Treatment of low back pain: randomized clinical trial comparing a multidisciplinary group-based rehabilitation program with oral drug treatment up to 12 months

Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally from somatic and psychosocial factors. While non-pharmacological management, and in particular physiotherapy, has been recommended as a first-line treatment for cLBP, it is not clear what type of physiotherapeutic approach is the most effective in terms of pain reduction and function improvement. This analysis is rendered more difficult by the vast number of available therapies and a lack of a widely accepted classification that can effectively highlight the differences in the outcomes of different management options. This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In January 2024, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of physiotherapy programs in patients with cLBP were accessed. Studies reporting on non-specific or mechanical cLPB were included. Data concerning the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data from 12,773 patients were collected. The mean symptom duration was 61.2 ± 51.0 months and the mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 5.9 months. The mean age was 44.5 ± 9.4 years. The mean BMI was 25.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest pain score, followed by Multidisciplinary and Adapted Training Exercise/Complementary Medicine. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest RMQ score followed by Therapeutic Exercises and Multidisciplinary. The Multidisciplinary group evidenced the lowest ODI score, followed by Adapted Physical Exercise and Physical Agent modalities. Within the considered physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches to manage nonspecific and/or mechanic cLBP, adapted physical exercise, physical agent modalities, and a multidisciplinary approach might represent the most effective strategy to reduce pain and disability.

Multidisciplinary integrative care versus chiropractic care for low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients' needs more comprehensively.

METHODS

This parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period (P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

Designing and psychometric evaluation of Stretching Exercise Influencing Scale (SEIS)

OBJECTIVE

The lack of reliable and valid tools for assessing the factors that influence stretching exercises (SEs) among Iranian office employees is obvious. This study aimed to design and evaluate psychometric properties of this instrument.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of psychometric properties.

SETTING

Data were gathered from May to September 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 420 office employees who were working in 10 health centres affiliated to the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The instrument was designed on the basis of the constructs of the health promotion model (HPM) and extant literature. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were employed to check the scale's psychometric properties.

RESULTS

In total, 420 questionnaires were completed. The mean age of the office employees was 37.1±8.03 years. Among the 86 items, 77 items had significant item-to-total correlations (p<0.05). The results showed good internal consistency and reliability for the whole questionnaire and each domain. EFA results confirmed 53.32% of the total variance of the items yielded in 11 subscales. The ICC was acceptable (0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The Stretching Exercise Influencing Scale (SEIS) can be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the factors that influence SEs among office employees.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20160824295512N1.

Educational intervention for promoting stretching exercise behavior among a sample of Iranian office employees: applying the Health Promotion Model

INTRODUCTION

Health Promotion Model (HPM) is one comprehensive model by which health behavior predicting factors could be determined.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of a designed interventional program based on HPM on promoting stretching exercise (SE) behavior among office employees.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This interventional designed study was carried out on 87 office employees who were working in the three health networks affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran. These participants were randomly divided into intervention group (N=44) who complied with educational program based on HPM and control group (N=43) who did not receive the program. The data were collected through a demographic questionnaire and a researcher-made questionnaire based on HPM at three times of baseline, 3- and 6-month follow-ups and analyzed using SPSS version 19.

RESULTS

Totally, 40 office employees with mean age of (37.70±7.40) in intervention and 37 ones with mean age of (35.97±7.34) in control group were assessed. At baseline, both groups were the same regarding the HPM constructs of perceived barriers, perceived self-efficacy, commitment to plan, and interpersonal influences (P>0.05). However, following intervention, there was a significant difference between two groups during 6-month follow-up in all these predictor factors (P<0.0001). Furthermore, the mean score of SE behavior in intervention group (22.43±6.50) was significantly better than the control group (15.45±0.93) (P<0.001). The pain severity also in intervention group (1±1.22) also was significantly less than control group (2±2.03) after 6-month follow-up (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The SE educational programs applied in this study were effective for promoting SE among office employees.

