Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Back”

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 1,243 records · Page 69Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain patients to make the impairment and disability vanish or decrease. Lumbar supports are also used to prevent the onset of low back pain (primary prevention) or to prevent recurrences of a low back pain episode (secondary prevention). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Medline, Cinahl and Current Contents databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999, and the Embase database up to September 1998. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified controlled trials, and used Science Citation Index to identify additional controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled clinical trials that reported on any type of lumbar supports as preventive or therapeutic intervention for non-specific low back pain were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data from the trials considering characteristics of the study population, characteristics of the interventions and the final results for each outcome measure. The reviewer compared these findings to data regarding the same characteristics of the same studies published already in other reviews. The methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. Because it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis, a qualitative meta-analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports was classified as being strong, moderate, limited or conflicting, and no evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomized and two nonrandomized controlled preventive trials and six randomized therapeutic trials were included in our review. Overall the methodological quality of the studies included in our review was rather low. Only four of the thirteen studies scored positive on 50% or more of the the internal validity items. There was moderate evidence that for primary prevention lumbar supports are not more effective than other types of treatment or no intervention. 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, while it is still unclear if lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is still a need for high quality randomised trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realisation of an adequate compliance.

Braces↗
PubMed2000

Injection therapy for subacute and chronic benign low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Injection with anaesthetics and/or steroids is one of the treatment modalities used in patients with chronic low back pain which needs evaluation with respect to the effectiveness on short and long term pain relief. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of injection therapy in patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. We distinguished between three injection sites: facet joint, epidural or local injections. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to 1996 and other search methods as advocated by the Back Review Group search strategy. Abstracts and unpublished studies were not included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of injection therapy for pain relief (although additional treatments were allowed) in patients with benign low back pain lasting longer than one month and not originating from cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the trials for methodological quality. Subgroup analyses were made between trials with different control groups (placebo and active injections), with different injection site (facet joint, epidural and local injection), and timing of outcome measurement (short and long term). Within the resulting 12 subcategories of studies (2*3*2), the overall relative risks and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated, using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). In the case of trials in which control groups were active injections, we refrained from pooling the results. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one randomized trials were included in this review. All studies involved patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. Only 11 studies compared injection therapy with placebo injections (explanatory trials). The methodologic quality of many studies was low: only 8 studies had a methodologic score of 50 or more points. There were only three well designed explanatory clinical trials: one on injections into the facet joints with a short-term RR of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65-1.21) and a long-term RR of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69-1.17); one on epidural injections with a short-term RR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.76-1.15) and a long-term RR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.71-1.41); and one on local injections with a long-term RR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65-0.96). Within the 6 subcategories of explanatory studies the pooled RRs with 95% confidence intervals were: facet joint, short-term: RR=0.89 (0.65-1.21); facet joint, long-term: RR=0.90 (0.69-1.17); epidural, short-term: RR=0.93 (0. 79-1.09); epidural, long-term: RR=0.92 (0.76-1.11); local, short-term: RR=0.80 (0.40-1.59); local, long-term: RR=0.79 (0.65-0. 96). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Convincing evidence is lacking on the effects of injection therapies for low back pain. There is a need for more, well designed explanatory trials in this field.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2003

Muscle relaxants for non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The use of muscle relaxants in the management of non-specific low back pain is controversial. It is not clear if they are effective, and concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects involved. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine if muscle relaxants are effective in the treatment of non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 up to October 2001) and EMBASE (1988 up to October 2001) was carried out. These databases were searched using the algorithm recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. References cited in the identified articles and other relevant literature were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and/or double-blinded controlled trials, involving patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, treated with muscle relaxants as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic modalities, were included for review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently carried out the methodological quality assessment and data extraction of the trials. The analysis comprised not only a quantitative analysis (statistical pooling) but also a qualitative analysis ("best evidence synthesis"). This involved the appraisal of the strength of evidence for various conclusions using a rating system based on the quality and outcomes of the studies included. Evidence was classified as "strong", "moderate", "limited", "conflicting" or "no" evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three trials (77%) were of high quality, 24 trials (80%) were on acute low back pain. Four trials studied benzodiazepines, 11 non-benzodiazepines and two antispasticity muscle relaxants in comparison with placebo. Results showed that there is strong evidence that any of these muscle relaxants are more effective than placebo for patients with acute LBP on short-term pain relief. The pooled RR for non-benzodiazepines versus placebo after two to four days was 0.80 [95% CI; 0.71 to 0.89] for pain relief and 0.49 [95% CI; 0.25 to 0.95] for global efficacy. Adverse events, however, with a relative risk of 1.50 [95% CI; 1.14 to 1.98] were significantly more prevalent in patients receiving muscle relaxants and especially the central nervous system adverse effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI; 1.23 to 3.37). The various muscle relaxants were found to be similar in performance. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution. Trials are needed that evaluate if muscle relaxants are more effective than analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2003

