Understanding how individualised physiotherapy or advice altered different elements of disability for people with low back pain using network analysis

Purpose

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a common aggregate measure of disability for people with Low Back Pain (LBP). Scores on individual items and the relationship between items of the ODI may help understand the complexity of low back disorders and their response to treatment. In this study, we present a network analysis to explore how individualised physiotherapy or advice might influence individual items of the ODI, and the relationship between those items, at different time points for people with LBP.

Methods

Data from a randomised controlled trial (n = 300) comparing individualised physiotherapy versus advice for low back pain were used. A network analysis was performed at baseline, 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks, with the 10 items of the Oswestry Disability Index modelled as continuous variables and treatment group (Individualised Physiotherapy or Advice) modelled as a dichotomous variable. A Mixed Graphical Model was used to estimate associations between variables in the network, while centrality indices (Strength, Closeness and Betweenness) were calculated to determine the importance of each variable.

Results

Individualised Physiotherapy was directly related to lower Sleep and Pain scores at all follow-up time points relative to advice, as well as a lower Standing score at 10-weeks, and higher Lifting and Travelling scores at 5-weeks. The strongest associations in the network were between Sitting and Travelling at weeks 5 and 26, between Walking and Standing at week 10, and between Sitting and Standing scores at week 52. ODI items with the highest centrality measures were consistently found to be Pain, Work and Social Life.

Conclusion

This study represents the first to understand how individualised physiotherapy or advice differentially altered disability in people with LBP. Individualised Physiotherapy directly reduced Pain and Sleep more effectively than advice, which in turn may have facilitated improvements in other disability items. Through their high centrality measures, Pain may be considered as a candidate therapeutic target for optimising LBP management, while Work and Socialising may need to be addressed via intermediary improvements in lifting, standing, walking, travelling or sleep. Slower (5-week follow-up) improvements in Lifting and Travelling as an intended element of the Individualised Physiotherapy approach did not negatively impact any longer-term outcomes.

Trials registration

ACTRN12609000834257.

How does individualised physiotherapy work for people with low back pain? A Bayesian Network analysis using randomised controlled trial data

PURPOSE

Individualised physiotherapy is an effective treatment for low back pain. We sought to determine how this treatment works by using randomised controlled trial data to develop a Bayesian Network model.

METHODS

300 randomised controlled trial participants (153 male, 147 female, mean age 44.1) with low back pain (of duration 6-26 weeks) received either individualised physiotherapy or advice. Variables with potential to explain how individualised physiotherapy works were included in a multivariate Bayesian Network model. Modelling incorporated the intervention period (0-10 weeks after study commencement-"early" changes) and the follow-up period (10-52 weeks after study commencement-"late" changes). Sequences of variables in the Bayesian Network showed the most common direct and indirect recovery pathways followed by participants with low back pain receiving individualised physiotherapy versus advice.

RESULTS

Individualised physiotherapy directly reduced early disability in people with low back pain. Individualised physiotherapy exerted indirect effects on pain intensity, recovery expectations, sleep, fear, anxiety, and depression via its ability to facilitate early improvement in disability. Early improvement in disability, led to an early reduction in depression both directly and via more complex pathways involving fear, recovery expectations, anxiety, and pain intensity. Individualised physiotherapy had its greatest influence on early change variables (during the intervention period).

CONCLUSION

Individualised physiotherapy for low back pain appears to work predominately by facilitating an early reduction in disability, which in turn leads to improvements in other biopsychosocial outcomes. The current study cannot rule out that unmeasured mechanisms (such as tissue healing or reduced inflammation) may mediate the relationship between individualised physiotherapy treatment and improvement in disability. Further data-driven analyses involving a broad range of plausible biopsychosocial variables are recommended to fully understand how treatments work for people with low back pain.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ACTRN12609000834257.

Clinical features as predictors of histologically confirmed inflammation in patients with lumbar disc herniation with associated radiculopathy

Background

An understanding of the clinical features of inflammation in low back pain with or without leg symptoms may allow targeted evaluations of anti-inflammatory treatment in randomised-controlled-trials and clinical practice.

