Management of low back pain in general practice - is it of acceptable quality: an observational study among 25 general practices in South Tyrol (Italy)

Patient experiences of referral practices and primary care physiotherapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines recommend referral for patients with persistent LBP however discordance persists between recommended care and implementation in practice. Understanding patient experiences of referral practices and physiotherapy care could be important for optimizing LBP management in primary care settings.

PURPOSE

This study explored referral experiences of people with nonspecific LBP in Australian primary care and their knowledge and experience of physiotherapy.

METHODS

An interpretive descriptive qualitative framework was used with 17 participants interviewed from community-based physiotherapy practices.

RESULTS

Four themes described the participants' experiences of referrals in primary care settings: 1) Referral practices ranged from formal to informal to non-existent; 2) Fragmented inter-and intra-professional LBP care management; 3) Patient perceived differences in the roles of physiotherapists and specialist physiotherapists; and 4) Patient nominated barriers and facilitators to optimal referral practices.

CONCLUSION

Physiotherapists support people with LBP to improve strength and function, whereas the specialist physiotherapist's role was seen as more holistic. Referral pathways that align to clinical guideline recommendations for non-surgical management and treatment remain underdeveloped. Improved referral pathways to clinicians such as physiotherapists with additional credentialed skills and competence in musculoskeletal care could improve people's experiences of care and health outcomes.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Spinal pain patients seeking care in primary care and referred to physiotherapy: A cross-sectional study on patients characteristics, referral information and physiotherapy care offered by general practitioners and physiotherapists in France

Objectives

To describe spinal pain patients referred by their treating general practitioners to physiotherapy care, examine to which extent physiotherapy interventions proposed by general practitioners and physiotherapists were compliant to evidence based recommendations, and evaluate concordance between providers in terms of diagnosis and contraindications to physiotherapy interventions.

Methods

This study included spinal pain patients recruited from a random sample of sixty French physiotherapists. Physiotherapists were asked to supply patients’ physiotherapy records and characteristics from the general practitioner’s physiotherapy referral for the five new consecutive patients referred to physiotherapy. General practitioner’s physiotherapy referral and physiotherapists’ clinical findings characteristics were analyzed and compared to evidence-based recommendations using Chi-squared tests. Cohen’s kappas were calculated for diagnosis and contraindications to physiotherapy interventions.

Results

Three hundred patients with spinal pain were included from sixty physiotherapists across France. The mean age of the patients was 48.0 ± 7.2 years and 53% were female. The most common spinal pain was low back pain (n = 147). Diagnoses or reason of referral formulated by general practitioners were present for 27% of all patients (n = 82). Compared to general practitioners, physiotherapists recommended significantly more frequently recommended interventions such as education, spinal exercises or manual therapy. General practitioners prescribed significantly more frequently passive physiotherapy approaches such as massage therapy and electrotherapy. The overall proportion of agreement beyond chance for identification of a diagnosis or reason of referral was 41% with a weak concordance (κ = 0.19; 95%CI: 0.08–0.31). The overall proportion of compliant physiotherapists was significantly higher than for general practitioners (76.7% vs 47.0%; p<0.001).

Conclusions

We found that information required for the referral of spinal pain patients to physiotherapy is often incomplete. The majority of general practitioners did not conform to evidence-based recommendations in terms of prescribed specific physiotherapy care; in contrast to a majority of physiotherapists.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04177121

Efficacy and tolerability of the antispasmodic, pridinol, in patients with muscle-pain - results of primepain, a retrospective analysis of open-label real-world data provided by the German pain E-registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of the nonbenzodiazepine antispasmodic pridinol (PRI), as an add-on treatment in patients with muscle-related pain (MRP).

METHODS

Exploratory retrospective analysis of depersonalized routine data provided by the German Pain e-Registry (GPeR) focusing on pain intensity, pain-related disabilities in daily life, wellbeing, and drug-related adverse events (DRAEs).Primary endpoint based on a global response composite of (a) a clinically relevant analgesic response (relative improvement ≥50% and/or absolute improvement ≥ the minimal clinical important difference) for pain intensity and disability in combination with (b) an improvement in wellbeing (all at end of treatment vs. baseline), and (c) lack of any DRAEs.

