Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Stimulation of the Medial Branch of the Lumbar Dorsal Rami for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is often associated with impaired motor control and degeneration of the lumbar multifidus muscles. Several studies have reported on the utility of multifidus or medial branch stimulation as a treatment. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on the change in low back pain intensity with multifidus stimulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2010 to 2022 for randomized controlled trials or prospective reports in adults with CLBP, treated with multifidus or medial nerve stimulation through implanted or percutaneous device. Mean change (standard error) in pain intensity was extracted and data synthesized using a mixed effects regression with a random intercept for the study to account for repeated time points.

RESULTS

A total of 419 participants were enrolled in six studies; there were 25 effects (one to six time points per study), with follow-ups ranging from 1.5 to 48 months. The weighted pooled mean effect was a reduction in pain intensity (0-10 scale) of 2.9 units (95% CI: 2.1-3.7). The 95% prediction interval was a reduction in pain intensity of 0.6 to 5.2 units. The estimated probability of a reduction in pain of >two units in a new similar study is 0.84 (0.68-0.98). Meta-regression revealed that a longer follow-up time was associated with greater reductions in pain (0.25 units [0.16-0.34] per six months).

CONCLUSIONS

Medial branch stimulation for the treatment of CLBP shows a high probability of a clinically significant change in pain intensity. Longer duration of stimulation was associated with decreased low back pain intensities.

Biobehavioral Predictors of Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Chronic Pain Episodes: A Prospective Cohort Study of African-American Adults

Racial disparities in pain experiences are well-established, with African-American (AA) adults reporting higher rates of daily pain, increased pain severity, and greater pain-related interference compared to non-Hispanic Whites. However, the biobehavioral factors that predict the transition to chronic pain among AA adults are not well understood. This prospective cohort study provided a unique opportunity to evaluate predictors of chronic pain onset among 130 AA adults (81 women), ages 18 to 44, who did not report chronic pain at their baseline assessment and subsequently completed follow-up assessments at 6- and 12-months. Outcome measures included pain intensity, pain-related interference, and chronic pain status. Comprehensive assessments of sociodemographic and biobehavioral factors were used to evaluate demographics, socioeconomic status, stress exposure, psychosocial factors, prolonged hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal secretion, and quantitative sensory testing responses. At baseline, 30 adults (23.1%) reported a history of prior chronic pain. Over the 12-month follow-up period, 13 adults (10.0%) developed a new chronic pain episode, and 18 adults (13.8%) developed a recurrent chronic pain episode. Whereas socioeconomic status measures (ie, annual income, education) predicted changes in pain intensity over the follow-up period, quantitative sensory testing measures (ie, pain threshold, temporal summation of pain) predicted changes in pain interference. A history of chronic pain and higher depressive symptoms at baseline independently predicted the onset of a new chronic pain episode. The present findings highlight distinct subsets of biobehavioral factors that are differentially associated with trajectories of pain intensity, pain-related interference, and onset of chronic pain episodes in AA adults. PERSPECTIVE: This prospective study sought to advance understanding of biobehavioral factors that predicted pain outcomes over a 12-month follow-up period among AA adults without chronic pain at their initial assessment. Findings revealed distinct subsets of factors that were differentially associated with pain intensity, pain-related interference, and onset of chronic pain episodes.

Standardization and other approaches to meta-analyze differences in means

Meta-analysts often use standardized mean differences (SMD) to combine mean effects from studies in which the dependent variable has been measured with different instruments or scales. In this tutorial we show how the SMD is properly calculated as the difference in means divided by a between-subject reference-group, control-group, or pooled pre-intervention SD, usually free of measurement error. When combining mean effects from controlled trials and crossovers, most meta-analysts have divided by either the pooled SD of change scores, the pooled SD of post-intervention scores, or the pooled SD of pre- and post-intervention scores, resulting in SMDs that are biased and difficult to interpret. The frequent use of such inappropriate standardizing SDs by meta-analysts in three medical journals we surveyed is due to misleading advice in peer-reviewed publications and meta-analysis packages. Even with an appropriate standardizing SD, meta-analysis of SMDs increases heterogeneity artifactually via differences in the standardizing SD between settings. Furthermore, the usual magnitude thresholds for standardized mean effects are not thresholds for clinically important differences. We therefore explain how to use other approaches to combining mean effects of disparate measures: log transformation of factor effects (response ratios) and of percent effects converted to factors; rescaling of psychometrics to percent of maximum range; and rescaling with minimum clinically important differences. In the absence of clinically important differences, we explain how standardization after meta-analysis with appropriately transformed or rescaled pre-intervention SDs can be used to assess magnitudes of a meta-analyzed mean effect in different settings.

The importance of context (placebo effects) in conservative interventions for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Contextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non-pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short-, medium- and/or long-term follow-up.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented.

RESULTS

The study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: -5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.20, -3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes. Meta-regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses.

CONCLUSION

The study found that the contextual effect of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence-based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component.

SIGNIFICANCE

Contextual effects of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference.

Effect of a Behavioral Therapy-Based Virtual Reality Application on Quality of Life in Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability with a large impact on quality of life and resistance to a broad array of current treatments. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a novel self-administered behavioral therapy-based virtual reality (VR) application on the quality of life of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in adults with nonspecific CLBP with moderate to severe pain, waiting for treatment in a teaching hospital-based pain clinic. The intervention group used a self-administered behavioral therapy-based VR application for at least 10 minutes daily for 4 weeks. The control group received standard care. The primary outcome was quality of life at 4 weeks measured by the short form-12 physical and mental scores. Secondary outcomes were daily worst and least pain, pain coping strategies, activities of daily living, positive health, anxiety, and depression. Discontinuation of therapy and adverse events were analyzed as well.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were included. One patient withdrew due to personal reasons. No significant treatment effect was found for the short form-12 physical score (mean difference: 2.6 points; 95% CI: -5.60 to 0.48) and mental score (-1.75; -6.04 to 2.53) at 4 weeks. There was a significant treatment effect for daily "worst pain score" ( F [1, 91.425] = 33.3, P < 0.001) and "least pain score" ( F [1, 30.069] = 11.5, P = 0.002). Three patients reported mild and temporary dizziness.

DISCUSSION

Four weeks of self-administered VR for CLBP does not improve quality of life, however, it may positively affect daily pain experience.

Methocarbamol versus diazepam in acute low back pain in the emergency department: a randomised double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common complaint in the emergency department and achieving effective analgesia can be challenging.

