What are Brazilian orthopaedists' views on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain? A qualitative investigation

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedists are often the first point of contact for patients who present with low back pain (LBP) and chronic LBP in Brazil.

AIM

To explore the views of orthopaedists on therapeutic approaches for chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) with a view to gain insights into aspects of clinical practice considered important to them.

METHODS

A qualitative design underpinned by interpretivism was employed. Participants were (n = 13) orthopaedists with experience in treating patients with CNLBP. Following the pilot interviews, semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed and de-identified. Interview data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified. (1) Biophysical aspects are important and predominate, but sometimes their relevance can be unclear; (2) Psychosocial aspects and lifestyle factors influence the therapeutic approach; (3) Treatment of CNLBP - including medication, physical activity, surgery and other invasive procedures and other therapeutic modalities; and (4) Nuances of clinical practice - "it goes beyond medicine".

CONCLUSION

Brazilian orthopaedists value identifying the biophysical cause(s) of chronic low back pain. Psychological factors were often discussed secondary to biophysical aspects, whereas social aspects were rarely mentioned. Orthopaedists highlighted their difficulties in navigating patients' emotions and reassuring patients without referrals to imaging tests. Orthopaedists may benefit from training that targets communication and other relational aspects of care in order to work with people who present with CNLBP.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

Exercise treatments for chronic low back pain: a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The objectives of this systematic review, conducted using a collaborative review model, are to:

Assess the effectiveness of exercise treatment (overall) in adults with chronic non‐specific low back pain on important individual health outcomes: pain, functional limitations, health‐related quality of life, depression, and adverse effects versus comparison treatments: (a) placebo, sham, or attention control, (b) no trial treatment (including waiting lists, control groups described as having no treatment provided, usual/normal care not controlled by the trial available to all treatment groups, or when the exercise and comparison groups receive the same co‐interventions, allowing the effect of exercise treatment to be isolated), and (c) other conservative treatments (eight categories).  Estimate the treatment effects and associated uncertainty for comparisons of different specific types of exercise treatment in adults with chronic non‐specific low back pain to each other, and to each comparison treatment, using direct and indirect evidence with network meta‐analysis. Estimate the treatment effects and associated uncertainty for comparisons of treatments composed of different exercise type categories, design, delivery, dose, and additional treatment components, and their combinations, using direct and indirect evidence with component network meta‐analysis. 

Needs and Attitudes of Older Chronic Back Pain Patients towards a Wearable for Ultrasound Biofeedback during Stabilization Exercises: A Qualitative Analysis

Chronic back pain has a high prevalence, especially in older adults, and seriously affects sufferers' quality of life. Segmental stabilization exercise (SSE) is often used during physiotherapy to enhance core stability. The execution of SSE requires the selective contraction of deep abdominal and back muscles. Motor learning can be supported using ultrasound imaging as visual biofeedback. ULTRAWEAR is a mobile ultrasound system that provides deep learning-based biofeedback on SSE execution, which is currently under development. We interviewed 15 older chronic back pain patients (CBPPs) to investigate their pain management behavior, experience with SSE, as well as their needs and requirements for ULTRAWEAR. We also gathered information about future-usage scenarios. CBPPs reported a high willingness to use the system as a feedback tool both in physiotherapeutic practices and at home. The automated detection and evaluation of muscle contraction states was highlighted as a major benefit of the system compared to the more subjective feedback provided by traditional methods such as palpation. The system to be developed was perceived as a helpful solution to support learning about SSE.

Mobility Analysis of the Lumbar Spine with a Dynamic Spine-Correction Device

According to data, 60-70% of the world's population experience low-back pain (LBP) at least once during their lifetime, often at a young or middle age. Those affected are at risk of having worse quality of life, more missed days at work, and higher medical care costs. We present a new rehabilitation method that helps collect and analyze data on an ongoing basis and offers a more personalized therapeutic approach. This method involves assessing lumbar spine rotation (L1-L5) during torso movement using an innovative dynamic spine correction (DSC) device designed for postural neuromuscular reeducation in LBP. Spinal mobility was tested in 54 patients (aged 18 to 40 years) without LBP. Measurements were made with 12-bit rotary position sensors (AS5304) of the DSC device. During exercise, the mean lumbar spine rotation to the right was greater (4.78° ± 2.24°) than that to the left (2.99° ± 1.44°; p < 0.001). Similarly, the maximum rotation to the right was greater (11.35° ± 3.33°) than that to the left (7.42° ± 1.44°; p < 0.0001). The measurements obtained in the study can serve as a reference for future therapeutic use of the device.