RESULTS

Between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020, the GPeR collected information on 121,803 pain patients of whom 1133 (0.9%; 54.5% female, mean ± SD age: 53.9 ± 11.8 years) received add-on PRI for the treatment of (mostly acute) MRP originating predominantly in the (lower) back (43.2%), lower limb (26.4%), or should/neck (21.1%). Average daily dose was 7.8 ± 1.8 (median 9, range 1.5-13.5) mg, duration of treatment 12.0 ± 10.2 (median 7, range 3-63) days. In total, 666 patients (58.8%) reported a complete, 395 (34.9%) a partial, and 72 (6.4%) patients no response - either because of lack of efficacy (n = 2, 0.2%) or DRAEs (n = 70, 6.2%). In response to PRI, 41.7% of patients documented a reduction of at least one other pain medication and 30.8% even the complete cessation of any other pharmacological pain treatments.

CONCLUSION

Based on this real-world data of the German Pain e-Registry, add-on treatment with PRI in patients with acute MRP under real-world conditions in daily life was well tolerated and associated with an improvement of pain intensity, pain-related disabilities, and overall wellbeing.

NSAIDs in sciatica (NIS): study protocol for an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomized placebo-controlled trial of naproxen in patients with sciatica

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat sciatica, despite insufficient evidence from placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs may cause serious side effects; hence, there is a strong need to clarify their potential beneficial effects in patients with sciatica.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Participants will be recruited among sciatica patients referred to outpatient clinics at hospitals in Norway who have radiating pain below the knee with a severity score of ≥ 4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale and clinical signs of nerve root or spinal nerve involvement. The intervention consists of oral naproxen 500 mg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. Participants will report the outcomes and adverse events daily using an electronic case report form. The primary endpoint is change in leg pain intensity from baseline to day 10 based on daily observations. The secondary outcomes are back pain intensity, disability, sciatica symptom severity, rescue medication (paracetamol) consumption, opioid use, ability to work or study, 30% and 50% improvement in leg pain, and global perceived change of sciatica/back problem. The outcomes will be analysed using mixed effects models for repeated measurements. The total duration of follow-up is 12 (± 2) days.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to evaluate the benefits of naproxen, a non-selective NSAID, in patients with sciatica. No important differences in efficacy have been demonstrated between different NSAIDs in the management of musculoskeletal disorders; hence, the results of this trial will likely be applicable to other NSAIDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03347929 . Registered on November 20, 2017.

Barriers to following imaging guidelines for the treatment and management of patients with low-back pain in primary care: a qualitative assessment guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability and is among the top five reasons that patients visit their family doctors. Over-imaging for non-specific low back pain remains a problem in primary care. To inform a larger study to develop and evaluate a theory-based intervention to reduce inappropriate imaging, we completed an assessment of the barriers and facilitators to reducing unnecessary imaging for NSLBP among family doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

Methods

This was an exploratory, qualitative study describing family doctors’ experiences and practices related to diagnostic imaging for non-specific LBP in NL, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were collected using in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed deductively (assigning text to one or more domains) and inductively (generating themes at each of the domains) before the results were examined to determine which domains should be targeted to reduce imaging.

Results

Nine family doctors (four males; five females) working in community (n = 4) and academic (n = 5) clinics in both rural (n = 6) and urban (n = 3) settings participated in this study. We found five barriers to reducing imaging for patients with NSLBP: 1) negative consequences, 2) patient demand 3) health system organization, 4) time, and 5) access to resources. These were related to the following domains: 1) beliefs about consequences, 2) beliefs about capabilities, 3) emotion, 4) reinforcement, 5) environmental context and resources, 6) social influences, and 7) behavioural regulation.

Conclusions

Family physicians a) fear that if they do not image they may miss something serious, b) face significant patient demand for imaging, c) are working in a system that encourages unnecessary imaging, d) don’t have enough time to counsel patients about why they don’t need imaging, and e) lack access to appropriate practitioners, community programs, and treatment modalities to prescribe to their patients. These barriers were related to seven TDF domains. Successfully reducing inappropriate imaging requires a comprehensive intervention that addresses these barriers using established behaviour change techniques. These techniques should be matched directly to relevant TDF domains. The results of our study represent the important first step of this process – identifying the contextual barriers and the domains to which they are related.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01751-6.