METHODS

In this multicentre randomised double-blind clinical trial conducted at three EDs in Iran from August to November 2020, we assessed the efficacy and adverse effects of two muscle relaxants in patients aged 18 years or older who suffered LBP in the last 6 weeks. Group 1 received intravenous methocarbamol and group 2 received intravenous diazepam followed by a weight-based dose of intravenous morphine in both groups. Exclusion criteria mainly included non-spine aetiologies, cord compression, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, renal/hepatic insufficiency, pregnancy, breast feeding and unstable vital signs. Pain scores and adverse events were measured by a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline and after 30 and 60 min by one of the researchers who was not involved with patient visits and was blinded to the intervention. We used t-test to assess the mean difference of NRS at 30 and 60 min.

RESULTS

Out of 101 enrolled patients, 50 participants received methocarbamol and 51 diazepam. The baseline mean pain scores and demographic characteristics were not different between the study groups. Pain scores were reduced by both agents after 60 min, with slightly greater pain reductions in the diazepam group in comparison with methocarbamol (mean difference -6.1, 95% CI -6.5 to -5.7 vs mean difference -5.2, 95% CI -5.7 to -4.7, respectively, p<0.001). ED length of stay of patients did not differ between the groups (methocarbamol 5.9 vs diazepam 4.8 hours, p=0.365). Patients receiving diazepam were more likely to report drowsiness (2 (4.0%) vs 15 (29.4%), p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LBP, the pain was relieved in the methocarbamol and diazepam groups after 60 min. Although diazepam was more effective, its use was associated with a slightly higher risk of drowsiness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The protocol of this clinical trial was prospectively registered in the irct.ir (IRCTID: IRCT20151113025025N4; https://irct.ir/trial/50148) .

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively).

RESULTS

27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

The impact of comorbid spinal pain in depression on work participation and clinical remission following brief or short psychotherapy. Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial with two-year follow-up

Objectives

This explorative study analyses the influence of baseline comorbid long-lasting spinal pain (CSP) on improvement of long term work participation and clinical remission of mental health illness following either brief coping-focussed or short-term psychotherapy for depression. Whether type of treatment modifies outcome with or without CSP is also analysed.

Design

A secondary post hoc subgroup analysis of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Interventions

Brief or standard short psychotherapy.

Methods

Based on baseline assessment, the sample was subdivided into a subgroup with and a subgroup without CSP. Work participation and clinical remission of depression and anxiety were assessed as treatment outcome at two-year follow-up. Simple and multivariate logistic regression analyses, across the intervention arms, were applied to evaluate the impact of CSP on treatment outcome. Selected baseline variables were considered as potential confounders and included as variates if relevant. The modifying effect of CSP on treatment outcome was evaluated by including intervention modality as an interaction term.

Main results

Among the 236 participants with depressive symptoms, 83 participants (35%) were identified with CSP. In simple logistic regression analysis, CSP reduced improvements on both work participation and clinical remission rate. In the multivariate analysis however, the impact of CSP on work participation and on clinical remission were not significant after adjusting for confounding variables. Reduction of work participation was mainly explained by the higher age of the CSP participants and the reduced clinical remission by the additional co-occurrence of anxiety symptoms at baseline. The occurrence of CSP at baseline did not modify long term outcome of brief compared to short psychotherapy.

Conclusions

CSP at baseline reduced work participation and worsened remission of mental health symptoms two-year following psychotherapy. Older age and more severe baseline anxiety are associated to reduced effectiveness. Type of psychotherapy received did not contribute to differences.

Efficacy of the cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a study protocol for a randomized sham-controlled trial

Background

Chronic low back pain is a public health problem, and there is strong evidence that it is associated with a complex interaction of biopsychosocial factors. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a promising new intervention that deals with potentially modifiable multidimensional aspects of pain (e.g., provocative cognitive, movement, and lifestyle behaviors).

Methods

To investigate the efficacy of CFT compared with a sham intervention for pain intensity and disability post-intervention (immediately after the last session) in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). This study is a randomized controlled trial in which 152 (18–60 years old) patients with CLBP will be enrolled. The patients will be randomly allocated to receive (1) CFT intervention or (2) sham intervention. The experimental group will receive individualized CFT in a pragmatic manner (5 to 7 sessions) based on the clinical progression of the participants. The sham group will attend six sessions: consisting of 30 min of photobiomodulation using a detuned device and more than 15 min of talking about neutral topics. Patients from both groups also will receive an educational booklet (for ethical reasons). Participants will be assessed pre and post-intervention, 3 months, and 6 months after randomization. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability post-intervention. The secondary outcomes will be: pain intensity and disability at 3- and 6-month follow-up, as well as self-efficacy, global perceived effect of improvement, and functioning post-intervention, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. The patients and the assessor will be blinded to the treatment administered (active vs. sham).

Statistical analysis

The between-group differences (effects of treatment), as well as the treatment effect for the primary and secondary outcomes, and their respective 95% confidence intervals will be calculated by constructing linear mixed models.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the current study will be the first to compare CFT vs. sham intervention. Sham-controlled RCTs may help to understand the influence of non-specific factors on treatment outcomes. Considering complex interventions as CFT, it is imperative to understand the impact of contextual factors on outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04518891. First Posted: August 19, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06466-8.

Comparing an e-Health program vs home rehabilitation program in patients with non-specific low back pain: A study protocol randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence on the reliability of the web application-based rehabilitation systems to treat chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

This protocol describes a double-blind, randomized controlled feasibility trial of an e-Health intervention developed to support the self-management of people with CLBP in primary care physiotherapy. Three Hospitals with primary care for outpatients will be the units of randomisation, in each Hospital the participants will be randomized to one of two groups, a pragmatic control group receiving either the usual home program based on electrostimulation and McKenzie Therapy and e-Health intervention. Patients are followed up at 2 and 6 months. The primary outcomes are (1) acceptability and demand of the intervention by GPs, physiotherapists and patients and (2) feasibility and optimal study design/methods for a definitive trial. Secondary outcomes will include analysis in the clinical outcomes of pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, isometric resistance of the trunk flexors, lumbar anteflexion and lumbar segmental range of motion.

DISCUSSION

The specific e-Health programs to home could increase adherence to treatment, prevent stages of greater pain and disability, and improve the painful symptomatology.

CONCLUSIONS

The e-Health programs could be an effective healthcare tool that can reach a large number of people living in rural or remote areas.

Comparison of the effectiveness of an e-health program versus a home rehabilitation program in patients with chronic low back pain: A double blind randomized controlled trial

OBJETIVE

We conducted a randomized double blind clinical trial, to compare the effectiveness of McKenzie exercises and electroanalgesia via an e-Health program versus a home rehabilitation program on functionality, pain, fear of movement and quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Seventy-four participants with non-specific chronic low back pain were randomized to either the e- Health program group (n = 39) or the home rehabilitation program group (n = 35). The interventions consisted of the e-Health program group performing McKenzie exercises and received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, while the home rehabilitation group attended an information session to explain the exercises, which they then performed at home with printed instructions. Both groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 8 weeks. The following were analyzed main measures: pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, trunk muscle endurance and trunk anteflexion motion were assessed at baseline and at 2 months.