Efficacy of Pilates on Pain, Functional Disorders and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common health problem. Pilates is a unique exercise therapy. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of Pilates on pain, functional disorders, and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, CBM, EBSCO, and Embase were searched. Randomized controlled trials of Pilates in the treatment of CLBP were collected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 12.2.

RESULTS

19 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1108 patients were included. Compared with the controls, the results showed the following values: Pain Scale [standard mean difference; SMD = -1.31, 95%CI (-1.80, -0.83), p < 0.00001], Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [mean difference; MD = -4.35, 95%CI (-5.77, -2.94), p < 0.00001], Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) [MD = -2.26, 95%CI (-4.45, -0.08), p = 0.04], 36-item Short-Form (SF-36) (Physical Function (PF) [MD = 5.09, 95%CI (0.20, 9.99), p = 0.04], Role Physical (RP) [MD = 5.02, 95%CI (-1.03, 11.06), p = 0.10], Bodily Pain (BP) [MD = 8.79, 95%CI (-1.57, 19.16), p = 0.10], General Health (GH) [MD = 8.45, 95%CI (-5.61, 22.51), p = 0.24], Vitality (VT) [MD = 8.20, 95%CI(-2.30, 18.71), p = 0.13], Social Functioning (SF) [MD = -1.11, 95%CI (-7.70, 5.48), p = 0.74], Role Emotional (RE) [MD = 0.86, 95%CI (-5.53, 7.25), p = 0.79], Mental Health (MH) [MD = 11.04, 95%CI (-12.51, 34.59), p = 0.36]), Quebec Back in Disability Scale (QBPDS) [MD = -5.51, 95%CI (-23.84, 12.81), p = 0.56], and the sit-and-reach test [MD = 1.81, 95%CI (-0.25, 3.88), p = 0.09].

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis reveals that Pilates may have positive efficacy for pain relief and the improvement of functional disorders in CLBP patients, but the improvement in quality of life seems to be less obvious.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022348173.

Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Neuromodulation of Sciatic Nerve on Hip Muscle Strength in Chronic Low Back Pain Sufferers: A Pilot Study

Background: Limited hip internal rotation range of motion (IR-ROM) and hip abductor weakness are recognized in low back pain (LBP) sufferers. The main aim was to investigate the effect of a ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous neuromodulation (PNM) technique on hip strength in people with LBP. A second purpose was to discover whether the location along the sciatic nerve, where percutaneous neuromodulation was applied, could influence the change of strength response in these patients. Methods: Sixty LBP sufferers were recruited and divided randomly into three groups. All participants received an isolated percutaneous electrical stimulation at one of three different locations of the sciatic nerve pathway (proximal, middle, and distal), depending on the assigned group. Pain intensity, hip passive IR-ROM, hip muscle strength, and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were analyzed. All variables were calculated before the intervention and one week after the intervention. Results: All interventions significantly decreased pain intensity and improved the IR-ROMs, strength, and functionality after one week (p = 0.001). However, between-group (treatment x time) differences were reported for flexion strength in the non-intervention limb (p = 0.029) and ODI (p = 0.021), although the effect size was small (Eta² = 0.1) in both cases. Conclusions: The application of an isolated intervention of the US-guided PNM technique may be a useful therapeutic tool to increase the hip muscle strength in patients with chronic LBP.