Stressful psychosocial work environment increases risk for back pain among retail material handlers.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a major source of lost work time. Occupational physical activity only accounts for a fraction of low back pain; therefore, there is growing interest in investigating other possible causes of back pain including the psychosocial work environment. METHODS: Material handlers (N = 6,311) in 160 newly opened stores were interviewed at study entry and approximately 6 months later. Factor analysis was used to reduce the 37 psychosocial questionnaire items to seven distinct factors. RESULTS: After adjusting for history of back problems and work-related lifting, risk of back pain was moderately increased among employees who reported high job intensity demands (odds ratio (OR) = 1.8), job dissatisfaction (OR = 1.7), and high job scheduling demands (OR = 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Modification of the psychosocial work environment for material handlers in large retail stores may help reduce back pain among employees.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Return to work following back surgery: a review.

Nineteen articles published between 1980 and 1986 were reviewed to determine the prognosis for returning to previous employment following back surgery. Seventy-seven percent of the cases reviewed returned to their previous level of employment. Nearly 11% of cases had additional back surgery during the period of follow-up. Data from three articles suggest that 82% of patients are able to return to their previous level of employment following primary back surgery compared to 59% of patients who have had multiple back surgeries. Recommendations for work activity following back surgery should be individualized for each patient. A work-hardening program including assessment of cardiovascular fitness and task performance can be used to progressively increase activity to the highest achievable level. Prevention of back injuries in the workplace will increase employee morale and reduce employee turnover and workers' compensation costs.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2004

Structural, psychological, and genetic influences on low back and neck pain: a study of adult female twins.

OBJECTIVE: To assess genetic and environmental influences on low back and neck pain in a classic twin design and to examine the extent to which these are explained by structural changes seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and psychological and lifestyle variables. METHODS: The subjects comprised 1,064 unselected women (181 monozygotic [MZ] and 351 dizygotic [DZ] twin pairs) recruited from a national registry of twin volunteers. Outcome measures included lifetime history of low back and neck pain (using a range of increasingly stringent definitions), MRI scores of disc degeneration in the lumbar and cervical spine, psychological distress as assessed by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), and lifestyle variables assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: For all definitions of pain, there was a consistent excess concordance in MZ when compared with DZ twins, equating to a heritability for low back pain in the range of 52-68% and for neck pain in the range of 35-58%. The strongest associations were between low back pain and MRI change (odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.8-7.3]) and between neck pain and response on the GHQ (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.1-5.0). These associations were mediated genetically. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic factors have an important influence on back and neck pain reporting in women. These factors include the genetic determinants of structural disc degeneration and an individual's inherited tendency toward psychological distress. MRI changes are the strongest predictor of low back pain.

Affective Symptoms↗
PubMed2004

Movements at the low back during normal walking.