RESULTS

Independent samples Student's t-tests showed that although the patients who followed the e-Health program showed significantly greater improvement than those who followed the home disability rehabilitation program in terms of intensity of pain, lumbar flexion mobility (P < 0.001), and the following dimensions of quality of life (P < 0.005), both groups improved significantly in the immediate post-treatment follow up compared with baseline scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic low back pain who followed an unsupervised home intervention supported by an individualized video exercise program showed greater post-treatment improvement than those who followed the same program with printed instructions.

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain

Spine pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 11% of the world's population. It is the single leading cause of activity limitation and ranks fourth in years lost to disability globally, representing a significant personal, social, and economic burden. For the vast majority of patients with back and neck pain, a specific pathology cannot be identified as the cause for their pain, which is then labeled as non-specific. In a growing proportion of these cases, pain persists beyond 3 months and is referred to as chronic primary back or neck pain. To decrease the global burden of spine pain, current data suggest that a conservative approach may be preferable. One of the conservative management options available is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the main intervention used by chiropractors and other manual therapists. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness (as it compares to other interventions in more pragmatic settings) and efficacy (as it compares to inactive controls under highly controlled conditions) of SMT for the management of neck pain and low back pain. Additionally, a perspective on the current recommendations on SMT for spine pain and the needs for future research will be provided. In summary, SMT may be as effective as other recommended therapies for the management of non-specific and chronic primary spine pain, including standard medical care or physical therapy. Currently, SMT is recommended in combination with exercise for neck pain as part of a multimodal approach. It may also be recommended as a frontline intervention for low back pain. Despite some remaining discrepancies, current clinical practice guidelines almost universally recommend the use of SMT for spine pain. Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of SMT compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. Therefore, future research is needed to clarify the specific effects of SMT to further validate this intervention. In addition, factors that predict these effects remain to be determined to target patients who are more likely to obtain positive outcomes from SMT.

Does TENS Reduce the Intensity of Acute and Chronic Pain? A Comprehensive Appraisal of the Characteristics and Outcomes of 169 Reviews and 49 Meta-Analyses

Background and Objectives: Uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) to alleviate pain spans half a century. There has been no attempt to synthesise the entire body of systematic review evidence. The aim of this comprehensive review was to critically appraise the characteristics and outcomes of systematic reviews evaluating the clinical efficacy of TENS for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases for full reports of systematic reviews of studies, overviews of systematic reviews, and hybrid reviews that evaluated the efficacy of TENS for any type of clinical pain in adults. We screened reports against eligibility criteria and extracted data related to the characteristics and outcomes of the review, including effect size estimates. We conducted a descriptive analysis of extracted data. Results: We included 169 reviews consisting of eight overviews, seven hybrid reviews and 154 systematic reviews with 49 meta-analyses. A tally of authors' conclusions found a tendency toward benefits from TENS in 69/169 reviews, no benefits in 13/169 reviews, and inconclusive evidence in 87/169 reviews. Only three meta-analyses pooled sufficient data to have confidence in the effect size estimate (i.e., pooled analysis of >500 events). Lower pain intensity was found during TENS compared with control for chronic musculoskeletal pain and labour pain, and lower analgesic consumption was found post-surgery during TENS. The appraisal revealed repeated shortcomings in RCTs that have hindered confident judgements about efficacy, resulting in stagnation of evidence. Conclusions: Our appraisal reveals examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating benefit. There were no examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating no benefit. Therefore, we recommend that TENS should be considered as a treatment option. The considerable quantity of reviews with 'insufficient data' and meaningless findings have clouded the issue of efficacy. We offer solutions to these issues going forward.

Placebo effects in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

The study protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews Prospero (CRD42019148745). A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO) up to 2021 February 16th yielded 2,423 studies. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were eligible for the systematic review and 5 for the meta-analysis. Fourteen of the 18 studies were clinical treatment studies, and 4 were experimental studies specifically assessing placebo effects. The clinical treatment studies provided varying evidence for placebo effects in chronic LBP but insufficient evidence for acute and subacute LBP. Most experimental studies investigating chronic LBP revealed significant placebo effects. The meta-analysis of 5 treatment studies investigating chronic LBP depicted a significant moderate effect size of placebo for pain intensity (SMD = 0.57) and disability (SMD = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief in clinical and experimental conditions. The meta-analysis revealed that placebo effects can influence chronic LBP intensity and disability. However, additional studies are required for more supporting evidence and evidence for placebo effects in acute or subacute LBP.

SIGNIFICANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of true placebo effects in low back pain (LBP). It shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief. The results highlight the importance of patient- and context-related factors in fostering treatment effects in this patient group. New studies could provide insight into the potential value of actively making use of placebo effects in clinical practice.

Investigating the Mechanisms of Graded Sensorimotor Precision Training in Adults With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Causal Mediation Analysis of the RESOLVE Trial

Background

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem associated with an increasing burden on individuals, health care systems, and society. Common treatments for people with CLBP produce, on average, small short-term improvements in pain and function compared with minimal care. The RESOLVE trial randomly allocated 276 people with CLBP to a new complex treatment strategy, pain education integrated with graded sensorimotor precision training (RESOLVE), or a sham control. The RESOLVE treatment was developed within a theoretical framework to target possible treatment mechanisms associated with CLBP development and persistence.

Objective

This protocol describes the planned evaluation of these proposed treatment mechanisms. Improved understanding of the mechanisms underpinning the RESOLVE treatment may guide its refinement and implementation.

Methods

We will use causal mediation analysis to evaluate the proposed treatment mechanisms, including pain self-efficacy, back beliefs, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, back perception, tactile acuity, and movement coordination. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function at 18 weeks following allocation. Data were collected blind to allocation and hypotheses at baseline (mediators, outcomes, confounders), end of treatment (mediators), and at 18 weeks following allocation (outcomes). We will test the robustness of our findings by conducting planned sensitivity analyses.

Results

Ethical approval was granted by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC15357). A total of 276 participants have been recruited from primary care practices and the community in Sydney, Australia.

Conclusions

The RESOLVE treatment constitutes a new paradigm for CLBP management with potentially wide-reaching implications. This mechanistic evaluation will provide evidence for the hypothesized treatment mechanisms and help explain why the treatment strategy did or did not have an effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results will help guide the treatment refinement and implementation.