Randomized study of the impact of a therapeutic education program on patients suffering from chronic low-back pain who are treated with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is often used for the treatment of low-back pain (LBP). However, its effectiveness is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment LBP when associated to a therapeutic education program (TEP).

DESIGN

Open randomized monocentric study.

SETTING

University hospital between 2010 and 2014.

PATIENTS

A total of 97 patients suffering from LBP.

INTERVENTIONS

Routine care (TENS group) or routine care plus a therapeutic education program (TENS-TEP group) based on consultation support by a pain resource nurse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

EIFEL and Dallas Pain Questionnaire scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (44%) were still assessable at the end-of-study visit, whereas 33 (70%) were assessable at the same time point in the TENS-TEP group (P = .013). The EIFEL score and the Dallas score had a similar evolution over time between groups (P = .18 and P = .50 respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to resting pain scores (P = .94 for back pain and P = .16 for leg pain) and movement pain scores (P = .52 for back pain and P = .56 for leg pain). At Month 6, there was no significant difference between the groups (P = .85) with regard to analgesics and social impact. Two patients presented a serious adverse event during the study (one in each group) but non-attributable to the treatment studied.

CONCLUSION

This study does not support the use of TENS in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP even though patients benefited from a therapeutic education program by a pain resource nurse. However, the higher number of premature withdrawals in the TENS group may be due to early withdrawal of patients who did not experience improvement of their symptoms.

The Sano study: justification and detailed description of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic low back pain

Objective:

To justify and describe an integrated rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain prior to evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

Method:

The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was used as a structural framework for the description of the integrated rehabilitation programme. As a part of the description, the Medical Research Council guidance, ‘Developing and evaluating complex interventions’, was used as a framework to justify the integrated rehabilitation programme.

Intervention description:

The integrated rehabilitation programme adopts a participatory biopsychosocial approach integrating inpatient activities supported by a multidisciplinary team and learning located within the patient’s own environment. The integrated rehabilitation programme comprises 3 weeks of inpatient stay and 11 weeks of home-based activities. The inpatient part of the programme consists of 38 clinical activities, some of them delivered more than once. The 38 clinical activities were described in an activity sheet developed for this purpose, combining five items from the TIDieR.

Conclusion:

An integrated rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain has been justified and described. The intervention description is currently being used for successful structuring and standardization of the content and delivery of the integrated rehabilitation programme in a randomized controlled trial.

Trail registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02884466.

Potential analysis of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain / Potentialanalyse der multidisziplinären biopsychosozialen Rehabilitation für Patienten/-innen mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen

Health problem

The prevalence of low back pain ranges from 74 to 85%, almost everybody in Germany suffers from low back pain once in his or her life. The recurrence rate within twelve months is 62%, which often leads to inability to work and reduction in earning capacity. The rate of chronic manifestation of low back pain is 5%. Subsequent loss of mobility and functional disability lowers quality of life and participation in private life and at work.

Evidence

A recent Cochrane review (Kamper et al., 2014) analysed six (outcome disability) and seven (outcome pain) studies with 722 and 821 participants respectively and showed that multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to usual care has a small, but clinically relevant effect (pain: SMD -0,21 [CI 95% -0,37; -0,04]; disability: SMD -0,23 [CI 95% -0,4; -0,06]). There is a lack of evidence about the intervention conception, patient-centred outcomes and the cost effectiveness.