We present a technique for measuring the kinematics of the functional low back during normal gait. We have used a similar technique previously to measure low back movement simultaneously with hip, knee, and ankle movement during the toe-touching manoeuvre. We noted that movements at the low back were biphasic. The greatest low back movements were found to occur in the transverse plane (mean = 23 degrees), whereas a mean of 17 degrees movement occurred in the coronal plane and only 5 degrees movement in the sagittal plane. These findings confirm, using a non-invasive technique, that there are significant ranges of movement at the low back during walking and lend some support to the theory that rotational movement at the low back is a major component of human locomotion.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Movements of the pelvis and lumbar spine during walking in people with acute low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about how acute low back pain affects pelvic and lumbar movements during walking. The aim of the present study was to determine if measurement of the amplitude of the angular movements of the pelvis and lumbar spine during walking is useful in the evaluation of people with acute low back pain. METHOD: The study used a repeated-measures and correlational design; 11 individuals with low back pain (tested in the acute phase and six weeks later when symptoms had resolved) and matched control subjects were tested during treadmill walking. A video-analysis system was used to measure the amplitudes of movements of the pelvis and lumbar spine during walking. Pain level was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: During walking, movements of the pelvis (axial rotation) and lumbar spine (lateral flexion) were reduced in people with acute back pain compared with the resolved condition, but were not different from a group without a history of back pain. The amplitudes of the frontal plane movements of the pelvis and lumbar spine were negatively correlated with the intensity of pain (r(s) = -0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of pelvic and lumbar movements during walking is unlikely to have useful clinical applications for individuals, or when discriminating between impaired and unimpaired people, but may be applied to groups for hypothesis testing in evaluating change in back pain over time. An hypothesized model to explain the observed movements has been proposed.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1996

Prevalence of self-reported back pain in school children: a study of sociodemographic differences.

UNLABELLED: The study considers the prevalence of back pain experienced in a nationwide random sample of 2173 Icelandic school children aged 11-12 and 15-16. The study found a 20.6% prevalence of "at least weekly" back pain. The prevalence of back pain was significantly more frequent among the older children. No gender or class difference was found in the overall sample. Older children from rural areas have significantly more back pain than those living in the city. The need for a thorough epidemiological investigation of the association of back pain in children is emphasized. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of frequent back pain found in this study should be of great concern to health care professionals. An important step in future research is to broadly document the prevalences of various combinations of pains and various bio-psycho-social factors that are related to pain experiences and pain frequency in this age group.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Effect of whole-body vibration exercise on lumbar bone mineral density, bone turnover, and chronic back pain in post-menopausal osteoporotic women treated with alendronate.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Exercise may enhance the effect of alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce chronic back pain in elderly women with osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to determine whether whole-body vibration exercise would enhance the effect of alendronate on lumbar BMD and bone turnover, and reduce chronic back pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: Fifty post-menopausal women with osteoporosis, 55-88 years of age, were randomly divided into two groups of 25 patients each: one taking alendronate (5 mg daily, ALN) and one taking alendronate plus exercise (ALN+EX). Exercise consisted of whole-body vibration using a Galileo machine (Novotec, Pforzheim, Germany), at an intensity of 20 Hz, frequency once a week, and duration of exercise 4 minutes. The study lasted 12 months. Lumbar BMD was measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (Hologic QDR 1500W). Urinary cross-linked N-terminal telopeptides of type I collagen (NTX) and serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and standard laboratory techniques, respectively. Chronic back pain was evaluated by face scale score at baseline and every 6 months. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, years since menopause, lumbar BMD, urinary NTX and serum ALP levels, or face scale score between the two groups. The increase in lumbar BMD and the reduction in urinary NTX and serum ALP levels were similar in the ALN and ALN+EX groups. However, the reduction in chronic back pain was greater in the ALN+EX group than in the ALN group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that whole-body vibration exercise using a Galileo machine appears to be useful in reducing chronic back pain, probably by relaxing the back muscles in post-menopausal osteoporotic women treated with alendronate.

Accidental Falls↗
PubMed2002

The influence of back pain on balance and functional mobility in 65- to 75-year-old women with osteoporosis.