Effectiveness of a Group-Based Rehabilitation Program Combining Education with Multimodal Exercises in the Treatment of Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Uncontrolled Study

Currently, there is no consensus on the best rehabilitation program to perform for nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). However, multimodal exercises, education, and group-based sessions seem to be beneficial. We, therefore, launched such a treatment program and aimed to evaluate its effectiveness in improving patient health status. We retrospectively analyzed the records of 23 NSCLB patients who followed the MyBack program at La Tour hospital from 2020 to 2022 (25 sessions, 8 weeks). Patients were evaluated before and after intervention using pain on a visual analog scale (pVAS), Roland−Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L). Responder rates were calculated using minimal clinically important differences. Patients reported a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in the pVAS (5.3 ± 1.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.6), RMDQ (8.8 ± 3.3 vs. 4.0 ± 3.7), PCS (24.5 ± 9.4 vs. 11.7 ± 7.9) and TSK (41.5 ± 9.2 vs. 32.7 ± 7.0). The EQ-5D-3L also statistically improved (score: 0.59 ± 0.14 vs. 0.73 ± 0.07; and VAS: 54.8 ± 16.8 vs. 67.0 ± 15.2). The responder rates were 78% for the pVAS and PCS, 74% for the RMDQ and TSK, and only 26% for the EQ-5D-3L. The MyBack program combining education with multimodal group exercises led to satisfactory clinical, functional, and psychosocial outcomes.

Effects of an Intensive 6-Week Rehabilitation Program with the HUBER Platform in the Treatment of Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is defined as a complex disorder involving structural, biomechanical, cognitive, psychological, social, and lifestyle factors. Non-pharmacological approaches such as exercise and physical therapy have been proposed in first-line treatments, along with psychological follow-up and pain medication if needed. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive rehabilitation program with HUBER (a multi-axis motorized platform equipped with force sensors, allowing patients to perform physical exercises in an isometric mode) on the spine flexion-to-extension ratio at 60 and 120°/s, pain, and trunk flexibility in individuals with NSCLBP. Twelve participants underwent a clinical evaluation including isokinetic spine strength and participated in a 6-week rehabilitation program with HUBER 360 Evolution. The main findings of this pilot study show that the flexor/extensor ratios at 60°, the flexibility of the hamstring and quadriceps, and muscular endurance of the trunk, disability, and quality of life were significantly improved at the end of the rehabilitation program (p < 0.05). Low back pain and analgesic medication were also reduced. Exercising with the HUBER Platform seems to be effective in managing NSCLBP but a randomized study with a larger sample size and a control group is necessary.

Effect of Graded Sensorimotor Retraining on Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point.

RESULTS

Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

COVID-19 Pandemic Increases the Impact of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

In March 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as a global issue. To reduce the spread of this disease, health safety pathways were implemented worldwide. These extraordinary measures changed people's lifestyles, e.g., by being forced to isolate, and in many cases, to work remotely from home. Low back pain (LBP), the most common cause of disability worldwide, is often a symptom of COVID-19. Moreover, it is often associated with different lifestyle features (type of job, physical activity, body weight). Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on LBP intensity and prevalence compared with LBP rates before the pandemic. A systematic search was performed on Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central. Overall, eight studies with 2365 patients were included in the analysis. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool to evaluate the risk of bias: six studies (75%) were at moderate risk of bias and two studies (25%) were at low risk of bias. These studies showed an increase in both the prevalence and intensity of LBP during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Making exercise count: Considerations for the role of exercise in back pain treatment

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is pain that has persisted for greater than three months. It is common and burdensome and represents a significant proportion of primary health presentations. For the majority of people with CLBP, a specific nociceptive contributor cannot be reliably identified, and the pain is categorised as 'non-specific'. Exercise therapy is recommended by international clinical guidelines as a first-line treatment for non-specific CLBP.

AIM

This comprehensive review aims to synthesise and appraise the current research to provide practical, evidence-based guidance concerning exercise prescription for non-specific CLBP. We discuss detailed initial assessment and being informed by patient preferences, values, expectations, competencies and goals.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) using broad search terms from January 2000 to March 2021, to identify the most recent clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on exercise for CLBP.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

Systematic reviews show exercise is effective for small, short-term reductions in pain and disability, when compared with placebo, usual care, or waiting list control, and serious adverse events are rare. A range of individualised or group-based exercise modalities have been demonstrated as effective in reducing pain and disability. Despite this consensus, controversies and significant challenges remain.

