disturbed sleep, shoulder pain, low back pain, and spine stiffness of a chronic nature. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pretest and posttest 28-day Visual Analog Scales for pain, spine stiffness, and quality of sleep. MAIN RESULTS: The experimental bedding system reduced back pain by 57.21% (P =.000001), reduced shoulder pain by 60.83% (P =.000005), reduced back stiffness by 59.12% (P =.000004), and improved quality of sleep by 60.73% (P =.000001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that subjects obtain significant improvement in shoulder and back pain, back stiffness, and quality of sleep after 28 days of prescribed bedding system use as compared with 28 days of personal bedding use. Female subjects and those with lower body weight were more likely to significantly improve than heavier and more obese subjects.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and construct and predictive validity of the Norwegian version of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnnaire (ALBPSQ). METHODS: A prospective study with a 12-month follow-up was conducted on 123 patients with acute low back pain (LBP) seeking help in primary health care for the first time and 50 patients with chronic LBP for more than 3 months. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was high with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.90, minimal detectable change of 12 points (of a total score of 210), and coefficient of variation of 4%. Internal consistency was 0.95. Principal-components analysis revealed 3 factors explaining 49% of the variance. The ALBPSQ score correlated highly (r> or =0.60) with disability variables, moderately (0.30<r<0.60) with age, pain intensity, and psychologic, questionnaires, and weakly (r< or =0.30) with most sociodemographic and clinical variables. The ALBPSQ were significantly lower in acute compared with chronic LBP at all follow-up visits (P<0.001). Significant associations were found between high-risk and low-risk subgroups on the ALBPSQ and pain and disability variables during follow-up. Different cut-off points on the accuracy of predicting outcomes at 6 and 12 months' follow-up showed high specificity and low sensitivity with a best cut-off of 90 points. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study provide further evidence of the utility of the ALBPSQ in clinical studies and in primary care settings (general practitioners, chiropractors, and physiotherapists) to help identify patients at risk of developing chronic LBP and disability.
Injuries leading to low back pain can occur by direct trauma, overexertion or repetitive trauma. Overexertion is claimed by 60% of low back pain patients as the cause of injury. Of these patients with overexertion injuries, 66% implicated lifting and 20% pushing or pulling. It is, however, difficult to relate the workplace to the complaint of low back pain in a specific worker, and low back pain is found quite often in those with sedentary occupations. The incidence, severity and potential disability are all related to the demands on the individual in the workplace. Among the factors implicated are the requirements for lifting (particularly when compared to the worker's lifting capacity), pushing and pulling, posture, and cyclic loading. Drivers of heavy vehicles have two to four times the average incidence of serious low back pain. This is probably due to the cyclic loading environment. The general psychosocial environment (including that at work) is an important risk factor. The first attack of low back pain occurs in the teens or twenties. Low back pain is as frequent in females as males, although women in manual materials handling jobs are at greater risk. Posture, anthropometry and mobility measures have limited prognostic value. Muscle strength and physical fitness probably have some value. Radiographic findings have little pragmatic value.
Low back pain represents a significant medical problem, both in its prevalence and its cost to society. Most episodes of acute low back pain resolve without significant long-term functional impact. However, a minority of patients experience extended chronic pain and disability. In this paper, we have explored new techniques of patient assessment that may prospectively identify this minority ofpatients at risk of developing poor outcomes. We studied 15 patients with acute low back pain and 25 patients with chronic low back pain over 4 month's time. Patients monitored their pain and activity levels continuously over the first 3 weeks. Pain and functional status were assessed at baseline and at 3 weeks following enrollment. Follow-up assessment of functional status and progress were performed at 2 and 4 months. The pain and activity levels were categorized using a self-organizing-map neural network. A back-propagation neural network was trained with the categorization and outcome data. There was a good correlation between the true and predicted values for general health (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) and mental health (r = 0.80, p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found if activity and pain data were not entered into the analysis. Our results show that neural network techniques can be applied effectively to categorizing patients with acute and chronic low back pain. It is our hope that future research will allow these categorizations to be tied to prognostic and therapeutic decisions in patients who present with episodes of back pain.
BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common conditions managed in primary care. Restricted activity, rest, and symptomatic analgesics are the most commonly prescribed treatment for low back pain and sciatica. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to stay active as single treatment for patients with low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Musculoskeletal Group's Trials Register and Scisearch, and scanning of reference lists from relevant articles were undertaken. Relevant studies were also traced by contacting authors. Date of the most recent searches: December 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials or quasi-randomised trials where the study population consisted of adult patients with low back pain or sciatica, in which one comparison group was advised to stay active. 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 collect missing data or for clarification when needed. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials, with a total of 491 patients, were included. Advice to stay active was compared to advice to rest in bed in all trials. Two trials were assessed to have low risk of bias and two to have moderate to high risk of bias. The results were heterogeneous. Results from one high quality trial of patients with acute simple LBP found small differences in functional status [Weighted Mean Difference (on a 0-100 scale) 6.0 (95% CI: 1.5, 10.5)] and length of sick leave [WMD 3.4 days (95% CI: 1.6, 5.2)] in favour of staying active compared to advice to stay in bed for two days. The other high quality trial compared advice to stay active with advice to rest in bed for 14 days for patients with sciatic syndrome, and found no differences between the groups. One of the high quality trials also compared advice to stay active with exercises for patients with acute simple LBP, and found improvement in functional status and reduction in sick leave in favour of advice to stay active. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence suggests that advice to stay active alone has small beneficial effects for patients with acute simple low back pain, and little or no effect for patients with sciatica. There is no evidence that advice to stay active is harmful for either acute low back pain or sciatica. If there is no major difference between advice to stay active and advice to rest in bed, and there is potential harmful effects of prolonged bed rest, then it is reasonable to advise people with acute low back pain and sciatica to stay active. These conclusions are based on single trials.