Trial Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000610538; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619&isReview=true

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26053

The effects of core stability training in nurses with nonspecific low back pain

To investigate the effect of core stability training on nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) in nurses.The data were collected retrospectively by reviewing the patient's medical records and pain questionnaires in our rehabilitation center. A total of 40 nurses with NSLBP were included and divided into observation group and control group. Each group were given routine health education for NSLBP. Core stability training was performed in observation group for 4 weeks. Surface electromyography (sEMG) evaluation of erector spine and multifidus muscle, pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were evaluated and analyzed before and 4 weeks after intervention.There was no significant difference of NRS score and JOA score between two groups before intervention (P > .05, respectively). The NRS and JOA scores were significantly improved in both two groups after 4 weeks of intervention (P < .05, respectively). Moreover, the improvement of NRS and JOA scores in the observation group were better than those of the control group (P < .05, respectively). No significant difference of average electromyography (AEMG) or median frequency (MF) were noted between the healthy side and the affected side in both groups before or after intervention (P > .05, respectively). After 4 weeks of intervention, the AEMG of the healthy and the affected side of the two groups showed an improved trend without significant difference (P > .05, respectively). The MF of affected side was significantly higher 4 weeks after intervention than those before treatment in the observation and control group (P < .05, respectively).Core stability training can alleviate pain, improve the fatigue resistance of the core muscles and the balance of the functions of bilateral multifidus muscles in nurses with NSLBP.

Resolving Long-Standing Uncertainty about the Clinical Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) to Relieve Pain: A Comprehensive Review of Factors Influencing Outcome

Pain is managed using a biopsychosocial approach and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a technique whereby pulsed electrical currents are administered through the intact surface of the skin with the intention of alleviating pain, akin to 'electrically rubbing pain away'. Despite over 50 years of published research, uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of TENS remains. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to critically appraise clinical research on TENS to inform future strategies to resolve the 'efficacy-impasse'. The principles and practices of TENS are described to provide context for readers unfamiliar with TENS treatment. The findings of systematic reviews evaluating TENS are described from a historical perspective to provide context for a critical evaluation of factors influencing the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); including sample populations, outcome measures, TENS techniques, and comparator interventions. Three possibilities are offered to resolve the impasse. Firstly, to conduct large multi-centered RCTs using an enriched enrolment with randomized withdrawal design, that incorporates a 'run-in phase' to screen for potential TENS responders and to optimise TENS treatment according to individual need. Secondly, to meta-analyze published RCT data, irrespective of type of pain, to determine whether TENS reduces the intensity of pain during stimulation, and to include a detailed assessment of levels of certainty and precision. Thirdly, to concede that it may be impossible to determine efficacy due to insurmountable methodological, logistical and financial challenges. The consequences to clinicians, policy makers and funders of this third scenario are discussed. I argue that patients will continue to use TENS irrespective of the views of clinicians, policy makers, funders or guideline panel recommendations, because TENS is readily available without prescription; TENS generates a pleasant sensory experience that is similar to easing pain using warming and cooling techniques; and technological developments such as smart wearable TENS devices will improve usability in the future. Thus, research is needed on how best to integrate TENS into existing pain management strategies by analyzing data of TENS usage by expert-patients in real-world settings.

Neurophysiological mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain

Together, neck pain and back pain are the first cause of disability worldwide, accounting for more than 10% of the total years lived with disability. In this context, chiropractic care provides a safe and effective option for the management of a large proportion of these patients. Chiropractic is a healthcare profession mainly focused on the spine and the treatment of spinal disorders, including spine pain. Basic studies have examined the influence of chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) on a variety of peripheral, spinal and supraspinal mechanisms involved in spine pain. While spinal cord mechanisms of pain inhibition contribute at least partly to the pain-relieving effects of chiropractic treatments, the evidence is weaker regarding peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms, which are important components of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review highlights the most relevant mechanisms of pain relief by SM and provides a perspective for future research on SM and spine pain, including the validation of placebo interventions that control for placebo effects and other non-specific effects that may be induced by SM. SIGNIFICANCE: Spinal manipulation inhibits back and neck pain partly through spinal segmental mechanisms and potentially through peripheral mechanisms regulating inflammatory responses. Other mechanisms remain to be clarified. Controls and placebo interventions need to be improved in order to clarify the contribution of specific and non-specific effects to pain relief by spinal manipulative therapy.

Physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery: a retrospective analysis of workers compensation claims in Australia

Background

Understanding how much physiotherapy people receive before lumbar spine surgery could give insight into what people and clinicians consider an adequate trial of non-operative management. The aim of this study was to investigate physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery under a workers’ compensation claim in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

Methods

Using data from the NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority, we audited physiotherapy billing codes used before surgery for people who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2018. We summarised, separately for fusion and decompression, the time from initiation of physiotherapy to surgery, number of physiotherapy sessions people received before surgery, total cost of physiotherapy before surgery, and time from injury date to initiation of physiotherapy. All analyses were descriptive.

Results

We included 3070 people (800 had fusion, 2270 decompression). Mean age (standard deviation, SD) was similar between those who received fusion and decompression [42.9 (10.4) vs. 41.9 (11.6)]. Compared to people who had fusion, those who had decompression were more likely to not have any physiotherapy before surgery (28.4% vs. 15.4%), received physiotherapy for a shorter duration before surgery [median (interquartile range, IQR): 5 (3 to 11) vs. 15 (4–26) months], were less likely to have physiotherapy for ≥2 years before surgery (5.6% vs. 27.5%), had fewer physiotherapy sessions before surgery [mean (SD): 16 (21) vs. 28 (35) sessions], were less likely to have > 50 physiotherapy sessions before surgery (6.8% vs. 18.1%), and had lower total physiotherapy-related costs [mean (IQR): $1265 ($0–1808) vs. $2357 ($453–2947)]. Time from injury date to first physiotherapy session was similar between people who had fusion and decompression [median (IQR): 23 (9–66) vs.19 (7–53) days].

Conclusions

There is variation in physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery for people funded by NSW Workers’ Compensation. Some people may not be receiving an adequate trial of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before decompression surgery. Others may be receiving an excessive amount of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before fusion.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04129-4.

[Results of Rehabilitation in Chronic Non-Specific Back Pain in Germany - Meta-Analyses of Change Scores of Pain Intensity and Functional Capacity]

OBJECTIVE

How do pain intensity and functional capacity improve after rehabilitating chronic non-specific back pain? Are the changes of practical relevance for quality of life and social participation? Are they stronger than placebo effects?

