Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “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 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources
PubMed1984

Evaluation of an advanced back pain rehabilitation program.

The "Back-Pain Institute" at Sundsvall offers an advanced rehabilitation program to people with long-standing back pain. This program has been evaluated in a controlled prospective study. Data were gathered from questionnaires mailed on three occasions, from the sick insurance office and from the bureau of employment. The effects of the Institute's course on the vocational situation were small. The only significant difference between the experimental group and the control group was in the level of income. Significantly more persons in the experimental group had begun to train their back and significantly more individuals in the experimental group believed that by using the correct working technique they could prevent back pain. No significant changes were found with regard to the subjective feeling of pain.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Exercise-related stress reaction of the sacroiliac joint. An unusual cause of low back pain in athletes.

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.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Distinguish the specific from non-specific low back pain.

The diagnosis of low back pain is common and non-specific. While many theories exist concerning the etiology of low back pain, most attribute the condition to degenerative conditions of the spine with superimposed chemical and inflammatory factors. Acute low back pain is generally self-limited if treated in a supportive fashion. Certain factors such as constitutional symptoms and rest or night pain may implicate a more serious condition and possibly warrant early investigation. Chronic conditions generally relate to "segmental instability" or discogenic causes. Diagnosis and treatment of these conditions are controversial.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1996

Back pain in children and adolescents.

Back pain in children is a common problem that is infrequently reported to physicians. Persistent back pain in children is serious, and most conditions can be diagnosed with relatively simple tests, including diagnostic plain radiographs and bone scans. Many cases, including strains and sprains, are relieved with rest and decreased activity. If persistent back pain, increasing pain, fever, or neurologic deficit is present, referral to the orthopedic surgeon should be swift until a specific cause can be found and treated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

Iliac crest pain syndrome in low back pain. A double blind, randomized study of local injection therapy.

In a 2-week, double blind, randomized study we compared the efficacy of a single local injection of 5 ml lignocaine, 0.5% (L) with 5 ml isotonic saline (S) in 41 patients with the iliac crest pain syndrome (ICPS), recruited from a rheumatology clinic and from a general practice. For the purpose of comparing both treatment, 2 major outcome variables at the end of the study were defined at the outset: (1) Pain score. In the L group the mean pain score at Day 14 was 30.5, in the S group 43.8; the difference between both treatment groups was significant (p less than 0.05). On subgroup analysis similar results were found in the rheumatology setting (p less than 0.05) but not in the general practice setting (NS). (2) Pain severity compared with baseline. In the L group 52% of patients improved and in the S group 30% (NS). In the general practice clinic there was no significant difference (44 vs 62%); however, in the rheumatology setting 58% of those treated with L were improved compared with 8% in the S group (p less than 0.01). Our data demonstrate an effect of a local injection with lignocaine that is somewhat larger than an injection with saline which also has some beneficial effect. The difference is evident in the rheumatology setting but not in the general practice setting.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain, but also to prevent the onset (primary prevention) or recurrences of a low back pain episode (secondary prevention). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of lumbar sup-ports for prevention and treatment of nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: The Medline, Cinahl, and Current Contents databases; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999; and the Embase database up to September 1998 were all searched. References of identified trials and systematic reviews were reviewed and the Science Citation Index used to identify additional trials. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A quantitative analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence was classified as strong, moderate, limited or conflicting, and no evidence. RESULTS: Five randomized and two nonrandomized preventive trials and six randomized therapeutic trials were included in the review. Only 4 of the 13 studies were of high quality. There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not effective for primary prevention. No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention. The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment, whereas it is still unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be a need for high quality randomized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of adequate compliance.

Braces↗
PubMed2004

Back pain--an integrated approach in primary care.

Back pain is common, and although many cases remit quickly, a significant number also continue a relapsing course over many months and years. Psychosocial factors have a significant influence on the condition. The evidence from clinical trials of the effectiveness of various therapies is available in summarised form in several resources, though is often inconclusive. There is good evidence that acute back pain should be managed by staying active and using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs, adding cognitive behaviour therapy for subacute pain. For chronic back pain, exercise, pain management programmes, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs, and trigger point and ligament injections are also recommended. There appears to be increasing evidence in favour of the use of acupuncture. Acupuncture appears to be useful to treat back pain, but patients should probably be advised to take advantage of any pain relief obtained to maintain or increase their activity. Acupuncturists must be aware of the psychosocial dimensions of back pain, as well as the physical ones, and should be careful to educate their patients about the condition and not make them become dependent on acupuncture to treat every acute episode.

Acupuncture Therapy↗
PubMed1994

Low back pain in steelplant workers.

