Rückenschule für Krankenpflegepersonal

Back schools for the treatment of chronic low back pain: possibility of benefit but no convincing evidence after 47 years of research-systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review demonstrates that the evidence base for the use of back schools to treat low back pain is weak. No unequivocal evidence of benefit has emerged; adverse events were poorly reported in the studies.

Back schools are interventions that comprise exercise and education components. We aimed to systematically review the randomized controlled trial evidence on back schools for the treatment of chronic low back pain. By searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central as well as bibliographies, we identified 31 studies for inclusion in our systematic review and 5 of these for inclusion in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses for pain scores and functional outcomes revealed statistical superiority of back schools vs no intervention for some comparisons but not others. No meta-analysis was feasible for the comparison of back schools vs other active treatments. Adverse events were poorly reported so that no reliable conclusions regarding the safety of back schools can be drawn, although some limited reassurance in this regard may be derived from the fact that few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported in the back school groups in the studies that did report on safety. Overall, the evidence base for the use of back schools to treat chronic low back pain is weak; in nearly a half-century since back schools were first trialled, no unequivocal evidence of benefit has emerged.

Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with LBP. However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2004 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French, or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials. Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of back school for nonspecific LBP were included. Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution, and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high-quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. Because data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence), taking into account the methodologic quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled trials (3,584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodologic quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high-quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short- and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status, and return to work during short- and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short- and intermediate-term, compared with exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo, or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodologic quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.

Back schools for non-specific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with low-back pain (LBP). However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with non-specific LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to May 2003 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on any type of back school for non-specific LBP were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. As data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited or no evidence), taking into account the methodological quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs (3584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodological quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting, are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status and return to work during short and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain, and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short and intermediate-term, compared to exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodological quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.

Back schools for non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1980, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. Back schools are frequently used in the treatment of low back pain patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of back schools for patients with non-specific low back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to December 1997 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to December 1998 if reported in English, Dutch, French or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised trials that reported on any type of back school for non-specific low back pain were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers blinded with respect to authors, institution and journal independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Our preset "high quality" level was 6 or more out of 11 internal validity criteria with positive scores. As data were statistically and clinically too heterogeneous, a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) was performed. The evidence was classified into 4 levels (strong, moderate, limited or no evidence) taking into account the methodological quality of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs were included in our systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality was low. Only 3 trials were considered high quality. It was not possible to make relevant subgroup analyses for radiation versus no radiation or to have a relevant subgroup of studies reporting on acute low back pain only. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence that back schools have better short-term effects than other treatments for chronic low back pain, and that there is moderate evidence that back schools in an occupational setting are more effective compared to 'placebo' or waiting list controls.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Back schools may be effective for patients with recurrent and chronic low back pain in occupational settings, but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of back schools.