Purpose

This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features to predict the presence/absence of histologically confirmed inflammation in herniated disc specimens removed at surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation and associated radiculopathy (DHR).

Study design

Cohort Study.

Methods

Disc material from patients with DHR undergoing lumbar discectomy was sampled and underwent histological/immunohistochemistry analyses. Control discs were sampled from patients undergoing surgical correction for scoliosis. Baseline assessment comprising sociodemographic factors, subjective examination, physical examination and psychosocial screening was conducted and a range of potential clinical predictors of inflammation developed based on the existing literature. Multi-variate analysis was undertaken to determine diagnostic accuracy.

Results

Forty patients with DHR and three control patients were recruited. None of the control discs had evidence of inflammation compared to 28% of patients with DHR. Predictors of the presence of histologically confirmed inflammation included back pain < 5/10, symptoms worse the next day after injury, lumbar flexion range between 0 and 30° and a positive clinical inflammation score (at least 3 of: constant symptoms, morning pain/stiffness greater than 60-min, short walking not easing symptoms and significant night symptoms). The model achieved a sensitivity of 90.9%, a specificity of 92.9%, and a predictive accuracy of 92.3%.

Conclusion

In a sample of patients with lumbar DHR a combination of clinical features predicted the presence or absence of histologically confirmed inflammation.

Clinical relevance

These clinical features may enable targeted anti-inflammatory treatment in future RCTs and in clinical practice.

A multivariate prognostic model for pain and activity limitation in people undergoing lumbar discectomy

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify a multivariate predictive model for 6-month outcomes on overall pain, leg pain and activity limitation in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy. Identification of predictors of outcome for lumbar discectomy has the potential to assist identifying treatment targets, clinical decision making and disease understanding.Materials and methods: Prospective cohort design. Ninety-seven patients deemed by study surgeons to be suitable for lumbar discectomy completed a comprehensive clinical and radiological baseline assessment. At 6-months post surgery outcome measures of overall and leg pain (visual analogue scale) as well as activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) were completed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the best multivariate predictive model of outcome.Results: In the multivariate model, presence of a compensation claim, longer duration of injury and presence of below knee pain and/or parasthesia were negative prognostic indicators for at least two of the outcomes. Peripheralization in response to mechanical loading strategies was a positive prognostic indicator for overall pain and leg pain. A range of other prognostic indicators for one outcome were also identified. The prognostic model explained up to 32% of the variance in outcome.Conclusions: An 11-factor prognostic model was identified from a range of clinically and radiologically assessed variables in accordance with a biopsychosocial model. The multivariate model has potential implications for researchers and practitioners in the field. Further high quality research is required to externally validate the prognostic model, evaluate effect of the identified prognostic factors on treatment effectiveness and explore potential mechanisms of effect.

The Evolving Case Supporting Individualised Physiotherapy for Low Back Pain

Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most burdensome health problems in the world. Guidelines recommend simple treatments such as advice that may result in suboptimal outcomes, particularly when applied to people with complex biopsychosocial barriers to recovery. Individualised physiotherapy has the potential of being more effective for people with LBP; however, there is limited evidence supporting this approach. A series of studies supporting the mechanisms underpinning and effectiveness of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine (STOPS) approach to individualised physiotherapy have been published. The clinical and research implications of these findings are presented and discussed. Treatment based on the STOPS approach should also be considered as an approach to individualised physiotherapy in people with LBP.