METHODS

Meta-analyses of short-, medium- and long-term outcomes from rehabilitation studies with standardized mean differences and MID-units were performed, as well as meta-analyses of outcomes of sham therapies. In addition, non-standardized effect measures and the amount of reliable change were determined.

RESULTS

for pain intensity short-term effects were moderate, long-term effects were small, for functional capacity short-term effects were small, and no effects occurred in the long term. The effects were at no time of practical relevance. Similar results could be achieved with sham treatments.

CONCLUSION

As far as pain intensity and functional capacity are concerned, the typical rehabilitee does not experience any significant improvements; a smaller proportion achieve results in the range of placebo effects.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and heat to reduce pain in a chronic low back pain population: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The therapeutic management of patients with chronic LBP is challenging.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of heat and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation combined on pain relief in participants with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Fifty participants with chronic (≥3 months) low back pain were randomly assigned to two groups: HeatTens (n=25) and control group (n=25). Primary outcome was pain. Secondary outcomes were pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation, fear-avoidance and beliefs questionnaire, central sensitization inventory, quality of life, and medication use. The control group received no treatment and continued usual care. After four weeks of treatment, all measurements were repeated.

RESULTS

Fifty individuals participated in this study. Significant higher pressure pain threshold measures after both 30min and 4 weeks for the lower back region and the second plantar toe were found only in the experimental group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of heat and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation does not reduce pain scores in patients with chronic low back pain. Pressure pain threshold values significantly improved, showing beneficial effects of the experimental treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03643731 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03643731).

Validation of the Questionnaire for Symptom Assessment in Pain disorders for Back pain patients (Q-SAP)

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that not only pain intensity but also impairment of quality of life and functionality are important parameters for the evaluation of treatment of chronic low back pain patients. The aim of the study was to validate a specific self-questionnaire for symptom assessment and their influence on quality of life and functionality of chronic low back pain patients (Questionnaire for Symptom Assessment in Pain disorders for back pain patients, Q-SAP).

METHODS

The self-questionnaire consists of two parts (for back and if applicable leg symptoms) and was tested in 152 chronic low back pain patients with and without radiculopathy. Test-retest reliability, exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity, criterion-related validity and the sensitivity to detect patient reported changes were investigated.

RESULTS

The questionnaire showed a good to excellent test-retest reliability. In the factor analysis nociceptive and neuropathic pain components could be separated and the highest convergent validities were shown for the painDETECT, EQ-5D-3L and the FFbH-R. The criterion-related validity showed concordance of QST and the Q-SAP Back for warmth induced pain and numbness. Regarding the sensitivity to patient-reported changes, a moderate correlation was found for both parts of the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The Q-SAP was tested as a useful, valid and reliable tool. This new questionnaire records classical nociceptive and neuropathic pain symptoms of chronic low back pain patients depending on their local distribution. Furthermore, the questionnaire records the intensity of these symptoms and their influence on quality of life and functionality and can be used for the evaluation of treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

The Q-SAP Back/Leg is a new self-questionnaire for CLBP patients with or without radiating leg pain that precisely assesses neuropathic and nociceptive symptoms. In contrast to other questionnaires, the Q-SAP Back/Leg evaluates not only symptom intensities but also their impact on the patient's quality of life and functionality. Furthermore, this questionnaire requests the symptoms depending on their anatomical distribution.

Evaluating the Characteristics, Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture for Low Back Pain by Using the Veritas Plot

Objective

To evaluate systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture for low back pain (LBP) in terms of characteristics, reporting and methodological quality using a Veritas plot and to explore factors that may be associated with methodological quality and reporting quality.

Study Design and Setting

We searched 8 electronic bibliographic databases to find all SRs, and we evaluated the SRs' quality in 6 dimensions, including publication year, design type, homogeneity, risk of publication bias, methodological quality by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and reporting quality by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Excel 2010 and Adobe Illustrator CC were used to draw and optimize Veritas plots. Exploratory analysis was done using SPSS software version 23.0 to explore factors related to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence quality evaluation tool was used to grade all the outcome indicators in the included literature.

Results

We included 19 SRs in the analysis. Literature quality rank scores ranged from 9.67 to 17.00, with an average score of 13.18 ± 2.35. The average score of AMSTAR-2 was 7.47, and the average score of PRISMA was 18.47. Overall, the main issues were research strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, publication bias, and registration in PROSPERO. The results of exploratory analysis showed that duplication of literature selected and appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias were related to the AMSTAR-2 score, and the summary of evidence was related to the PRISMA score. The GRADE quality evaluation results showed mainly low quality.

Conclusion

The quality of SRs on acupuncture for low back pain should be improved, mainly by strengthening the methodological quality and reporting quality. The Veritas plot is an effective graphical evaluation method that is worth popularizing.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain accounts for more disability than any other musculoskeletal condition and is associated with severe economic burden. Patients commonly present with negative beliefs about low back pain and this can have detrimental effects on their health outcomes. Providing evidence-based, patient-centred education that meets patient needs could help address these negative beliefs and alleviate the substantial low back pain burden. The primary aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of patient education materials on immediate process, clinical and health system outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian and systematic searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus. We will also search trial registries and grey literature through the OpenGrey database. Study selection will include a title and abstract scan and full-text review by two authors. Only randomised controlled trials will be included in this review. Trials must include patients with low back pain or sciatica and investigate educational interventions with at least one of the following contrasts: (1) education alone versus no intervention; (2) education alone versus another intervention; (3) education in addition to another intervention versus the same intervention with no education. Data extraction, risk of bias and grading of the quality of evidence will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the PEDro scale, and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A random-effects model will be used for each contrast, and results will be pooled if the participants, interventions, and outcomes are homogeneous. If heterogeneity is high (I2 >75%), we will evaluate the magnitude and direction of the differences in effect sizes across studies to determine if it remains reasonable to pool the results. Analyses of acute and subacute low back pain (less than 12 weeks duration) will be performed separately from chronic low back pain (12 weeks or greater duration). Likewise, analyses of short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (6 months or greater) follow-up will be performed separately. Subgroup analyses will be performed on non-specific low back pain, sciatica and mixed populations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this review. This study, along with its results, will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Performance of Pain Interventionalists From Different Specialties in Treating Degenerative Disk Disease-Related Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

To examine the utilization of current common treatments by providers from different specialties and the effect on delaying spinal surgery in patients with disk degenerative disease (DDD) related low back pain.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study using data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database (2005-2013).

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=6229) newly diagnosed with DDD-related low back pain who received interventional treatments from only 1 provider specialty and continuously enrolled in the database for 3 years after diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures of treatment utilization and cost were constructed for patients who received spinal surgery within 3 years after diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine time to surgery among provider specialties and generalized linear models were used to examine cost differences among provider specialties.