Treatment Patterns in Patients with Diagnostic Imaging for Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent reasons for medical consultations. Literature suggests a large evidence-performance gap, especially regarding pain management. Therefore, the monitoring of treatment patterns is important to ensure high quality of treatment. This study aimed to describe treatment patterns specific to patients with diagnostic imaging of the spine for LBP.

Patients and Methods

The study was retrospective observational and based on health claims data from 2015 to 2019 provided by a Swiss health insurance company covering around 12% of the population. Patients, ≥18 years of age, with diagnostic imaging of the spine were included and observed 12 months before and after imaging. Patients with back surgery or comorbidities associated with the use of pain medications were excluded.

Results

In total, 60,822 patients (mean age: 53.5 y, 56.1% female) were included and 85% received at least one pain medication. Of these, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, or opioids were prescribed in 88.6%, 70.7%, and 40.3% of patients, respectively. Strong opioids were used in 17% of patients given opioids. Patients with combinations of diagnostic imaging methods had the highest odds of receiving pain medication prescriptions (1.81, 95% CI: 1.66, 1.96, P < 0.001). Prescribed defined daily doses corresponded to short-term therapies.

Conclusion

Although the majority of patients received non-opioid short-term therapies, we found a substantial use of opioids, and in particular, a relative high usage of strong opioids. Our results highlighted the importance of both patient and healthcare provider awareness regarding the prudent treatment of LBP.

Facing the National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Sources of Data, Indicators, and Participatory Strategies in Healthcare and Social Fields

Innovation in governance and services should be the target of the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan. Monitoring processes, impacts, and outcomes requires a system of new indicators that are practical to collect. Secondary data sources, their availability, and their information potential should be evaluated, and primary sources should be implemented to supplement traditional disease surveillance. This work highlights the most relevant aspects for bridging the mismatching between complex community needs and current health/social supply and how those aspects could be faced. As a result, we propose a structured multi-phases process for setting the design and functionalities of a cooperative information system, built on the integration between secondary and primary data for informing policies about chronic low back pain (CLBP), a widely recognized determinant of disability and significant economic burden. In particular, we propose the Dress-KINESIS, a tool for improving community capacity development and participation that allows one to freely collect big health and social data and link it to existing secondary data. The system also may be able to monitor how the resources are distributed across different care sectors and suggest how to improve efficiency based on the patient’s CLBP risk stratification. Moreover, it is potentially customizable in other fields of health.

Prescribing Patterns of Pain Medications in Unspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Retrospective Analysis

Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009–2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications.

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressants for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33  points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Concordance of patient beliefs and expectations regarding the management of low back pain with guideline recommendations - a cross-sectional study in Germany

Background

Low back pain is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Physician non-adherence to clinical guidelines has been observed. We investigated the extent to which patient expectations correspond to recommendations of the German national guideline for management of low back pain (G-LBP) and whether patient characteristics, history of LBP and previous treatment experience are associated with expectations.

Methods

A cross-sectional study including patients from 13 general practices was conducted. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Inverse probability weights were used to address non-response bias. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were performed.

Results

A total of 977 patients were included in analyses (median age 57 years, 39% male). 75% of patients reported experiencing LBP currently or within the last year. More than 65% indicated they would agree to forgo further examinations if their LBP was judged by their physician to be of no serious concern. This was associated with the highest level of education and no prior imaging, and negatively associated with good-to-poor health status and moderate-to-severe pain intensity. 40% of participants expected imaging. The highest educational level, female gender and no prior imaging were associated with a decreased expectation of imaging. 70% expected prescriptions for massages. Females, participants with good-to-poor health status, current LBP or LBP in the last 12 months had an increased expectation for massages. Expectations for injection therapy (45%) were mainly associated with previous injections. Expectations for physiotherapy (64%) were associated with female gender, lower educational level, good-to-poor health status, current LBP or in the last 12 months. The perspective that daily activities should be continued (66%) was associated with female gender and higher educational level. Participants who agreed to the statement ‘There is no effective treatment for LBP’ (11%) had a poor health status, current LBP and a severe pain intensity.