CONCLUSION

To promote recovery, sustainable outcomes and self-management, exercise can be coupled with education strategies, as well as interventions that enhance adherence, motivation and patient self-efficacy. Clinicians might benefit from intentionally considering their own knowledge and competencies, potential harms of exercise and costs to the patient. This comprehensive review provides evidence-based practical guidance to health professionals who prescribe exercise for people with non-specific CLBP.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials

Background

Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.

Methods

In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.

Results

We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.

Conclusions

This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.

Protocol publication

https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64

Exercise programmes for ankylosing spondylitis

BACKGROUND

Exercise programmes are often recommended for managing ankylosing spondylitis (AS), to reduce pain and improve or maintain functional capacity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of exercise programmes for people with AS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, PEDro, Scopus, and two trials registers to December 2018. We searched reference lists of identified systematic reviews and included studies, handsearched recent relevant conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of randomised controlled trials (RCT) of adults with AS that compared exercise therapy programmes with an inactive control (no intervention, waiting list) or usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs with 1579 participants with AS. Most participants were male (70%), the median age was 45 years (range 39 to 47), and the mean symptom duration was nine years. The most frequently used exercises were those designed to help improve strength, flexibility, stretching, and breathing. Most exercise programmes were delivered along with drug therapy or a biological agent. We judged most of the studies at unclear or high risk of bias for several domains. All 14 studies provided data obtained immediately upon completion of the exercise programme. The median exercise programme duration was 12 weeks (interquartile range (IQR) 8 to 16). Three studies (146 participants) provided data for medium-term follow-up (< 24 weeks after completion of the exercise programmes), and one (63 participants) for long-term follow-up (> 24 weeks after completion of the exercise programmes). Nine studies compared exercise programmes to no intervention; five studies compared them to usual care (including physiotherapy, medication, or self-management).Exercise programmes versus no interventionAll data were obtained immediately upon completion of the exercise programme.For physical function, measured by a self-reporting questionnaire (the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) scale, 0 to 10; lower is better), moderate-quality evidence showed a no important clinically meaningful improvement with exercise programmes (mean difference (MD) -1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7 to -0.9; 7 studies, 312 participants; absolute reduction 13%, 95% CI 17% to 9%).For pain, measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0 to 10, lower is better), low-quality evidence showed an important clinically meaningful reduction of pain with exercise (MD -2.1, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.6; 6 studies, 288 participants; absolute reduction 21%, 95% CI 36% to 6%).For patient global assessment of disease activity, measured by a self-reporting questionnaire (the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scale, 0 to 10, lower is better), moderate-quality evidence showed no important clinically meaningful reduction with exercise (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.3 to -0.5; 6 studies, 262 participants; absolute reduction 9%, 95% CI 13% to 5%).For spinal mobility, measured by a self-reporting questionnaire (the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) scale, 0 to 10, lower is better), very low-quality evidence showed an improvement with exercise (MD -0.7 95%, -1.3 to -0.1; 5 studies, 232 participants) with no important clinical meaningful benefit (absolute reduction 7%, 95% CI 13% to 1%).For fatigue, measured on a VAS (0 to 10, lower is better), very low-quality evidence showed a no important clinically meaningful reduction with exercise (MD -1.4, 95% CI -2.7 to -0.1; 2 studies, 72 participants; absolute reduction 14%, 95% CI 27% to 1%).Exercise programmes versus usual careAll data were obtained immediately upon completion of the exercise programme.For physical function, measured by the BASFI scale, moderate-quality evidence showed an improvement with exercise (MD -0.4, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.2; 5 studies, 1068 participants). There was no important clinical meaningful benefit (absolute reduction 4%, 95% CI 6% to 2%).For pain, measured on a VAS (0 to 10, lower is better), moderate-quality evidence showed a reduction of pain with exercise (MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.9 to -0.1; 2 studies, 911 participants; absolute reduction 5%, 95% CI 9% to 1%). No important clinical meaningful benefit was found.For patient global assessment of disease activity, measured by the BASDAI scale, low-quality evidence showed a reduction with exercise (MD -0.7, 95% CI -1.3 to -0.1; 5 studies, 1068 participants), but it was not clinically important (absolute reduction 7%, 95% CI 13% to 1%) with important clinical meaningful benefitFor spinal mobility, measured by the BASMI scale, very low-quality evidence found a no important clinically meaningful improvement with exercise (MD -1.2, 95% CI -2.8 to 0.5; 2 studies, 85 participants; absolute reduction 12%, 95% CI 5% less to 28% more). There was no important clinical meaningful benefit.None of the studies measured fatigue.Adverse effectsWe found very low-quality evidence of the effect of exercise versus either no intervention, or usual care. We are uncertain of the potential for harm of exercises, due to low event rates, and a limited number of studies reporting events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that exercise programmes probably slightly improve function, may reduce pain, and probably slightly reduce global patient assessment of disease activity, when compared with no intervention, and measured upon completion of the programme. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that exercise programmes probably have little or no effect on improving function or reducing pain, when compared with usual care, and may have little or no effect on reducing patient assessment of disease activity, when measured upon completion of the programmes. We are uncertain whether exercise programmes improve spinal mobility, reduce fatigue, or induce adverse effects.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.