RESULTS

Of the 6229 patients, 427 (6.86%) underwent spinal surgery with unadjusted mean interventional treatment costs ranging from $555 to $851. Although the differences in mean costs across provider specialties were large, they were not statistically significant. Cox proportional hazards models showed that there was no significant difference between provider specialties in the time from DDD diagnosis to spinal surgery. However, patients diagnosed with DDD at a younger age and receiving physical therapy had significantly delayed time to surgery (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81 and hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were no statistically significant differences among provider specialties for time to surgery and cost, patients receiving physical therapy had significantly delayed time to surgery.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Therapeutic Exercise in Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Although some studies have shown the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise in chronic nonspecific low back pain, the effect sizes are generally small to moderate and recurrence rates are high. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used to modulate pain-processing systems and motor outputs and has the potential to optimize the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise. However, evidence for this combination is still lacking. The purpose of this protocol for a randomized clinical trial is to investigate whether the combination of tDCS and therapeutic exercise is more effective in relieving pain than therapeutic exercise alone.

METHODS

This 2-arm, randomized controlled clinical trial will take place at the Federal University of Piauí, Brazil. Sixty patients will be randomized into 2 groups to receive tDCS (real/sham) + exercise therapies for 12 sessions over a period of 4 weeks. Pain intensity, sensory and affective aspects of pain, physical functioning, kinesiophobia, and global perceived effect will be recorded before treatment and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after randomization. Data will be collected by an examiner unaware of (blind to) the treatment allocation.

IMPACT

This trial can potentially provide important information and assist in clinical decision-making on the combined use of tDCS to optimize the clinical benefits of therapeutic exercise in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Walking and running with non-specific chronic low back pain: What about the lumbar lordosis angle?

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major health problem, affecting about one fifth of the population worldwide. To avoid further pain or injury, patients with NSCLBP seem to adopt a stiffer movement pattern during everyday living activities. However, it remains unknown how NSCLBP affects the lumbar lordosis angle (LLA) during repetitive activities such as walking or running. This pilot study therefore aimed at exploring possible NSCLBP-related alterations in LLAs during walking and running by focusing on discrete parameters as well as continuous data. Thirteen patients with NSCLBP and 20 healthy pain-free controls were enrolled and underwent a full-body movement analysis involving various everyday living activities such as standing, walking and running. LLAs were derived from markers placed on the spinous processes of the vertebrae L1-L5 and S1. Possible group differences in discrete (average and range of motion (ROM)) and continuous LLAs were analyzed descriptively using mean differences with confidence intervals ranging from 95% to 75%. Patients with NSCLBP indicated reduced average LLAs during standing, walking and running and a tendency for lower LLA-ROM during walking. Analyses of continuous data indicated the largest group differences occurring around 25% and 70% of the walking and 25% and 75% of the running cycle. Furthermore, patients indicated a reversed movement pattern during running, with increasing instead of a decreasing LLAs after foot strike. This study provides preliminary evidence that NSCLBP might affect LLAs during walking and running. These results can be used as a basis for future large-scale investigations involving hypothesis testing.

Identifying patients with chronic pain who respond to acupuncture: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In a recent individual patient data meta-analysis, acupuncture was found to be superior to sham and non-sham controls in patients with chronic pain. It has been suggested that a subgroup of patients has an exceptional response to acupuncture. We hypothesized the presence of exceptional acupuncture responders would lead to a different distribution of pain scores in acupuncture versus control groups, with the former being skewed to the right.

METHODS

This individual patient data meta-analysis included 39 high-quality randomized trials of acupuncture for chronic headache, migraine, osteoarthritis, low back pain, neck pain and shoulder pain published before December 2015 (n = 20,827). In all, 25 involved sham acupuncture controls (n = 7097) and 25 non-acupuncture controls (n = 16,041). We analyzed the distribution of change scores and calculated the difference in the skewness statistic-which assesses asymmetry in the data distribution-between acupuncture and either sham or non-acupuncture control groups. We then entered the difference in skewness along with standard error into a meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

Control groups were more right-skewed than acupuncture groups, although this difference was very small. The difference in skew was 0.124 for non-acupuncture-controlled trials (p = 0.047) and 0.141 for sham-controlled trials (p = 0.029). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding three trials with outlying results known a priori, the difference in skew between acupuncture and sham was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence to support the notion that there are exceptional acupuncture responders. The challenge remains to identify features of chronic pain patients that can be used to distinguish those that have a good response to acupuncture treatment.

Usual care including home exercise with versus without spa therapy for chronic low back pain: protocol for the LOMBATHERM' study, a multicentric randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is highly prevalent and a major source of disability worldwide. Spa therapy is frequently used to treat low back pain, but the associated level of evidence for efficacy is insufficient. To fill this knowledge gap, this protocol proposes an appropriately powered, prospective, evaluator-blinded, multi-centre, two-parallel-arm, randomised (1:1), controlled trial that will compare spa therapy in addition to usual care including home exercise (UCHE) versus UCHE alone for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Eligible patients (anticipated sample size of 358) will have had low back pain for more than 3 months and scores for pain greater than 40 mm on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Following initial consent for UCHE and baseline evaluations, patients are randomised (1:1) to UCHE alone, or UCHE plus spa therapy (18 days of mud packs, underwater massages, showers and water exercises under medical supervision). Patients in the latter arm will be requested to sign an additional consent form as per Zelen randomisation. Follow-up visits will occur at approximately months 1, 6 and 12 and (along with baseline assessments) will cover changes over time in VAS pain scores, the impact of lower back pain on daily life (the Rolland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)), inappropriate fears and beliefs about lower back pain (the fear, avoidance, belief questionnaire (FABQ)), general quality of life (the Euroqol Group 5 dimension, 5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L)), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), consumption of analgesic drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and overall state of health. Health resource use and days of sick leave (and subsequently the associated costs) will also be recorded. The primary outcome is the presence/absence of a clinically relevant change (improvement of at least 30%) in the VAS score for pain at 6 months.

DISCUSSION

Despite the fact that previous, rather dated recommendations encourage spa therapy for the treatment of low back pain, the current literary corpus is methodologically poor. This protocol has been designed to provide results spanning a thorough range of outcomes at the highest evidence level possible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03910023. Registered on 10 April 2019.

Influence of placebo analgesia in pharmacological treatment of pain

Placebo effects are relevant to routine clinical practice, even if no traditional placebo is given. The healthcare encounter is often rich in factors that may affect both placebo and nocebo components of care, therefore, an opportunity exists to target elements of this encounter to enhance clinical effectiveness. This review will outline the contemporary conceptualizations of placebo and the mechanisms of placebo effects. Specifically, how to harness these placebo effects in clinical practice. Currently, these include optimizing the therapeutic context, shaping of expectations, assessing belief structures and framing information delivery, utilization of conditioning regimes to augment drug response or reduce overall drug dosing and the potential integration of traditional placebos with scientifically proven treatments to augment care.