Implication for research

Prior to a randomised controlled trial a feasibility study about individualised multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation compared to usual care considering people with chronic low back pain at employable age in Germany is needed. The applicability of available manuals, patient-centred outcomes and cost effectiveness should be explored.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for sciatica

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for the treatment of sciatica. A previous Cochrane review on the efficacy of NSAIDs summarised findings for acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) and sciatica. This is an update of the original review (2008) focusing on people suffering from sciatica.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in pain reduction, overall improvement, and reported side effects in people with sciatica.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches up to 24 June 2015 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and two trials registers. We searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews on the topics for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (double-blind, single-blind, and open-label) that assessed the efficacy of NSAIDs in sciatica. We included all trials that compared NSAIDs to placebo, to other NSAIDs, or to other medication. Additional interventions were allowed if there was a clear contrast for the treatment with NSAIDs in the trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Where feasible we calculated pooled results using Review Manager 5.3. We reported pain relief outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI to report global improvement of treatment, adverse effects, and additional medication. We performed a meta-analysis if possible. We assessed level of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials reported in 9 publications (N = 1651). Only one trial out of 10 was assessed at low risk of bias. Five trials used the currently recommended daily dose for the drug, and two trials used lower daily doses available over the counter. Three trials investigated NSAIDs no longer approved for human use. The follow-up duration was short in all studies but one.Three trials (n = 918) compared the effects of NSAIDs to those of placebo on pain reduction. The pooled mean difference showed comparable pain reduction (visual analogue scale, 0 to 100) in the NSAIDs and placebo groups (MD -4.56, 95% CI -11.11 to 1.99). Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 82%), and the quality of the evidence was very low. When we excluded one trial with a short follow-up of eight hours, the mean difference further decreased (MD -0.09, 95% CI -9.89 to 9.71). Three trials (n = 753) compared NSAIDs to placebo regarding global improvement. We found low-quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo with a risk ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). One trial (n = 214) studied the effect of NSAIDs on disability, finding very low-quality evidence that NSAIDs are no more effective than placebo on disability. Four trials (n = 967) comparing NSAIDs to placebo reported adverse effects, with low-quality evidence that the risk for adverse effects is higher in the NSAID group than in the placebo group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.93). The adverse effects reported in this review are consistent with those previously reported in the literature.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated systematic review including 10 trials evaluating the efficacy of NSAIDs versus placebo or other drugs in people with sciatica reports low- to very low-level evidence using the GRADE criteria. The efficacy of NSAIDs for pain reduction was not significant. NSAIDs showed a better global improvement compared to placebo. These findings must be interpreted with caution, as the level of evidence according to the GRADE classification was very low for the outcome pain reduction and low for global improvement due to small study samples, inconsistent results, imprecision, and a high risk of bias in the included trials. While the trials included in the analysis were not powered to detect potential rare side effects, we found an increased risk for side effects in the short-term NSAIDs use. As NSAIDs are frequently prescribed, the risk-benefit ratio of prescribing the drug needs to be considered.

Work-Related Low Back Pain Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial from Tehran, Iran, Comparing Multidisciplinary Educational Program versus Physiotherapy Education

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical trial.

PURPOSE

To compare the multidisciplinary educational program versus physiotherapy education among Iranian nurses.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Low back pain (LBP) can accompany significant occupational injuries in the nursing profession. There is no agreement on the most effective educational practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted from August 17, 2014 to September 22, 2014 in Tehran, Iran. Eligible nurses with chronic mechanical LBP (n=136) were classified into an intervention group (n=66) or the control group (n=70). The intervention group received physiotherapy education for 120-minutes followed by a 120-minute health education session based on predictive constructs of social cognitive theory (SCT). The control group received the 120-minute physiotherapy education. Disability rate, pain severity and back pain prevention behavior were measured at initially and 3 months after intervention using visual analogue scale, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and nursing low back pain preventive behaviors questionnaire.

RESULTS

The two groups were the same in terms of all studied variables at the initiation of the study. At the 3-month follow up, predictive constructs of LBP preventive behaviors of participants in the intervention were improved (p<0.001). Significant decreases were evident at 3 months in pain severity (p=0.03) and disability (p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The designed multidisciplinary educational intervention could decrease chronic mechanical LBP in nurses.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.33 to -1.27) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of -0.85 (95% CI -1.30 to -0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.Two studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.One included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Six of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.