METHODS

We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.

METHODS

We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Does walking improve disability status, function, or quality of life in adults with chronic low back pain? A systematic review

Objective:

To establish the effectiveness of walking alone and walking compared to other non-pharmacological management methods to improve disability, quality of life, or function in adults with chronic low back pain.

Data sources:

A systematic search of the following databases was undertaken: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Pedro, SportDiscus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The following keywords were used: ‘back pain’ or ‘low back pain’ or ‘chronic low back pain’ and ‘walk*’ or ‘ambulation’ or ‘treadmill*’ or ‘pedometer*’ or ‘acceleromet*’ or ‘recreational’ and ‘disability’ or ‘quality of life’ or ‘function*’.

Review methods:

Primary research studies with an intervention focus that investigated walking as the primary intervention compared to no intervention or any other non-pharmacological method in adults with chronic low back pain (duration >3 months).

Results:

Seven randomised controlled trials involving 869 participants were included in the review. There was no evidence that walking was more effective than other management methods such as usual care, specific strength exercises, medical exercise therapy, or supervised exercise classes. One study found over-ground walking to be superior to treadmill walking, and another found internet-mediated walking to be more beneficial than non-internet-mediated walking in the short term.

Conclusion:

There is low quality evidence to suggest that walking is as effective as other non-pharmacological management methods at improving disability, function, and quality of life in adults with chronic low back pain.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability and has a major socioeconomic impact. Despite a large amount of research in the field, there remains uncertainty about the best treatment approach for chronic LBP, and identification of relevant patient subgroups is an important goal. Exercise therapy is a commonly used strategy to treat chronic low back pain and is one of several interventions that evidence suggests is moderately effective.In parallel with an update of the 2005 Cochrane review, we will undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, which will allow us to standardize analyses across studies and directly derive results, and to examine differential treatment effects across individuals to estimate how patients' characteristics modify treatment benefit.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use standard systematic review methods advocated by the Cochrane Collaboration to identify relevant trials. We will include trials evaluating exercise therapy compared to any or no other interventions in adult non-specific chronic LBP. Our primary outcomes of interest include pain, functional status, and return-to-work/absenteeism. We will assess potential risk of bias for each study meeting selection criteria, using criteria and methods recommended by the Cochrane BRG.The original individual participant data will be requested from the authors of selected trials having moderate to low risk of bias. We will test original data and compile a master dataset with information about each trial mapped on a pre-specified framework, including reported characteristics of the study sample, exercise therapy characteristics, individual patient characteristics at baseline and all follow-up periods, subgroup and treatment effect modifiers investigated. Our analyses will include descriptive, study-level meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of the overall treatment effect, and individual-level IPD meta-analyses of treatment effect modification. IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using a one-step approach where the IPD from all studies are modeled simultaneously while accounting for the clustering of participants with studies.

DISCUSSION

We will analyze IPD across a large number of LBP trials. The resulting larger sample size and consistent presentation of data will allow additional analyses to explore patient-level heterogeneity in treatment outcomes and prognosis of chronic LBP.