A comparison of manual therapy and active rehabilitation in the treatment of non specific low back pain with particular reference to a patient's Linton & Hallden psychological screening score: a pilot study

Osteopathic manipulative treatment in obese patients with chronic low back pain: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Obesity is frequently associated with various musculoskeletal disorders including chronic low back pain (cLBP). Osteopathy is a discipline emphasizing the conservative treatment of the disease in an olistic vision. We designed a randomized controlled study to investigate whether Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) combined with specific exercises (SE) is more effective than SE alone in obese patients with cLBP.

METHODS

nineteen obese females with cLBP, randomized into 2 groups: SE + OMT and SE were studied during the forward flexion of the spine using an optoelectronic system. A biomechanical model was developed in order to analyse kinematics and define angles of clinical interest.

OUTCOME MEASURES

kinematic of the thoracic and lumbar spine and pelvis during forward flexion, pain according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

significant effects on kinematics were reported only for OMT + SE with an improvement in thoracic range of motion of nearly 20%. All scores of the clinical scales used improved significantly. The greatest improvements occurred in the OMT + SE group.

CONCLUSIONS

combined rehabilitation treatment including Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT + SE) showed to be effective in improving biomechanical parameters of the thoracic spine in obese patients with cLBP. Such results are to be attributed to OMT, since they were not evident in the SE group. We also observed a reduction of disability and pain. The clinical results should be considered preliminary due to the small sample size.

Prevalence and risk factors for low back pain in industrial workers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in industrial workers, check for possible LBP related risk factors and investigate the associations between physical activity and severity of low back pain.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among 430 workers of an industrial company over the previous 12 months. The industrial workers were given questionnaires and assigned to two groups: (1) with low back pain, (2) without low back pain. Group 1 was then divided into three subgroups according to the answer to question (a) LBP without irradiation, called mild cases, (b) LBP with irradiation above the knee, called moderate cases, LBP with the irradiation below the knee, called severe cases.

RESULTS

LBP was found in 61.6% of workers. The prevalence of LBP was significantly associated with physical activity (p = 0.03). There was a significant difference between frequent physical activity and severity of LBP (p = 0.01). Work-related physical factors showed strong associations with LBP. The main risk factors for low back pain among production workers were extreme trunk flexion (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 1.7-7.3), as well as lifting of loads (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 1.9-6.2), pushing or pulling heavy loads (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 1.9-6.2) and exposure to whole body vibration (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.0 -3.0).

CONCLUSION

Daily life conditions, job-related factors are associated with the occurrence of low back pain. These results suggest that individuals with LBP should avoid nonspecific physical activities to reduce pain and improve psychological health.

The efficacy of targeted interventions for modifiable psychosocial risk factors of persistent nonspecific low back pain - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is considerable interest in whether best practice management of nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) should include the targeting of treatment to subgroups of people with identifiable clinical characteristics. However, there are no published systematic reviews of the efficacy of targeted psychosocial interventions.

AIM

This review aimed to determine if the efficacy of interventions for psychosocial risk factors of persistent NSLBP is improved when targeted to people with particular psychosocial characteristics.

METHOD

Bibliographic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of targeted psychosocial interventions that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on the efficacy of targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of pain, activity limitation and psychosocial factors (fear avoidance, catastrophisation, anxiety and depression).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Four studies met the inclusion criteria and collectively investigated nine hypotheses about targeted treatment on 28 subgroup/treatment outcomes. There were only two statistically significant results. Graded activity plus Treatment Based Classification targeted to people with high movement-related fear was more effective than Treatment Based Classification at reducing movement-related fear at 4 weeks. Active rehabilitation (physical exercise classes with cognitive-behavioural principles) was more effective than usual GP care at reducing activity limitation at 12 months, when targeted to people with higher movement-related pain. Few studies have investigated targeted psychosocial interventions in NSLBP, using trial designs suitable for measuring treatment effect modification, and they do not provide consistent evidence supporting such targeting. There is a need for appropriately designed and adequately powered trials to investigate targeted psychosocial interventions.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

METHODS

Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority.

Psychosocial influences on low back pain, disability, and response to treatment

Evidence suggests that psychosocial factors have an influence on the outcome of physical therapy treatment and that the extent of their influence differs considerably among patients. As a consequence, substantial research efforts are focused on developing new clinical tools designed to identify and highlight when psychosocial factors are present at a level relevant to decision making. The conceptual differences in the ways that psychosocial factors influence outcome are described, structured around 3 common research terms: (1) prognostic factors, (2) treatment effect modifiers or moderators, and (3) treatment mediators. Prognostic factors are those characteristics that help estimate a patient's likely outcome irrespective of the chosen management. Treatment effect modifiers or moderators are factors measured at baseline that influence the relationship between a specific intervention and outcome. Treatment mediators are factors that have an intermediary role in the link between treatment and outcome. How these different influences on outcome can be translated into useful and complementary tools that aim to reduce treatment variability in clinical practice is described. One approach is to use prognostic factors to develop screening tools that identify an individual's risk status, typically based on predictive psychosocial factors such as catastophizing and depression. Another approach is to identify specific treatment effect modifiers to derive treatment decision aids or prediction rules to help match a patient's characteristics to the interventions available. A third approach is to use treatment mediators (eg, self-efficacy) to develop monitoring tools to inform the clinician about which aspects of treatment to strengthen.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SMT for chronic low-back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