Clinical reasoning framework for thoracic spine exercise prescription in sport: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The thoracic spine is critical for athletic kinetic chain functioning yet widely overlooked in terms of specific evidenced-based exercise prescription. Thoracic mobility, motor control and strength are required to optimise performance in sport and minimise excessive load/stress on other components of the kinetic chain.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and evaluate mobility, motor control, work capacity and strength thoracic exercises for use in athletes.

DESIGN

Systematic review involving expert reviewers at key stages: searches and screening (n=1), eligibility, evaluation, data extraction and evaluation (n=3). Key databases and social media sources were searched to 16 August 2019. Eligible exercises were thoracic exercises to promote mobility, motor control, work capacity and strength. A narrative synthesis enabled an outcome-based classification of exercises, with level of evidence of individual sources informing overall level of evidence for each outcome (Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine).

RESULTS

From 2348 sources (social media, database searches and other sources), 38 exercises were included. Sources included images, video clips and written descriptions of exercises. Exercises targeting all planes of motion were evaluated and classified according to outcome. Exercises comprised functional and non-functional exercises for mobility (n=9), work capacity (n=15), motor control (n=7) and strength (n=7). Overall level of evidence for each outcome was level 5.

CONCLUSION

This synthesis and evaluation of exercises has captured the scope of thoracic exercises used in 'practice'. Evaluation against an expert-derived outcome-based classification provides practitioners with a framework to facilitate exercise prescription. Evaluation of validity and effectiveness of exercises on outcomes is now required.

A methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of antidepressants effect on low back pain using updated AMSTAR

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are prescribed widely to manage low back pain. There are a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses which have investigated the efficacy of the treatments, while the methodological quality of them has not been assessed yet. This study aims to evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the effect of antidepressants on low back pain.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases up to November 2018. The 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Antidepressants treatment effects on low back pain published in English language were included. There was no limitation on the type of Antidepressants drugs, clinical setting, and study population, while non-systematical reviews and qualitative and narrative reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were evaluated; the studies were reported between 1992 and 2017. Obtained results from AMSTAR2 showed that 11 (44%), 9 (36%) and 5 (20%) of the included studies had high, moderate and low qualities, respectively. 13(52%) of studies assessed risk of bias and 2(20%) of meta analyses considered publication bias. Also, 16 (64%) of the included reviews provided a satisfactory explanation for any heterogeneity observed in the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the trend of publishing high quality papers in ADs effect on LBP increased recently, performing more high-quality SRs and MAs in this field with precise subgroups of the type of pains, the class of drugs and their dosages may give clear and more reliable evidence to help clinicians and policymakers.

Importance of Outcome Domain for Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain: Characterizing Subgroups and Their Response to Treatment

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered care models allow for the ability to tailor treatment to outcomes of importance to patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to (1) define patient subgroups based on outcomes of importance; (2) determine whether patient subgroups based on outcomes of importance differed in demographic, clinical, and psychological measures; and (3) determine whether outcome domain subgroups differed in treatment responses.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, longitudinal observational study.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome study. Patients in the development phase completed the Patient Centered Outcome Questionnaire (PCOQ) and questionnaires related to negative mood, fear avoidance, and positive coping, as well as region-specific questionnaires. Patients in the validation cohort completed the PCOQ, measures of treatment satisfaction and region-specific questionnaires at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis identified profiles based on importance outcomes as determined by the PCOQ. Analysis of variance and chi-squared assessed baseline subgroup differences in demographics, psychological factors, and clinical outcomes. Repeated-measure analysis of variance considered subgroup differences in outcomes longitudinally.

RESULTS

Cluster analysis identified 3 subgroups: (1) "Multiple Outcome Domains Important" subgroup characterized by high importance attached to improvement in all domains, (2) "Pain and Function Outcomes Important" subgroup characterized by high importance attached to improvement in pain and interference, and (3) "Pain Important" subgroup characterized by greatest importance attached to improvement in pain.

LIMITATIONS

Our sample included patients from outpatient physical therapy and may not be representative of patients in other settings.

CONCLUSION

Patients can be characterized by the importance attached to improvement in outcome domains. The identified subgroups differed in baseline measures as well as response to treatment.

Do sociodemographic features, pain sensitivity or pain catastrophizing relate to clinic-based adherence to physiotherapy in people suffering from chronic spinal pain? Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Examining whether socio-demographic variables, pain or functionality are related to the degree of clinic-based therapy adherence in patients suffering from nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

University hospital of Ghent and Brussels.

METHODS

Dutch speakers, 18-65 years old, experiencing nCSP for at least 3 months. 120 participants were randomly allocated to two interventional groups, of which 94 completed all therapy sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Degree of clinic-based adherence, defined as the amount of completed therapy sessions.

RESULTS

Demographic data (sex, age or education) were not significantly associated with adherence in the total sample or the neuroscience group. For the traditional physiotherapy group, educational level was associated with attendance of at least 50% of the therapy sessions. Regarding pain-, belief- and function-related measures, only the association between change in kinesiophobia and adherence was significant for the traditional physiotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors related to therapy adherence in the total group or the neuroscience group could not be found. Educational level and change in kinesiophobia were however related to therapy adherence in the traditional physiotherapy group.

"Selling" chronic pain: physiotherapists' lived experiences of communicating the diagnosis of chronic nonspecific lower back pain to their patients

Introduction: Chronic nonspecific lower back pain (CNSLBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition which can be a source of significant distress and disability for patients. Approaches to managing CNSLBP have been explored in healthcare literature, as has the importance of communication in physiotherapy practice. However, no previous studies have explored clinicians' experiences of communicating their understanding of this diagnosis to their patients.Methods: A qualitative research design, using hermeneutic phenomenological methodology, was employed. Five participants were purposively recruited for the research and data collected via semi-structured interviews. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) methods were used to analyze the data. Emergent, super-ordinate and master themes were developed to help convey the qualitative significant meanings of the lived-through experiences.Findings: Three master themes were identified, with each comprising two sub-themes. These were: 1) Patient-centeredness (1a. Understanding the patient; and 1b. emotional awareness and adaptability); 2) Getting patients "on board" (2a. the "selling" process; and 2b. paternalism and the clinician's perspective); and 3) Dealing with conflict and uncertainty (3a. fear of interpersonal conflict; and 3b. personal doubts and uncertainty).Conclusions: Personal conflicts were identified between clinicians' descriptions of their wishes to "sell" their own perspectives to patients while simultaneously wanting to demonstrate a patient-focused approach and avoid the interpersonal conflicts which arose from clashes with patients' beliefs. Building a good initial rapport, showing empathy and adapting approaches in response to perceptions of patients' reactions were perceived as strategies to help mitigate the risks of failed communication, but this was something for which participants felt unprepared by their prior training.