An empirical, pragmatic approach applying reflection in interaction approach to manual therapy treatments

Background: Most literature on decision processes within physiotherapy relates to "reasoning that results in action" - decisions based on information including assessments that are gathered prior to treatment decisions. A process of "reasoning in interaction" that is often used, particularly by expert clinicians, has received less attention. Objective:  To provide a theoretical and practical approach to applying reasoning in interaction in a musculoskeletal setting. Methods: The theory is: If an impairment that can be directly targeted by treatment (i.e. pain or limitation of passive movement) is related to patient's active impairments and functional limitations, then moment-to-moment changes in the targeted impairment can be used as feedback to guide real-time treatment modification before formal reassessment of functional limitations and other impairments. Results: Applying the theory to manual therapy results in parameters of techniques such as force, speed, direction and duration no longer being pre-determined, but rather being continually adjusted in real-time according to feedback from the patient through both therapist perception (changes in movement quantity or quality) and patient verbal responses. Conclusion: A process of continuous decision-making is described that the authors believe is used by many experienced clinicians but has not previously been adequately described in the literature. .

General strength and conditioning versus motor control with manual therapy for improving depressive symptoms in chronic low back pain: A randomised feasibility trial

Objectives

Exercise can be used as a treatment for depressive symptoms in the general population. However, little is known as to whether exercise has mental health benefits for adults experiencing chronic low back pain (CLBP). The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of two intervention protocols commonly used in clinical practice for treating chronic low back pain, but with differing exercise dose, on depressive symptoms.

Methods

Forty men and women (mean age = 35) experiencing chronic persistent (>3 months), non-specific low back pain were recruited into a randomised clinical trial during 2015–2016. Participants were randomised to receive motor control (low-dose exercise) and manual therapy (n = 20), or general strength and conditioning training (moderate-dose exercise) (n = 20). Depressive symptoms were assessed fortnightly throughout a 6-month follow-up period using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D 10). Linear mixed models were used to examine within-group and between-group changes in depressive symptoms.

Results

Mean CES-D 10 score at baseline was 9.17 (SD = 4.32). There was evidence of a small decrease in average depressive symptoms over time (β -0.19 per fortnight, 95% CI = -0.34, -0.02). However, there was no evidence that change over time was dependent on treatment group.

Conclusions

Reduction in depressive symptoms amongst adults with CLBP occurred with both treatment methods (motor control [low-dose exercise] and manual therapy; or general strength and conditioning [moderate-dose exercise]). Further interventions including a true control group are needed to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of each of these treatment methods on depressive symptoms amongst adults with CLBP.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001270505. Registered on 20 November 2015.

Development of a Multivariate Prognostic Model for Pain and Activity Limitation in People With Low Back Disorders Receiving Physiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors for back pain, leg pain, and activity limitation in patients with early persistent low back disorders (LBDs).

DESIGN

Prospective inception cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care private physiotherapy clinics in Melbourne, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals (N=300) aged 18-65 years with low back and/or referred leg pain of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Numeric rating scales for back pain and leg pain as well as the Oswestry Disability Scale.

RESULTS

Prognostic factors included sociodemographics, treatment related factors, subjective/physical examination, subgrouping factors, and standardized questionnaires. Univariate analysis followed by generalized estimating equations were used to develop a multivariate prognostic model for back pain, leg pain, and activity limitation. Fifty-eight prognostic factors progressed to the multivariate stage where 15 showed significant (P<.05) associations with at least 1 of the 3 outcomes. There were 5 indicators of positive outcome (2 types of LBD subgroups, paresthesia below waist, walking as an easing factor, and low transversus abdominis tone) and 10 indicators of negative outcome (both parents born overseas, deep leg symptoms, longer sick leave duration, high multifidus tone, clinically determined inflammation, higher back and leg pain severity, lower lifting capacity, lower work capacity, and higher pain drawing percentage coverage). The preliminary model identifying predictors of LBDs explained up to 37% of the variance in outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated a comprehensive range of prognostic factors reflective of both the biomedical and psychosocial domains of LBDs. The preliminary multivariate model requires further validation before being considered for clinical use.