The association between low back pain and occupational work loads, lifestyle factors and socio-demographic factors was examined in 469 steelplant workers (436 men, 33 women), aged 40 +/- 12 years (mean +/- SD). Fifty-one per cent had experienced low back pain during the preceding year. The strongest associations were found between recent low back pain and domestic recreational activities (> or = 3 h/week vs. 0-2 h/week), and between recent low back pain and work pace (too fast vs. adequate), with odds ratios (95% confidence limits) of 3.0 (1.5-5.8) and 2.3 (1.2-4.2), respectively. We considered a subject to have a particularly severe history of low back pain if, due to low back trouble, he (i) had ever been admitted to a hospital, (ii) had ever had to change work, or (iii) had had more than one week's accumulated sick leave during the preceding year. There was a strong association between a severe low back pain history and lifetime occupational exposure to heavy and frequent lifting at work. Forty-seven per cent of severe low back pain events could be ascribed to heavy and frequent lifting, assuming the associations were causal. We conclude that domestic recreational activities may be an important potential confounder in studies on occupational risk factors for low back pain, and that, based on the results of this and of other studies, a case for prevention still seems to exist regarding lifting of heavy burdens in the work environment.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCIC) of the pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and the Euroqol (EQ) in patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MCIC can provide valuable information for researchers, healthcare providers, and policymakers. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial with 442 patients with low back pain were used. The MCIC was estimated over a 12-week period, and three different methods were used: 1) mean change scores, 2) minimal detectable change, and 3) optimal cutoff point in receiver operant curves. The global perceived effect scale (GPE) was used as an external criterion. The effect of initial scores on the MCIC was also assessed. RESULTS: The MCIC of the PI-NRS ranged from 3.5 to 4.7 points in (sub)acute patients and 2.5 to 4.5 points in chronic patients with low back pain. The MCIC of the QBPDS was estimated between 17.5 to 32.9 points and 8.5 to 24.6 points for (sub)acute and chronic patients with low back pain. The MCIC for the EQ ranged from 0.07 to 0.58 in (sub)acute patients and 0.09 to 0.28 in patients with chronic low back pain. CONCLUSION: Reporting the percentage of patients who have made a MCIC adds to the interpretability of study results. We present a range of MCIC values and advocate the choice of a single MCIC value according to the specific context.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Descriptive epidemiology and public health aspects of low back pain.

The prevalence of low back syndrome and its consequences in terms of disability, handicap, and need for medical care were studied as part of "the Mini-Finland Health Survey". A sample of 8000 persons representative of the Finnish population aged 30 or over was invited for examination, and 7217 (90%) participated. At interview 75% of the participants reported that they had experienced at least one episode of low back pain. Six or more episodes were reported by half of the population, and about 20% had suffered from pain during the previous month. On the basis of a standardised clinical examination, a physician diagnosed low back syndrome in 17.5% of men and 16.3% of women. The prevalence was highest in those aged 55-64 years. The use of health services was frequent among those suffering from low back pain. Nevertheless, their need for care was commonly unmet. Some disability was found in almost 60% of the subjects with low back pain, although severe functional limitations were rare. It was estimated that of the work disability the reduced capacity for everyday duties apart from work, and the reduced capacity for leisure time activities, in the population 18%, 16%, and 17%, respectively, were attributable to the low back syndrome. Thus low back syndrome has a strong impact on individuals and on society as a whole.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Oral contraceptive use among female elite athletes and age-matched controls and its relation to low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Exogenous and endogenous female sex steroids may influence the risk of low back pain. The fact that back pain is a very common symptom during pregnancy supports this theory. Back pain is also more common among female than male athletes. Oral contraceptives have been suggested to increase the risk of low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the prevalence of low back pain is higher among oral contraceptive users than non-users and if it differs between women taking part in different sports. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to female elite athletes in volleyball (n = 205), basketball (n = 150), and soccer (n = 361) as well as to age-matched controls (n = 113). The questionnaire comprised questions about age, constitution, occupation, parity and use of contraceptive method as well as previous and current back pain and possible consequences of the back problems. RESULTS: The response rate was 85%. Between 42% and 52% of the women in the different groups used oral contraceptives. The groups were similar in most background variables, except that the volleyball and basketball players were taller. The prevalence of current low back pain was between 21% and 34% in the different athlete groups with an average of 30%, whereas only 18% of the controls suffered from low back pain (p < 0.01). The prevalence of low back pain within each group, athletes as well as controls, was similar in women who used, and did not use oral contraceptives. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the theory that low back pain is affected by the use of oral contraceptives. Instead, constitutional factors and mechanical stress during intense physical activity is probably more important.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Theories of back pain and health care utilization.