To determine whether the presence of back pain and its related disabilities are determinants of balance and functional mobility in a group of women with osteoporosis, we carried out a cross-sectional analysis of 93 community-dwelling women with osteoporosis between the ages of 65 and 75 years old. We assessed health history, anthropometrics, self-report of current physical activity level and self-report of back pain (intensity and pain-related disabilities). Balance was measured by computerized dynamic posturography and functional mobility was assessed by timed figure-of-eight test. The prevalence of back pain was high (75%) in this cohort of older women with osteoporosis. Age was the major determinant of both balance and functional mobility and accounted for 9% and 14% of the variance, respectively. After accounting for age, back pain explained an additional 9% of the variance in balance and 13% of the variance in functional mobility. The high prevalence of back pain demonstrates the importance of pain management in the treatment of osteoporosis. Furthermore, the finding of self-reported back pain as a determinant of both balance and functional mobility suggests that this measure may deserve attention when screening women with osteoporosis for fracture risk. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether pain management will improve balance and functional mobility.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Lumbar lordosis in acute and chronic low back pain patients.

Postural changes are sometimes a risk factor for low back pain. Abnormal posture creates a strain on ligaments and muscles that indirectly affects the curvature of the lumbar spine. This study was planned to investigate the relationship between the angles of the lower lumbar spine and spinal mobility in acute and chronic low back pain patients. Fifty patients (25 female, 25 male) with chronic low back pain and fifty (30 female, 20 male) with acute low back pain were included the study. Both groups were subjected to lumbosacral radiography in the lateral position while standing. Patients were assessed by parameters including spinal mobility, sacral inclination angle, lumbosacral angle, and sacral horizontal angle. Spinal mobility included the maximal range of motion of lumbar flexion and extension. The value of the sacral inclination angle was significantly higher and correlated with lumbar extension in chronic low back pain patients ( P<0.005, r=0.32). There was no statistical difference or correlation in lumbosacral and sacral horizontal angles and spinal mobility between the two groups ( P>0.05). Chronic low back pain affects the lower lumbar spine and limits the maximal range of;lumbar extension.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Whole-body vibration and low back pain: a systematic, critical review of the epidemiological literature 1992-1999.

OBJECTIVES: A previous extensive review of the literature including that from the middle of 1992 concluded that whole-body vibrations may contribute to low back pain, but that the exposure-response relationship had not been clarified. We reviewed the literature of the past 7 years to find out: (i) whether there is evidence in the recent epidemiological literature for a causal association between whole-body vibrations and low back pain, and (ii) if there is evidence in the recent literature for a dose-response relationship between whole-body vibrations and low back pain. METHODS: All relevant epidemiological articles which were obtained through a search in the databases MEDLINE, OSH-ROM and TOXLINE, and through personal communication, were reviewed independently by the two authors, using a checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-four original articles concerning the association between whole-body vibrations and the lower back were retained for use. The quality of the papers was mostly low, but improved with time. Only seven articles passed our predetermined quality criteria. Of the seven reports, one showed increased frequency of lumbar prolapse in occupational drivers, and six showed low back pain to be more frequent in whole-body vibration-exposed groups. Only two out of the four articles reporting on dose, showed a dose-response association. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of definite evidence, we found sufficient reasons for the reduction of whole-body vibration-exposure to the lowest possible level. If new knowledge is to be produced, good prospective studies with repeated measurements of exposure, analyses of work postures, and clear definitions and subgroupings of low back pain are needed. Other research in this field should be given up, and the resources used for more important issues, as the size of the problem of whole body vibration is probably on the decrease because of the technical prophylactic developments that are already in progress.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

[Increase in strength after active therapy in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients: muscular adaptations and clinical relevance].