An updated search was conducted by an experienced librarian to June 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. No restrictions were placed on the setting or type of pain; studies which exclusively examined sciatica were excluded. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity were performed, where possible, for the meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), nine of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. In general, there is high quality evidence that SMT has a small, statistically significant but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (MD: -4.16, 95% CI -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07) compared to other interventions. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. There is varying quality of evidence (ranging from low to high) that SMT has a statistically significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is very low quality evidence that SMT is not statistically significantly more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect in relation to inert interventions and sham SMT, and data related to recovery.

Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.

RESULTS

Four high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.

The efficacy of a short education program and a short physiotherapy program for treating low back pain in primary care: a cluster randomized trial

STUDY DESIGN

Cluster randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of a short education program and short physiotherapy program for treating low back pain (LBP) in primary care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is sparse evidence on the effectiveness of education and physiotherapy programs that are short enough to be feasible in primary care.

METHODS

Sixty-nine primary care physicians were randomly assigned to 3 groups and recruited 348 patients consulting for LBP; 265 (79.8%) were chronic. All patients received usual care, were given a booklet and received a consistent 15 minutes group talk on health education, which focused on healthy nutrition habits in the control group, and on active management for LBP in the "education" and "education + physiotherapy" groups. Additionally, in the "education + physiotherapy" group, patients were given a second booklet and a 15-minute group talk on postural hygiene, and 4 one-hour physiotherapy sessions of exercise and stretching which they were encouraged to keep practicing at home. The main outcome measure was improvement of LBP-related disability at 6 months. Patients' assessment and data analyses were blinded.

RESULTS

During the 6-month follow-up period, improvement in the "control" group was negligible. Additional improvement in the "education" and "education + physiotherapy" groups was found for disability (2.0 and 2.2 Roland Morris Questionnaire points, respectively), LBP (1.8 and 2.10 Visual Analogue Scale points), referred pain (1.3 and 1.6 Visual Analogue Scale points), catastrophizing (1.6 and 1.8 Coping Strategies Questionnaire points), physical quality of life (2.9 and 2.9 SF-12 points), and mental quality of life (3.7 and 5.1 SF-12 points).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a short education program on active management to usual care in primary care leads to small but consistent improvements in disability, pain, and quality of life. The addition of a short physiotherapy program composed of education on postural hygiene and exercise intended to be continued at home, increases those improvements, although the magnitude of that increase is clinically irrelevant.

A Case Study Examining the Effectiveness of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in a Patient who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Spinal Manipulation

This single-subject case study was conducted as a part of a randomized trial investigating the efficacy of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) and spinal thrust manipulation (STM) in patients who meet a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for spinal manipulation. Following initial examination, a patient who met the CPR was treated initially with STM and then eventually with MDT. The Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were administered at the initial examination and at a two-week follow-up. Data were analyzed based on changes in the pain rating scale, ODI, and straight leg raise scores from initial examination to discharge. In accordance with a study protocol in which the patient was part of, this patient was changed from STM to MDT after the second physical therapy visit due to failure of overall improvement. The patient received MDT during the third session and continued with this approach until discharge. This patient responded favorably to MDT presenting with a 20 degrees improvement in SLR on the left and 10 degrees on the right, 6 points lower on the NPRS, and a 4% decrease on the OSW after a total of 6 visits.

Subgrouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians require brief, practical tools to help identify low back pain (LBP) subgroups requiring early, targeted secondary prevention. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was recently validated to subgroup LBP patients into early treatment pathways.

AIM

To test the SBT's concurrent validity against an existing, popular LBP subgrouping tool, the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ), and to compare the clinical characteristics of subgroups identified by each tool.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-four consecutive 'non-specific' LBP consulters at 8 UK GP practices aged 18-59years were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included the OMPSQ and SBT, disability, fear, catastrophising, pain intensity, episode duration and demographics. Instruments were compared using Spearman's correlations, tests for subgroup agreement and discriminant analysis of subgroup characteristics according to reference standards.

RESULTS

Completed SBT (9-items) and OMPSQ (24-items) data was available for 130/244 patients (53%). The correlation of SBT and OMPSQ scores was 'excellent (rs=0.80). Subgroup characteristics were similar across the low, medium and high subgroups, but, the proportions allocated to 'low', 'medium' and 'high' risk groups were different, with fewer patients in the SBT's high risk group. Both instruments similarly discriminated for reference standards such as disability, catastrophising, fear, comorbid pain and time off work. The OMPSQ was better at discriminating pain intensity, while the SBT was better for discriminating bothersomeness of back pain and referred leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The SBT baseline psychometrics performed similarly to the OMPSQ, but the SBT is shorter and easier to score and is an appropriate alternative for identifying high risk LBP patients in primary care.