Facet joint injections for people with persistent non-specific low back pain (Facet Injection Study): a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2009 guidelines for persistent low back pain (LBP) do not recommend the injection of therapeutic substances into the back as a treatment for LBP because of the absence of evidence for their effectiveness. This feasibility study aimed to provide a stable platform that could be used to evaluate a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular facet joint injections (FJIs) when added to normal care.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the feasibility of running a RCT to test the hypothesis that, for people with suspected facet joint back pain, adding the option of intra-articular FJIs (local anaesthetic and corticosteroids) to best usual non-invasive care is clinically effective and cost-effective.

DESIGN

The trial was a mixed design. The RCT pilot protocol development involved literature reviews and a consensus conference followed by a randomised pilot study with an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation.

SETTING

Five NHS acute trusts in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderately troublesome LBP present (> 6 months), who had failed previous conservative treatment and who had suspected facet joint pain. The study aimed to recruit 150 participants (approximately 30 per site). Participants were randomised sequentially by a remote service to FJIs combined with 'best usual care' (BUC) or BUC alone.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants were to receive six sessions of a bespoke BUC rehabilitation package. Those randomised into the intervention arm were, in addition, given FJIs with local anaesthetic and steroids (at up to six injection sites). Randomisation occurred at the end of the first BUC session.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Process and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes included a measurement of level of pain on a scale from 0 to 10, which was collected daily and then weekly via text messaging (or through a written diary). Questionnaire follow-up was at 3 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-two stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. Agreement informed several statistical questions and three design considerations: diagnosis, the process of FJI and the BUC package and informing the design for the randomised pilot study. Recruitment started on 26 June 2015 and was terminated by the funder (as a result of poor recruitment) on 11 December 2015. In total, 26 participants were randomised. Process data illuminate some of the reasons for recruitment problems but also show that trial processes after enrolment ran smoothly. No between-group analysis was carried out. All pain-related outcomes show the expected improvement between baseline and follow-up. The mean total cost of the overall treatment package (injection £419.22 and BUC £264.00) was estimated at £683.22 per participant. This is similar to a NHS tariff cost for a course of FJIs of £686.84.

LIMITATIONS

Poor recruitment was a limiting factor.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study achieved consensus on the main challenges in a trial of FJIs for people with persistent non-specific low back pain.

FUTURE WORK

Further work is needed to test recruitment from alternative clinical situations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2014-000682-50 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93184143.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Who Benefits Most From Individualized Physiotherapy or Advice for Low Back Disorders? A Preplanned Effect Modifier Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A preplanned effect modifier analysis of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics associated with larger or smaller treatment effects in people with low back disorders undergoing either individualized physical therapy or guideline-based advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Identifying subgroups of people who attain a larger or smaller benefit from particular treatments has been identified as a high research priority for low back disorders.

METHODS

The trial involved 300 participants with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 wk, ≤6 mo duration), who satisfied criteria to be classified into five subgroups (with 228 participants classified into three subgroups relating to disc-related disorders, and 64 classified into the zygapophyseal joint dysfunction subgroup). Participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline based advice (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial, and neurophysiological factors (n = 156). Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models determined the interaction between treatment group and potential effect modifiers (defined a priori) for the primary outcomes of back pain, leg pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) and activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) over a 52-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants with higher levels of back pain, higher Örebro scores (indicative of higher risk of persistent pain) or longer duration of symptoms derived the largest benefits from individualized physical therapy relative to advice. Poorer coping also predicted larger benefits from individualized physical therapy in the univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that people with low back disorders could be preferentially targeted for individualized physical therapy rather than advice if they have higher back pain levels, longer duration of symptoms, or higher Örebro scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Variability in Strength, Pain, and Disability Changes in Response to an Isolated Lumbar Extension Resistance Training Intervention in Participants with Chronic Low Back Pain