The best treatment option(s) for adult and elderly patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain (CPMP) is one subcategory of the new classification of chronic primary pain for the upcoming ICD-11, defined as chronic pain in the muscles, bones, joints, or tendons that persists or recurs for more than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or functional disability. An array of pharmacological, psychological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions is available for CPMP, for which previous research has demonstrated varying effect sizes with regard to effectiveness in pain reduction and other main outcomes. This highlights the need for the synthesis of all available evidence. The proposed network meta-analysis will compare all available interventions for CPMP to determine the best treatment option(s) with a focus on efficacy and safety of interventions.

METHODS

We are interested in comparing interventions of the following types: psychological, pharmacological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions. We will include all randomized controlled trials that compare one intervention with another, or with a control group, in the treatment of CPMP. Primary efficacy outcomes will be pain intensity, emotional distress, and functional disability. Safety outcomes extracted will include proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events, unwanted events, or drop-out rates due to side effects. Published and unpublished trials will be sought through the search of all relevant databases and trial registries. At least two independent reviewers of the team will select the references and extract data independently. We will assess the risk of bias of each individual study using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will fit our model primarily within a Bayesian framework.

DISCUSSION

CPMP is a disabling condition for which several interventions exist. To our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis to systematically compare all available evidence. This is required by national health institutions to inform their decisions about the best available treatment option(s) with regard to efficacy and safety outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018096114.

Neurophysiological Pain Education for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of neurophysiological pain education (NPE) for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in 6 electronic databases. Eligible randomized-controlled trials were those with at least 50 % of patients with CLBP and in which NPE was compared with no intervention or usual care. Methodological quality was assessed independently by 2 of the authors using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The effect of NPE was summarized in a random effect meta-analysis for pain, disability, and behavioral attitudes. Effect was estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) if outcomes were on the same scale or as standardized mean difference (SMD). The overall quality of evidence was evaluated according to GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven randomized-controlled trial studies (6 low and 1 high quality) were included. Statistically significant differences in pain, in favor of NPE, were found after treatment, WMD=-1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.55 to -1.52), and after 3 months, WMD=-1.09 (95% CI, -2.17 to 0.00). Furthermore statistically significant lower disability was found in the NPE group after treatment, SMD=-0.47 (95% CI, -0.80 to -0.13) and after 3 months SMD=-0.38 (95% CI, -0.74 to -0.02). The difference in favor of NPE in reduction in Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia was not statistically significant, WMD=-5.73 (95% CI, -13.60 to 2.14) and after 3 months WMD=-0.94 (95% CI, -6.28 to 4.40).

DISCUSSION

There was moderate evidence supporting the hypothesis that NPE has a small to moderate effect on pain and low evidence of a small to moderate effect on disability immediately after the intervention. NPE has a small to moderate effect on pain and disability at 3 months follow-up in patients with CLBP.

Pain Mechanisms in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Mechanical Quantitative Sensory Testing Outcomes in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Mechanical quantitative sensory testing (QST) assesses sensory functioning and detects functional changes in (central) nociceptive processing. It has been hypothesized that these functional changes might be apparent in people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP), although the results are mixed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to examine whether sensory function, measured with QST, was altered in people with nonspecific LBP.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Six databases were searched for relevant literature. Studies comparing mechanical QST measures involving people with subacute and chronic LBP and healthy controls were included if (1) pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), (2) temporal summation, or (3) conditioned pain modulation were reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. When possible, the results from different studies were pooled.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included. Scores on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale varied between 1 and 6 points. People with nonspecific LBP, compared to healthy controls, had significantly lower PPTs at remote sites and increased temporal summation at the lower back. The PPTs measured at the scapula were significantly lower in patients with nonspecific LBP than in healthy controls (pooled mean difference, 119.2 kPa; 95% confidence interval: 91.8, 146.6 kPa; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

The PPT measurements at remote body parts were significantly lower in people with nonspecific LBP compared with healthy controls. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation measurements had mixed outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 3a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):698-715. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8876.

Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute low back pain: systematic review

Background and aims There has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute low back pain (LBP). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TENS for acute LBP. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (inception to May 2018) for randomised placebo controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was pain relief in the immediate term (within 2-weeks of administration) assessed using the 100 mm visual analogue scale. A mean difference of at least 10 points on the 100-point pain scale was considered clinically significant. Methodological quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the PEDro scale and overall quality assessment rating was assessed using GRADE. Results Three placebo controlled studies (n = 192) were included. One low quality trial (n = 63) provides low quality evidence that ~30 min treatment with TENS in an emergency-care setting provides clinically worthwhile pain relief for moderate to severe acute LBP in the immediate term compared with sham TENS [Mean Difference (MD) - 28.0 (95% CI - 32.7, -23.3)]. Two other studies which administered a course of TENS over 4-5 weeks, in more usual settings provide inconclusive evidence; MD -2.75 (95% CI -11.63, 6.13). There was limited data on adverse events or long term follow-up. Conclusions The current evidence is insufficient to support or dismiss the use of TENS for acute LBP. Implications There is insufficient evidence to guide the use of TENS for acute LBP. There is low quality evidence of moderate improvements in pain with a short course of TENS (~30 min) during emergency transport of patients to the hospital. Future research should evaluate whether TENS has an opioid sparing role in the management of acute LBP.

Smartphone-Based Remote Self-Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study

Objective

To assess the additional effect of self-management on physiotherapy via the use of APPS on management of chronic low back pain.

Method

A single-blinded randomized control trial was conducted. 8 participants (male: 4; female: 4) were recruited from the Rehabilitation Clinic of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Participants in the treatment group received self-management plus physiotherapy and the control group received physiotherapy only. Assessment was carried out pretreatment, midterm (week 2), and posttreatment (week 4), including Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and SF36.

Results

Compared with the physiotherapy group, the self-management plus physiotherapy group had significance in PSEQ (p=0.035), RMDQ (p=0.035), SF36-Bodily Pain (p=0.008), and SF36-Mental Health (p=0.013). VAS showed a positive trend although there was no significant difference.

Conclusion

This pilot study indicated that smartphone APPS-based self-management program appears to bring additional benefits to physiotherapy for patients with CLBP. Self-management is a potential approach for people with CLBP.