Because most people in the United States have occasional back pain, demand for the treatment of back pain is widespread. Yet, few treatments have proven to be more effective than placebo therapy. We examine patterns of treatment that have emerged in the absence of definitive treatment. We concentrate on high-cost users of back pain treatment (i.e., chronic pain patients) and high-cost treatments (i.e., surgical and non-surgical hospitalization for low back pain). The small minority of back pain patients whose disability persists into chronicity (90 days or more) accounts for a disproportionate amount of all back pain costs. Interventions have been developed to prevent back pain but, once back pain has already occurred, little is done to prevent it from becoming chronic. Drug therapy may be used to treat the symptom of chronic pain, the cause of which may not be thereby affected. Regarding high-cost treatments, surgical and nonsurgical hospitalizations for low back pain are common practices in the United States. Pain specialists for the past 15 years have advocated a conservative approach to back pain, but the rate of surgery for low back pain increased during this time. Average lengths of stay for surgical and nonsurgical low back pain hospitalizations decreased. We explore why, in the instance of low back pain surgery, change was resisted, whereas, in the instance of average lengths of stay, change was accepted. In view of why change may be resisted or accepted, we discuss interventions designed to change physicians' practice style.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2001

Spine loading characteristics of patients with low back pain compared with asymptomatic individuals.

STUDY DESIGN: Patients with low back pain and asymptomatic individuals were evaluated while performing controlled and free-dynamic lifting tasks in a laboratory setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how low back pain influences spine loading during lifting tasks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An important, yet unresolved, issue associated with low back pain is whether patients with low back pain experience spine loading that differs from that of individuals who are asymptomatic for low back pain. This is important to understand because excessive spine loading is suspected of accelerating disc degeneration in those whose spines are damaged already. METHODS: In this study, 22 patients with low back pain and 22 asymptomatic individuals performed controlled and free-dynamic exertions. Trunk muscle activity, trunk kinematics, and trunk kinetics were used to evaluate three- dimensional spine loading using an electromyography- assisted model in conjunction with a new electromyographic calibration procedure. RESULTS: Patients with low back pain experienced 26% greater spine compression and 75% greater lateral shear (normalized to moment) than the asymptomatic group during the controlled exertions. The increased spine loading resulted from muscle coactivation. When permitted to move freely, the patients with low back pain compensated kinematically in an attempt to minimize external moment exposure. Increased muscle coactivation and greater body mass resulted in significantly increased absolute spine loading for the patients with low back pain, especially when lifting from low vertical heights. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a significant mechanical spine loading cost is associated with low back pain resulting from trunk muscle coactivation. This loading is further exacerbated by the increases in body weight that often accompany low back pain. Patient weight control and proper workplace design can minimize the additional spine loading associated with low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Lumbar muscle fatigue and chronic lower back pain.

There currently is a clinical need for an objective technique to assess muscle dysfunction associated with chronic lower back pain. A Back Analysis System for objectively measuring local fatigue in the back extensor muscles is presented. The reliability and validity of this technique was evaluated by testing chronic low-back pain patients and control subjects without back pain. Concurrent surface electromyograms (EMG) were detected from multiple back muscles during sustained isometric contractions at different force levels of trunk extension. Median frequency parameters of the EMG power density spectrum were monitored to quantify localized muscle fatigue. Results indicated: 1) high reliability estimates for repeated trials; 2) significant differences (P less than 0.05) in median frequency parameters between lower back pain patients and control subjects for specific combinations of contractile force level and muscle site tested; 3) Median Frequency parameters correctly classified lower back pain and control subjects using a two-group discriminant analysis procedure. The applicability of this technique as a treatment outcome measure and diagnostic screening method for lower back pain patients is discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Clinically important outcomes in low back pain.

Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely used questionnaires. Details of the background and the measurement properties, and of the minimally clinically important change (MCIC) using these questionnaires, are described. The MCIC can be estimated using various methods and there is no consensus in the literature on what the most appropriate technique is. This chapter focuses primarily on two adequate and frequently used methods for estimating the MCIC. We argue that the MCIC should not be considered as a fixed value and that the MCIC values presented in this chapter are used as indications. For patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, the MCIC for pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) should at least be 20mm and for acute low back pain it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be at the level of approximately 35mm. If a numerical rating scale (NRS) is used it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 and 2.5 for patients with acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For functional disability as measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire it seems reasonable that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 points, whereas an MCIC of at least 10 points when the Oswestry Disability Index is used. For global perceived effect, we argue that the MCIC is most appropriately defined in terms of at least 'much improved' or 'very satisfied', instead of including 'slightly improved'. Finally, we argue that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, every day of earlier return to work is important. The exact value for the MCIC can be determined, taking into account the aim of the measurement, the initial scores, the target population and the method used to assess MCIC.

Disability Evaluation↗
PubMed1981

Felling work, low-back pain and osteoarthritis.

Low-back pain and the occurrence of osteoarthritis were investigated among 226 lumberjacks employed in felling work for an average of 20 a. The reference group comprised 98 persons involved in either light physical work or office activities. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to the occurrence of low-back pain and the subjective degree of low-back pain. According to the radiographic findings the lumberjacks had statistically more occurrences (62%) of disc degeneration than the referents (50%). No association between length of exposure to felling work and the prevalence of lumbar disc degeneration could be established. The occurrence of osteoarthritis in the hip and knee joints of the lumberjacks was 5 and 3% for the lumberjacks and the referents, respectively.

Adolescent↗