Evaluating the effectiveness of patient tailored treatment for patients with non-specific low back pain: A systematic review

The effectiveness of cervical rehabilitation interventions for pain in adults with myogenic temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Little evidence exists for the most effective conservative treatment approach for adults with myogenic temporomandibular disorders (MTMD). We aim to assess the effectiveness of cervical rehabilitation interventions on pain intensity and sensitivity in adults with MTMD compared to comparison intervention such as placebo, sham treatment, education or no intervention.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, PEDro databases, forward and backward citations and grey literature studies through PROSPERO, clinical trials and data registries without language or date restrictions between inception and 1 December 2021. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) based on adult populations with MTMD who had a cervical rehabilitation intervention which was defined as any conservative intervention targeting the anatomical structures of the cervical spine. The primary outcome measures for pain were self-reported pain intensity and pain sensitivity through the pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the masseter and temporalis muscles. Secondary outcome measures of maximal mouth opening (on MMO) were included. Included studies were assessed for bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials. Evidence from RCTs was synthesised to determine treatment effect size as differences between standardised mean difference (SMD) for changes in pain intensity, PPT and MMO comparing adults with MTMD who were treated with cervical rehabilitation interventions compared to a control group. This study is registered on Prospero, number CRD 42021289299.

RESULTS

Our general search yielded 2647 studies where seven RCTs met eligibility criteria with low to some concerns in their risk of bias. Pain intensity (five studies, n = 223, SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.28, I2 = 79%), PPT of the masseter muscle (six studies, n = 395, SMD 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.86, I2 = 90%) and the temporalis muscles (five studies, n = 295, SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.45, I2 = 84%) showed large treatment effect estimates favouring cervical rehabilitation interventions compared to no treatment, sham cervical treatment, patient education or non-cervical neuromuscular techniques. Compared to control interventions, one type of cervical rehabilitation intervention, cervical manual therapy alone or in combination with a neck exercise program was associated with statistically significant, large treatment effect estimates on pain intensity (four studies, n = 203, SMD -1.52, 95% CI -2.50 to -0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that in the short-term, cervical rehabilitation interventions especially upper cervical MT alone or in combination with a neck exercise program are effective in improving multiple pain outcomes in adults with MTMD. However, further research is needed to measure the long-term effects of this type of intervention.

Personalized assessment and management of non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP), and in particular non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), which accounts for approximately 90% of LBP, is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. In clinical trials, LBP is often poorly categorized into 'specific' versus 'non-specific' and 'acute' versus 'chronic' pain. However, a better understanding of the underlying pain mechanisms might improve study results and reduce the number of NSLBP patients.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Narrative review.

RESULTS

NSLBP is a multi-dimensional, biopsychosocial condition that requires all contributing dimensions to be assessed and prioritized. Thereby, the assessment of the contribution of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain mechanisms forms the basis for personalized management. In addition, psychosocial (e.g. anxiety, catastrophizing) and contextual factors (e.g. work situation) as well as comorbidities need to be assessed and individually weighted. Personalized treatment of NSLBP further requires individually choosing treatment modalities, for example, exercising, patient education, cognitive-behavioural advice, pharmacotherapy, as well as tailoring treatment within these modalities, for example, the delivery of tailored psychological interventions or exercise programs. As the main pain mechanism and psychosocial factors may vary over time, re-assessment is necessary and treatment success should ideally be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main contributing pain mechanism and the integration of the patients' view on their condition, including beliefs, preferences, concerns and expectations, are key in the personalized clinical management of NSLBP. In research, particular importance should be placed on accurate characterization of patients and on including outcomes relevant to the individual patient.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Here, a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with the diagnostic label 'non-specific low back pain' is given. It outlines what is lacking in current treatment guidelines and it is summarized what is currently known with respect to individual phenotyping. It becomes clear that more research on clinically meaningful subgroups is needed to best tailor treatment approaches.

Association of meeting 24-hour movement guidelines with low back pain among adults

Background

According to recently published 24-hour movement guidelines, adults should spend: ≥150 minutes/week in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA); <8 hours/day in sedentary behaviour (SB); and 7-9 hours/day sleeping.

Objective

We explored the association between meeting these recommendations and low back pain (LBP)-the most common musculoskeletal disorder.

Methods

We collected self-reported data from 2333 adults about: MVPA, SB and sleep duration; frequency and intensity of LBP; and sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics.

Results

Meeting a combination of SB and sleep recommendations was associated with lower odds of LBP in the past week and past month (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.64 and 0.52, respectively; p < 0.05 for both). Among LBP sufferers, meeting any combination of recommendations that includes sleep was associated with lower odds of frequent (OR range: 0.49-0.61; p < 0.05 for all) and intense (OR range: 0.39-0.66; p < 0.05 for all) LBP in the past week, while meeting a combination of SB and sleep recommendations or all three recommendations was associated with lower odds of intense LBP in the past month and past year (OR range: 0.50-0.68; p < 0.05 for all). The likelihood of experiencing higher frequency and intensity of LBP decreased with the number of recommendations met (p for linear trend < 0.05).

Conclusion

Meeting the SB and sleep recommendations in combination is associated with a lower likelihood of LBP, while adhering to the overall 24-hour movement guidelines or any combination of recommendations that includes sleep is associated with lower frequency and intensity of LBP among LBP sufferers.

A cross-sectional study to validate an administrative back pain severity classification tool based on the graded chronic pain scale

Treatment of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) should be stratified for best medical and economic outcome. To improve the targeting of potential participants for exclusive therapy offers from payers, Freytag et al. developed a tool to classify back pain chronicity classes (CC) based on claim data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the model. Administrative claim data and self-reported patient information from 3,506 participants (2014-2021) in a private health insurance health management programme in Germany were used to validate the tool. Sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC) were calculated comparing the prediction with actual grades based on von Korff's graded chronic pain scale (GCPS). The secondary outcome was an updated view on direct health care costs (€) of patients with back pain (BP) grouped by GCPS. Results showed a fair correlation between predicted CC and actual GCPS grades. A total of 69.7% of all cases were correctly classified. Sensitivity and specificity rates of 54.6 and 76.4% underlined precision. Correlation between CC and GCPS with an MCC of 0.304 also indicated a fair relationship between prediction and observation. Cost data could be clearly grouped by GCPS: the higher the grade, the higher the costs and the use of health care. This was the first study to compare the predicted severity of BP using claim data with the actual severity of BP by GCPS. Based on the results, the usage of CC as a single tool to determine who receives CLBP treatment cannot be recommended. CC is a good tool to segment candidates for specific types of intervention in BP. However, it cannot replace a medical screening at the beginning of an intervention, as the rate of false negatives is too high. Trial registration The study was conducted using routinely collected data from an intervention, which was previously evaluated and registered retrospectively in the German Registry of Clinical Trials under DRKS00015463 (04/09/2018). Informed consent and the self-reported questionnaire have remained unchanged since the study and, therefore, are still valid according to the ethics proposal.