Conclusion

Patient views regarding LBP management are partially concordant with guideline recommendations and are strongly influenced by previous treatment experiences and education level. Exploration of patient expectations and experiences in LBP treatment may help minimize dissatisfaction of patients expecting treatments not endorsed by guidelines and simultaneously increase physician guideline adherence.

Not All Pain is Created Equal: Basic Definitions and Diagnostic Work-Up

Chronic pain is considered a public health priority by the World Health Organization and European health institutions. It has reached alarming proportions in terms of disability, consumption of health and social resources, and impact on primary and specialist care services. Primary care physicians are often called on to manage this condition. Chronic pain management can be challenging due to its complexity. It has traditionally been considered to include nociceptive pain that that persists longer than the normal healing time, neuropathic pain lasting more than 3 months, or a combination of these. More recently, a third descriptor, nociplastic (primary) pain, was added to classify patients with chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, nonspecific back pain, or mixed pain that persists or other conditions in which altered central pain modulation results in central sensitization and chronic pain in the absence of actual or threatened damage to tissues, including in the somatosensory nervous system. This document provides an overview of pain types and their underlying mechanisms. Successful pain management is facilitated by identification of the pain type. A set of diagnostic tools and a pain algorithm are presented to guide the clinician toward the correct diagnosis. The algorithm identifies cases that may require referral to a pain specialist. Once the site of origin of the pain (the "pain generator") is identified, or a primary pain syndrome is suspected, the accompanying article provides information and rationale to support treatment decisions based on patient characteristics.

Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain.

METHODS

We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Axial spondyloarthritis 10 years on: still looking for the lost tribe

Despite the publication of various recommendations, quality standards and referral strategies to promote early diagnosis in axial SpA (axSpA) over the last decade, there remains a significant delay to diagnosis, leading to a lost tribe of undiagnosed, untreated patients with persistent back pain and axSpA symptoms. This review discusses the various factors contributing to diagnostic delay in axSpA, while providing recommendations to improve the diagnostic pathway, for example use of the online Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation (SPADE) tool (http://www.spadetool.co.uk/). Significant shortcomings exist at both the primary and secondary care level, with healthcare professionals often lacking knowledge and awareness of axSpA. Myths regarding the classical signs and symptoms still prevail, including the perception of axSpA as a male disease, only occurring in individuals who are HLA-B27 positive with raised inflammatory markers. Individuals within this lost tribe of undiagnosed patients are likely lacking adequate treatment and are thereby at risk of worse clinical outcomes. It is therefore vital that public health initiatives are implemented to improve education of healthcare professionals and to ensure early specialist referral, to ultimately improve the lives of patients with axSpA.

Misdirected Patients in Orthopedic Outpatient Clinics: A Retrospective Four Years Data Analysis (23435 Patients)

Objective To identify the frequency of misdirected patients in orthopedic outpatient clinics. Methodology This was a retrospective study done in a private hospital of Jeddah. Computer records of patients attending the orthopedic outpatient department (OPD) during the period of 2013-2017 were collected. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics are presented as frequency and percentages. Results Out of the 23435 cases, 6944 (29.6%) cases should not be seen primarily in orthopedic clinic, 13638 (58.2%) were the cases that may or may not be seen primarily in orthopedic clinic, whereas, there were 2853 (12.2%) who must be seen mainly by orthopedic specialist. Conclusion This study revealed that a huge number of patients who visited orthopedic OPD does not need primarily orthopedic consultation. So, it is recommended to direct the patients to the right specialist in outpatient clinics to avoid the unnecessary burden on orthopedic clinics. The triage of referrals or walk-in patients may help to prevent this issue.

[Diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain]

Low back pain (LBP) is frequent cause for visit to the doctor and common cause of disability. Modern experts' recommendations for diagnostics and treatment of acute LBP are presented. Common mistakes, difficulties in diagnostics and treatment of acute LBP are discussed. Diagnosis of non - specific acute LBP is based on clinical examination and exclusion of specific causes of back pain. Instrumental studies are not needed in most cases of acute LBP. Key steps in the treatment of patients with acute non - specific LBP are to inform of patients about good prognosis of pain, to recommend daily activity and avoidance of bed rest, to prescribe nonsteroidal anti - inflammatory drug for pain reducing. Effectiveness of vitamins B in acute LBP is discussed.

Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

Adoption of low back pain guidelines is a well-documented problem. Information to guide the development of behaviour change interventions is needed. The review is the first to synthesise the evidence regarding physicians' barriers to providing evidence-based care for LBP using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Using the TDF allowed us to map specific physician-reported barriers to individual guideline recommendations. Therefore, the results can provide direction to future interventions to increase physician compliance with evidence-based care for LBP.

METHODS

We searched the literature for qualitative studies from inception to July 2018. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extracted data on study characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological rigour. Guided by a TDF coding manual, two reviewers independently coded the individual study themes using NVivo. After coding, we assessed confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (n = 318 physicians) from 9 countries reported barriers to adopting one of the 5 guideline-recommended behaviours regarding in-clinic diagnostic assessments (9 studies, n = 198), advice on activity (7 studies, n = 194), medication prescription (2 studies, n = 39), imaging referrals (11 studies, n = 270), and treatment/specialist referrals (8 studies, n = 193). Imaging behaviour is influenced by (1) social influence-from patients requesting an image or wanting a diagnosis (n = 252, 9 studies), (2) beliefs about consequence-physicians believe that providing a scan will reassure patients (n = 175, 6 studies), and (3) environmental context and resources-physicians report a lack of time to have a conversation with patients about diagnosis and why a scan is not needed (n = 179, 6 studies). Referrals to conservative care is influenced by environmental context and resources-long wait-times or a complete lack of access to adjunct services prevented physicians from referring to these services (n = 82, 5 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians face numerous barriers to providing evidence-based LBP care which we have mapped onto 7 TDF domains. Two to five TDF domains are involved in determining physician behaviour, confirming the complexity of this problem. This is important as interventions often target a single domain where multiple domains are involved. Interventions designed to address all the domains involved while considering context-specific factors may prove most successful in increasing guideline adoption.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2017, CRD42017070703.

Advancing imaging technologies for patients with spinal pain: with a focus on whiplash injury

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Radiological observations of soft-tissue changes that may relate to clinical symptoms in patients with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal disorders are highly controversial. Studies are often of poor quality and findings are inconsistent. A plethora of evidence suggests some pathoanatomical findings from traditional imaging applications are common in asymptomatic participants across the life span, which further questions the diagnostic, prognostic, and theranostic value of traditional imaging. Although we do not dispute the limited evidence for the clinical importance of most imaging findings, we contend that the disparate findings across studies may in part be due to limitations in the approaches used in assessment and analysis of imaging findings.

PURPOSE

This clinical commentary aimed to (1) briefly detail available imaging guidelines, (2) detail research-based evidence around the clinical use of findings from advanced, but available, imaging applications (eg, fat and water magnetic resonance imaging and magnetization transfer imaging), and (3) introduce how evolving imaging technologies may improve our mechanistic understanding of pain and disability, leading to improved treatments and outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A non-systematic review of the literature is carried out.

METHODS

A narrative summary (including studies from the authors' own work in whiplash injuries) of the available literature is provided.

RESULTS

An emerging body of evidence suggests that the combination of existing imaging sequences or the use of developing imaging technologies in tandem with a good clinical assessment of modifiable risk factors may provide important diagnostic information toward the exploration and development of more informed and effective treatment options for some patients with traumatic neck pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Advancing imaging technologies may help to explain the seemingly disconnected spectrum of biopsychosocial signs and symptoms of traumatic neck pain.

Are They Complying? Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Readiness to Change Regarding Low Back Pain Treatment Guideline Adherence

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of 145 primary care practitioners (PCPs).

OBJECTIVE

To examine low back pain (LBP) guideline knowledge, readiness to implement (RTI) these guidelines, and LBP attitudes and beliefs among Israeli PCPs and determine whether physician age, guideline familiarity, and medical specialty affect these variables.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LBP is a common condition managed primarily by PCPs. Little is known, however, about physician's LBP knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs and how these factors (knowledge, A&B) influence their practice behavior. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of PCPs have been shown to influence the course of their patients' LBP, and guidelines were devised in an attempt to improve the effectiveness and quality of LBP care. Research worldwide and in Israel has shown that LBP guideline implementation is not yet optimal.