INTRODUCTION: Active treatments are advocated for the management of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP), although few studies have documented the relative efficacy of differing types of programme. A number of the available treatments comprise exercise routines on specially designed training machines, which are ostensibly better disposed to reverse the compromised trunk muscle function displayed by these patients than are 'free exercise' programmes. However, in using these muscle-training programmes, the physiological or anatomical adaptations that might account for the improved performance are rarely investigated, let alone identified. This is an important issue, because if the 'newly-acquired strength' is mostly specific to performance on the devices on which the patient has trained and been tested, and reflects the skill in executing these particular tasks, this will not necessarily assist the patient during performance of his/her everyday activities. The aims of the present study were (1) to quantify the changes in back muscle performance in chronic LBP patients following 3 months active therapy, and (2) to analyse the corresponding changes in activation and cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscles. METHODS: 148 individuals (57% women) with CLBP (age 45.0+/-10.0 years; duration of LBP 10.9+/-9.5 years) were randomised to a treatment which they attended 2/week for 3 months: active physiotherapy, muscle reconditioning on training devices, or low-impact aerobics. Pre- and post-therapy, assessments were made of isometric trunk muscle strength in each plane of movement and of erector spinae activation (using surface electromyography) during back extension. In a sub-group of 56 patients, the cross-sectional area of the paravertebral muscles was determined using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In all patients, self-rated pain intensity, pain frequency and disability were assessed before and after therapy. RESULTS: 132/148 patients completed the therapy. Isometric strength in each movement plane increased significantly in all groups post-therapy. Apart from trunk extension, the changes were significantly greater in the devices group than in the other two groups (Fig 1). Activation of the paraspinal muscles during back extension also increased significantly in all groups (Fig 2) and was weakly, but significantly (r = 0.37; p = 0.0001) correlated with increased strength in back extension. Although, at baseline, highly significant correlations were observed between the size of the paraspinal muscles (at L3/4 and at L4/5) and isometric back extension strength (r=0.75; p< 0.0001), post-training increases in strength were not accompanied by corresponding changes in muscle size. None of the improvements in strength showed any relationship with the clinical changes in pain and disability, regardless of whether the latter were examined on an individual basis or in relation to 'outcome groups'. CONCLUSION: The superior trunk strength shown by the devices group post-therapy was considered to be attributable, in part, to a 'learning effect', of the type often seen when training and testing are carried out on the same machines. These gains are considered to be mostly 'task-specific'. However, part of the improvement in strength after active therapy (in all groups) also appeared to be due to an increased neural activation of the trunk muscles. These positive effects should be transferable to the performance of everyday activities for which the same muscles are employed, although the percentage improvement is probably not as high as the measured increase in strength might suggest. Possible roles for improved co-ordination and changes in motivation and/or pain tolerance after therapy cannot be excluded. No differences in the clinical outcome were observed between the three therapy groups, and the changes in physical performance after therapy did not correlate with the clinical outcome. It is therefore questionable whether strength measurements have any clinical significance in documenting the success of rehabilitation programmes, other than on a motivational basis. The results of the present study suggest that the value of supervised active therapy programmes does not reside in the reversal of specific muscular deficiencies, but rather in the provision of a source of confirmation/encouragement for the patient, that movement is not harmful, and a foundation upon which to further build. Whether the utilisation of specific training devices, or individual instruction, is necessary to elicit these particular effects is questionable.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed2001

Treatment of low back pain: myths and facts.

QUESTION: Which are the most effective treatments for acute and chronic low back pain? METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted including identification and selection of relevant trials, assessment of the methodological quality, data extraction (study populations, interventions, and outcomes), and data analysis. RESULTS: acute low back pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and muscle relaxants relieve pain more than placebo; advice to stay active speeds up recovery and reduces chronic disability; bed rest and specific back exercises are not effective. RESULTS: chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy, back schools, behavioral therapy, and multidisciplinary programs are effective. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific evidence shows that an active approach to low back pain patients is effective.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2005

Comparison of a biopsychosocial therapy (BT) with a conventional biomedical therapy (MT) of subacute low back pain in the first episode of sick leave: a randomized controlled trial.

This randomized controlled clinical trial compares the effectiveness of a biopsychosocial treatment with a solely conventional biomedical therapy in patients with subacute low back pain using parameters for pain intensity, functional status, depressive dysfunction and work performance. Sixty-four patients with a first-time sick leave between 3 and 12 weeks due to low back pain were randomly assigned to either a conventional biomedical therapy (MT; n=33) group, or a biopsychosocial therapy (BT; n=31) group including a psychotherapeutic module; both in accordance with a standardized 3 weeks inpatient treatment. Pain intensity, functional back capacity, clinical parameters and depressive dysfunction revealed significant improvement in both treatment groups at end of 3 weeks therapy (T1). However, at 6 months (T2), analysis revealed significant better results for nearly all parameters in the BT group that showed further improvement from T1 to T2, whereas the values in the MT group deteriorated from T1 back to the baseline values. During the 2-year period after therapy, 10% in MT and 59% in BT required no further sick leave due to low back pain. The results of the study indicate that a psychotherapeutic element in the treatment of low back pain appears to positively influence pain, functional status and work performance when conducted at an early stage of chronification and helps in the achievement of a better outcome.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2005

A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion-distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain.