Strengthening the lumbar extensor musculature is a common recommendation for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although reported as effective, variability in response in CLBP populations is not well investigated. This study investigated variability in responsiveness to isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) resistance training in CLBP participants by retrospective analysis of three previous randomized controlled trials. Data from 77 participants were available for the intervention arms (males = 43, females = 34) 37 participants data (males = 20, females = 17) from the control arms. Intervention participants had all undergone 12 weeks of ILEX resistance training and changes in ILEX strength, pain (visual analogue scale; VAS), and disability (Oswestry disability index; ODI) measured. True inter-individual (i.e., between participants) variability in response was examined through calculation of difference in the standard deviation of change scores for both control and intervention arms. Intervention participants were classified into responder status using k-means cluster analysis for ILEX strength changes and using minimal clinically important change cut-offs for VAS and ODI. Change in average ILEX strength ranged 7.6 Nm (1.9%) to 192.1 Nm (335.7%). Change in peak ILEX strength ranged -12.2 Nm (-17.5%) to 276.6 Nm (169.6%). Participants were classified for strength changes as low (n = 31), medium (n = 36), and high responders (n = 10). Change in VAS ranged 12.0 mm to -84.0 mm. Participants were classified for VAS changes as negative (n = 3), non-responders (n = 34), responders (n = 15), and high responders (n = 19). Change in ODI ranged 18 pts to -45 pts. Participants were classified for ODI changes as negative (n = 2), non-responders (n = 21), responders (n = 29), and high responders (n = 25). Considerable variation exists in response to ILEX resistance training in CLBP. Clinicians should be aware of this and future work should identify factors prognostic of successful outcomes.

Optimising conservative management of chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Lower back pain is a global health issue affecting approximately 80% of people at some stage in their life. The current literature suggests that any exercise is beneficial for reducing back pain. However, as pain is a subjective evaluation and physical deficits are evident in low back pain, using it as the sole outcome measure to evaluate superiority of an exercise protocol for low back pain treatment is insufficient. The overarching goal of the current clinical trial is to implement two common, conservative intervention approaches and examine their impact on deficits in chronic low back pain.

Methods/design

Forty participants, 25–45 years old with chronic (>3 months), non-specific low back pain will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either motor control and manual therapy (n = 20) or general strength and conditioning (n = 20) exercise treatments for 6 months. The motor control/manual therapy group will receive twelve 30-min sessions, ten in the first 3 months (one or two per week) and two in the last 3 months. The general exercise group will attend two 1-hour sessions weekly for 3 months, and one or two a week for the following 3 months. Primary outcome measures are average lumbar spine intervertebral disc T2 relaxation time and changes in thickness of the transversus abdominis muscle on a leg lift using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondary outcomes include muscle size and fat content, vertebral body fat content, intervertebral disc morphology and water diffusion measured by MRI, body composition using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, physical function through functional tests, changes in corticospinal excitability and cortical motor representation of the spinal muscles using transcranial magnetic stimulation and self-reported measure of pain symptoms, health and disability. Outcome measures will be conducted at baseline, at the 3-month follow-up and at 6 months at the end of intervention. Pain, depressive symptomology and emotions will be captured fortnightly by questionnaires.

Discussion

Chronic low back pain is ranked the highest disabling disorder in Australia. The findings of this study will inform clinical practice guidelines to assist with decision-making approaches where outcomes beyond pain are sought for adults with chronic low back pain.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001270505. Registered on 20 November 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1913-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Individualized Physical Therapy Is Cost-Effective Compared With Guideline-Based Advice for People With Low Back Disorders

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-utility analysis within a randomized controlled trial was conducted from the health care perspective.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether individualized physical therapy incorporating advice is cost-effective relative to guideline-based advice alone for people with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 weeks, ≤6 months duration of symptoms).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Low back disorders are a burdensome and costly condition across the world. Cost-effective treatments are needed to address the global burden attributable to this condition.

METHODS

Three hundred participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline-based advice alone (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological factors, and incorporating advice (n = 156). Data relating to health care costs, health benefits (EuroQol-5D) and work absence were obtained from participants via questionnaires at 5, 10, 26, and 52-week follow-ups.

