Low back pain: Identifying sub-groups, clinical prediction rules and measuring results

Therapeutic effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for treating patients with chronic low back pain

This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness and safety of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).A total of 72 patients with CLBP were included in this retrospective study. All patients received usual care, and were assigned to a NMES group (n = 36) and a control group (n = 36). In addition, patients in the NMES group also received NMES for a total of 4 weeks. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured by numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcome was disability, assessed by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). The outcomes were evaluated before and after 4-week treatment.After 4-week treatment, the patients in the NMES group did not show better effectiveness in pain intensity relief, as measured by NRS (P = .11); and disability improvement, as evaluated by the RMDQ (P = .14), and QBPDS (P = .33), when compared with the patients in the control group. Additionally, no adverse events related to the NNES were recorded.The results of this study did not show promising effectiveness of NMES for patients with CLBP after 4-week treatment.

A critical appraisal of the quality of low back pain practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool and comparison with previous evaluations: a EuroAIM initiative

PURPOSE

To assess the methodologic quality of guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) and compare their recommendations.

METHODS

No ethics committee approval was needed for this systematic review. In March 2017, a systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to find practice guidelines of assessment and management of LBP. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool, and the results were compared with previous appraisals performed in 2004 and 2009.

RESULTS

Of 114 retrieved guidelines, eight were appraised. All except one reached the level of "acceptable" in overall result, with two of them reaching the highest scores. Only two guidelines reached a level of "acceptable" in every domain; the others had at least one domain with low scores. The guidelines had the higher scores (range = 63-94%) on "Scope and purpose" and "Clarity of presentation" (47-89%). "Stakeholder Involvement" has the highest variability between the guidelines results (40-96%). "Rigor of Development" reached an intermediate mean result (34-90%), "Applicability" (42-70%), and "Editorial Independence" (38-85%). Only three guidelines had a radiologist among authors and reached higher scores compared to guidelines without a radiologist among the authors. Compared to previous assessments, low-level guidelines were 53% in 2004, 36% in 2009, and 13% in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all guidelines, only one had a "low" overall score, while half of them were rated as of "high" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.