Many clinical trials on chiropractic management of low back pain have neglected to include specific forms of care. This study compared two well-defined treatment protocols. The objective was to compare the outcome of flexion-distraction (FD) procedures performed by chiropractors with an active trunk exercise protocol (ATEP) performed by physical therapists. A randomized clinical trial study design was used. Subjects, 18 years of age and older, with a primary complaint of low back pain (>3 months) were recruited. A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, the Roland Morris (RM) Questionnaire for low back function, and the SF-36 for overall health status served as primary outcome measures. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either FD or ATEP. The FD intervention consisted of the application of flexion and traction applied to specific regions in the low back, with the aid of a specially designed manipulation table. The ATEP intervention included stabilizing and flexibility exercises, the use of modalities, and cardiovascular training. A total of 235 subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed the informed consent. Of these, 123 were randomly allocated to FD and 112 to the ATEP. Study patients perceived significantly less pain and better function after intervention, regardless of which group they were allocated to (P<0.01). Subjects randomly allocated to the flexion-distraction group had significantly greater relief from pain than those allocated to the exercise program (P=0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that subjects categorized as chronic, with moderate to severe symptoms, improved most with the flexion-distraction protocol. Subjects categorized with recurrent pain and moderate to severe symptoms improved most with the exercise program. Patients with radiculopathy did significantly better with FD. There were no significant differences between groups on the Roland Morris and SF-36 outcome measures. Overall, flexion-distraction provided more pain relief than active exercise; however, these results varied based on stratification of patients with and without radiculopathy and with and without recurrent symptoms. The subgroup analysis provides a possible explanation for contrasting results among randomized clinical trials of chronic low back pain treatments and these results also provide guidance for future work in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2005

Mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary back pain guidelines? How can we achieve a common message in primary care?

Description of a workshop entitled "Sharing Guidelines for Low Back Pain Between Primary Health Care Providers: Toward a Common Message in Primary Care" that was held at the Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain in Primary Care in Canada in May 2002. Despite a considerable degree of acceptance of current evidence-based guidelines, in practice, primary health care providers still do not share a common message. The objective of the workshop was to describe the outcomes of a workshop on the sharing of guidelines in primary care. The Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care focused on relations between stakeholders in the primary care management of back pain. Participants in this workshop contributed to an open discussion on "how and why" evidence-based guidelines about back pain do or do not work in practice. Ways to minimise the factors that inhibit implementation were discussed in the light of whether guidelines are mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary. Examples of potential issues for debate were contained in introductory presentations. The prospects for improving implementation and reducing barriers, and the priorities for future research, were then considered by an international group of researchers. This paper summarises the conclusions of three researcher subgroups that focused on the sharing of guidelines under the headings of: (1) the content, (2) the development process, and (3) implementation. How to share the evidence and make it meaningful to practice stakeholders is the main challenge of guideline implementation. There is a need to consider the balance between the strength of evidence in multidisciplinary guidelines and the utility/feasibility of mono-disciplinary guidelines. The usefulness of both mono-disciplinary and multidisciplinary guidelines was agreed on. However, in order to achieve consistent messages, mono-disciplinary guidelines should have a multidisciplinary parent. In other words, guidelines should be developed and monitored by a multidisciplinary team, but may be transferred to practice by mono-disciplinary messengers. Despite general agreement that multi-faceted interventions are most effective for implementing guidelines, the feasibility of doing this in busy clinical settings is questioned. Research is needed from local implementation pilots and quality monitoring studies to understand how to develop and deliver the contextual understanding required. This relates to processes of care as well as outcomes, and to social factors and policymaking as well as health care interventions. We commend these considerations to all who are interested in the challenges of achieving better-integrated, evidence-based care for people with back pain.

Back Pain↗