PURPOSE: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) remains one of the most difficult and costly medical problems in the industrialized world. A review of nineteenth and early twentieth century spine rehabilitation shows that back disorders were commonly treated with aggressive and specific progressive resistance exercise (PRE). Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support their efficacy, therapeutic approaches to back rehabilitation over the past 30 yr have focused primarily upon passive care for symptom relief. Recent spine rehabilitation programs have returned to active reconditioning PRE centered around low back strengthening to restore normal musculoskeletal function. Research has shown that lumbar extension exercise using PRE significantly increases strength and decreases pain in CLBP patients. It appears that isolated lumbar extension exercise with the pelvis stabilized using specialized equipment elicits the most favorable improvements in low back strength, muscle cross-sectional area, and vertebral bone mineral density (BMD). These improvements occur with a low training volume of 1 set of 8 to 15 repetitions performed to volitional fatigue one time per week. CLBP patients participating in isolated lumbar extension PRE programs demonstrate significant reductions in pain and symptoms associated with improved muscle strength, endurance, and joint mobility. Improvements occur independent of diagnosis, are long-lasting, and appear to result in less re-utilization of the health care system than other more passive treatments. Low back strengthening shows promise for the reduction of industrial back injuries and associated costs.
INTRODUCTION: Research concerning the development of low back pain (LBP) has traditionally focused on risk factors in search of explanations. This review focuses on comorbidity as a first step in identifying a frail subpopulation with a higher risk of developing low back pain, in particular persistent low back pain. Research into comorbidity might yield a greater understanding of the underlying mechanism for low back pain. Data sources Medline was searched from the beginning of the data base to December 2000, followed by a search through the authors' personal collections of epidemiologic literature regarding low back pain. All articles written in English were included if they related LBP to at least one other physical disorder. Articles were excluded if the prevalence of such disorders could not be compared to that of a control group or to the expected prevalence in a normal population. Data extraction The retrieved articles were evaluated for quality based on predefined methodological criteria, whereupon information about associations between low back pain and other physical disorders was extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were included. They showed positive associations to all disorders investigated (headache/migraine, respiratory disorders, cardiovascular disease, general health, and others) with the exception of diabetes. There was very little information regarding temporality, therefore there are no clues as to causal mechanisms. CONCLUSION: The literature leaves no doubt that diseases cluster in some individuals and that low back pain is part of this pattern. However, the nature of the relationship between low back pain and other disorders is still unclear.
Patients with chronic low back pain can present a treatment dilemma for the family physician. Low back pain is one of the most common symptoms bringing patients to physicians. Despite its high prevalence, low back pain is often difficult to treat. In most patients, the pain cannot be pinpointed at a specific anatomic lesion, and plain radiographs, computed tomographic scans and magnetic resonance imaging studies are not useful. While most people with low back pain improve regardless of the type of intervention, some evidence shows that McKenzie exercises, manipulation and injection therapy are helpful for patients who do not recover spontaneously.
AIM OF STUDY: A low-dose radiotherapy with 5 Gy on the lumbar spine in patients with chronic low back pain was investigated. METHOD: 31 patients with non-radicular low back pain since three years at the age of at least 50 years (64.3 years on average) were treated. A psychosomatic etiology of pain was excluded. 5 Gy or 0.5 Gy (placebo dose) were applied in five fractions to the lumbar spine including the facet joints. The pain was evaluated by means of the Oswestry-Disability-Score before, six weeks after therapy, and every three months during the follow-up (22.4 months on average). Drug therapy, physiotherapy, and physical treatment were continued. RESULTS: According to the randomised distribution, 18 patients were treated with 5 Gy and 13 patients with 0.5 Gy. The Friedman-Test did not reveal any significant difference (p > 0.05) of the Oswestry-Disability-Index before and after therapy for both single questions and the sum of questions in both groups. CONCLUSION: No significant decrease of the Disability Index after radiotherapy on the lumbar spine with 5 Gy could be demonstrated in the verum and placebo group. The authors do not recommend radiotherapy in cases of chronic low back pain. Individual successes have to be attributed to conservative treatment or placebo effects.
Most episodes of low back pain are mechanical in origin and resolve within a 12-week period. These acute episodes of back pain are associated with muscle strain and intervertebral disc herniation with radiculopathy. A smaller proportion of individuals have back pain with a duration greater than 12 weeks. These patients have back pain secondary to a wide variety of mechanical and nonmechanical disorders. The mechanical disorders associated with chronic low back pain include osteoarthritis and lumbar spinal stenosis; the nonmechanical disorders include infectious, neoplastic, rheumatologic, endocrinologic, vascular, and gynecologic. The clinical symptoms associated with each variety of disorder helps guide the appropriate diagnostic evaluation. Plain roentgenograms are useful in documenting the presence of spinal stenosis, benign or malignant tumors, osteoporosis, sacroiliitis, and spondylitis. CT scan is helpful in defining the bony alterations associated with malignant tumors and the vascular abnormalities associated with aneurysms. MR imaging is the technique of choice to document the extent of malignant processes and the presence of endometriosis in the pelvis. The therapy of these entities are specific for the disease entity causing the chronic low back pain. Although most of the disorders that cause chronic low back pain cannot be cured, therapy can decrease pain and improve function of the symptomatic patient.