RESULTS

Total health care costs were similar for both groups: mean difference $27.03 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): -200.29 to 254.35]. Health benefits across the 12-month follow-up were significantly greater with individualized physical therapy: incremental quality-adjusted life years = 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.10). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $422 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The probability that individualized physical therapy was cost-effective reached 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $36,000. A saving of $1995.51 (95% CI: 143.98-3847.03) per worker in income was realized in the individualized physical therapy group relative to the advice group. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses all revealed a dominant position for individualized physical therapy; hence, the base case analysis was the most conservative.

CONCLUSION

Ten sessions of individualized physical therapy incorporating advice is cost-effective compared with two sessions of guideline-based advice alone for people with low back disorders.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Individualised physiotherapy as an adjunct to guideline-based advice for low back disorders in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with low-back disorders persisting beyond 6 weeks do not recover. This study investigates whether individualised physiotherapy plus guideline-based advice results in superior outcomes to advice alone in participants with low-back disorders.

METHODS

This prospective parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial was set in 16 primary care physiotherapy practices in Melbourne, Australia. Random assignment resulted in 156 participants receiving 10 sessions of physiotherapy that was individualised based on pathoanatomical, psychosocial and neurophysiological barriers to recovery combined with guideline-based advice, and 144 participants receiving 2 sessions of physiotherapist-delivered advice alone. Primary outcomes were activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) and numerical rating scales for back and leg pain at 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postbaseline. Analyses were by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Between-group differences showed significant effects favouring individualised physiotherapy for back and leg pain at 10 weeks (back: 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.8; leg: 1.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7) and 26 weeks (back: 0.9, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4; leg: 1.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.6). Oswestry favoured individualised physiotherapy at 10 weeks (4.7; 95% CI 2.0 to 7.5), 26 weeks (5.4; 95% CI 2.6 to 8.2) and 52 weeks (4.3; 95% CI 1.4 to 7.1). Responder analysis at 52 weeks showed participants receiving individualised physiotherapy were more likely to improve by a clinically important amount of 50% from baseline for Oswestry (relative risk (RR=1.3) 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8) and back pain (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8) than participants receiving advice alone.

CONCLUSIONS

10 sessions of individualised physiotherapy was more effective than 2 sessions of advice alone in participants with low-back disorders of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration. Between-group changes were sustained at 12 months for activity limitation and 6 months for back and leg pain and were likely to be clinically significant.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12609000834257.

Complexity in the physiotherapy management of low back disorders: clinical and research implications

Over the past decade a wide variety of approaches for the management of low back disorders (LBD) have been developed and evaluated in clinical trials. As a consequence physiotherapists and researchers interested in LBD are faced with a range of issues to do with complexity. These issues will be explored and suggestions made to improve the delivery of high quality research evidence and better patient outcomes.

Pathoanatomy and classification of low back disorders

Over the past decade research into the effectiveness of low back disorders (LBDs) has focused on the classification of subgroups more likely to respond to specific treatment. Much of this research has explicitly excluded a focus on pathoanatomical factors based on a questionable interpretation of the biopsychosocial model. Common justifications and potential issues with this approach are explored with recommendations made for future clinical and research practice.

The effectiveness of sub-group specific manual therapy for low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy is frequently used to treat low back pain (LBP), but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. One explanation may be sample heterogeneity and inadequate sub-grouping of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where manual therapy has not been targeted toward those likely to respond.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of specific manual therapy provided to sub-groups of participants identified as likely to respond to manual therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL). TRIAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs on manual therapy for participants identified as belonging to a sub-group of LBP likely to respond to manual therapy were included. TRIAL APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Identified trials were assessed for eligibility. Data from included trials were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed using the PEDro scale and the overall quality of evidence rated according to the GRADE domains. Treatment effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain and activity.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included in the review. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Significant treatment effects were found favouring sub-group specific manual therapy over a number of comparison treatments for pain and activity at short and intermediate follow-up. However, the overall GRADE quality of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness of sub-group specific manual therapy. Further high quality research on LBP sub-groups is required.