METHODS

Participants completed a questionnaire. Variables were measured using a translated, validated version of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale; demographic and professional characteristics were analyzed for correlation with the outcome variables.

RESULTS

The likelihood of PCPs having nonguideline-consistent attitudes and beliefs (A&B) was greater among those older than 50 years (P < 0.05). Family medicine specialists (family practitioners [FPs]) were more likely to have a high level of guideline knowledge as compared to nonfamily medicine specialists (general practitioners (83.8 vs. 61.9, respectively; P < 0.001). Differences between FPs and general practitioners were also observed for the mean Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale score (34.6 vs. 41.1, respectively, P = 0.00), indicating a higher consistency of attitudes and beliefs with guidelines among FPs. No significant association was found between PCPs' knowledge level and RTI the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that PCPs, especially FPs, had high levels of LBP guideline knowledge, although RTI was limited. The need for greater exposure to and understanding of the importance of implementation of LBP guidelines is essential for future guideline adherence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Further Effort is Needed to Improve Management of Chronic Pain in Primary Care. Results from the Arkys Project

Treatment of chronic pain is challenging. The Arkys project was initiated in Italy to assist general practitioners (GPs) in the management of chronic pain. The main objective of this study was to determine the usefulness of Arkys for selecting new therapeutic strategies. An online interactive questionnaire for assessing pain and guiding therapeutic decisions was made available to GPs participating to Arkys. The GPs were invited to complete the questionnaire for each patient who presented moderate-severe chronic pain, and to decide on a new analgesic treatment based on the information provided by the questionnaire. Two hundred and forty four GPs participated with a total of 3035 patients. Patients (mean age 68.9 years) had mostly chronic non-cancer pain (87.7%). In 42.3%, pain had neuropathic components. Only 53.6% of patients were in treatment with analgesics (strong opioids, 38.9%; NSAIDs, 32.6%; weak opioids, 25.6%; anti-epileptics, 17.3%; paracetamol, 14.9%). Use of the questionnaire resulted in the prescription of analgesics to all patients and in increased prescription of strong opioids (69.7%). NSAID prescription decreased (12.8%), while anti-epileptics use remained stable. These findings show that current management of chronic pain in primary care is far from optimal and that efforts are needed to educate GPs and improve guideline implementation.

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.

The individual and societal burden of chronic pain in Europe: the case for strategic prioritisation and action to improve knowledge and availability of appropriate care

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in Europe and elsewhere and its under treatment confers a substantial burden on individuals, employers, healthcare systems and society in general. Indeed, the personal and socioeconomic impact of chronic pain is as great as, or greater, than that of other established healthcare priorities. In light of review of recently published data confirming its clinical and socioeconomic impact, this paper argues that chronic pain should be ranked alongside other conditions of established priority in Europe. We outline strategies to help overcome barriers to effective pain care resulting in particular from deficiencies in education and access to interdisciplinary pain management services. We also address the confusion that exists between proper clinical and scientific uses of opioid medications and their potential for misuse and diversion, as reflected in international variations in the access to, and availability of, these agents.

DISCUSSION

As the economic costs are driven in part by the costs of lost productivity, absenteeism and early retirement, pain management should aim to fully rehabilitate patients, rather than merely to relieve pain. Accredited education of physicians and allied health professionals regarding state-of-the-art pain management is crucial. Some progress has been made in this area, but further provision and incentivization is required. We support a tiered approach to pain management, whereby patients with pain uncontrolled by non-specialists are able to consult a physician with a pain competency or a specialist in pain medicine, who in turn can recruit the services of other professionals on a case-by-case basis. A fully integrated interdisciplinary pain service should ideally be available to patients with refractory pain. Governments and healthcare systems should ensure that their policies on controlled medications are balanced, safeguarding public health without undue restrictions that compromise patient care, and that physician education programmes support these aims.

SUMMARY

Strategic prioritization and co-ordinated actions are required nationally and internationally to address the unacceptable and unnecessary burden of uncontrolled chronic pain that plagues European communities and economies. An appreciation of the 'return on investment' in pain management services will require policymakers to adopt a long-term, cross-budgetary approach.