UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578]

What Gets Measured Gets Managed: A Scoping Review of Musculoskeletal Research Conducted Within Practice-Based Research Networks

ABSTRACT

Musculoskeletal conditions are often managed in primary care settings. To facilitate research and healthcare quality, practice-based research networks offer sustained collaborations between clinicians and researchers. A scoping review was conducted to describe characteristics of practice-based research networks used for musculoskeletal research and musculoskeletal research conducted through practice-based research networks. Practice-based research networks were identified from 1) musculoskeletal-studies identified in OVID Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases from inception to 5 February 2023 and in ClinicalTrials.gov and 2) from practice-based research network registries and websites. Among active musculoskeletal-focused practice-based research networks (i.e., currently recruiting and conducting research), an assessment of practice-based research network research good practices was performed. After screening 3025 records, 85 studies from 46 unique practice-based research networks met our eligibility criteria. Common conditions studied were low back pain (28%), musculoskeletal conditions not otherwise specified (25%), and osteoarthritis (19%). Thirty-two practice-based research networks (70%) were deemed to be active. Among active musculoskeletal-focused practice-based research networks, best practice data management information was retrievable for most (53%). Because of the scarcity of publicly available information, a large proportion of practice-based research network research good practice items was not assessable. Practice-based research networks have provided an avenue to assess clinical practice and patient outcomes related to musculoskeletal conditions. Further work to increase the transparency of musculoskeletal practice-based research network research practices is warranted.

Characteristics of chiropractic patients treated at the University of Johannesburg chiropractic student clinic and relevance to the educational process

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the demographic and descriptive information of new patients presenting to an educational institution-based chiropractic student clinic in South Africa that could then be used to draw comparisons to other international chiropractic student clinics and local practices.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective descriptive study of all new patient files from January 1, 2016, to July 31, 2016. The variables extracted were age, health profiles, number of musculoskeletal complaints, treatment protocol, and number of treatments that patients received for the initial complaint. Data were analyzed using cross-tabulations and multidimensional χ2 tests.

RESULTS

There were 865 files reviewed. Most patients were aged between 20 and 24 years. Lumbar and pelvic complaints were most common (42.2%), followed by the cervical spine (28%). Lumbar (18.8%) and cervical (16.8%) biomechanical conditions, followed by lumbar myofascial pain syndrome (7.6%), were the most common problems. Musculoskeletal conditions were reported in 99% of cases. The majority (80%) of patients received 9 or fewer treatments for their initial complaint. Manipulation was used in 93.9% of cases, followed by mobilization (8.8%), interferential current (23.5%), and dry needling (19.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Data gathered suggest that there are some general similarities with international training institutions. There are also differences between the study sample and international institutions and South African private chiropractic practice. The dissimilarities were a younger patient population, a lower number of treatment visits, and low exposure to nonmusculoskeletal conditions. These differences may affect the breadth of student education and require further investigation.

Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomized controlled trial

Background

Related to escalating health care costs and the questionable effectiveness of multiple interventions including lumbar facet joint interventions, cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis has become the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine influencing coverage decisions.

Methods

Cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain was performed utilizing data from a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up, with direct payment data from 2016. Based on the data from surgical interventions, utilizing the lowest proportion of direct procedural costs of 60%, total cost utility per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was determined by multiplying the derived direct cost at 1.67.

Results

Patients in this trial on average received 5.6 ± 2.6 procedures over a period of 2 years, with average relief over a period of 2 years of 82.8 ± 29.6 weeks with 19 ± 18.77 weeks of improvement per procedure. Procedural cost for one-year improvement in quality of life showed USD $2,654.08. Estimated total costs, including indirect costs and drugs with multiplication of direct costs at 1.67, showed a cost of USD $4,432 per QALY.

Conclusions

The analysis of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain shows clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $2,654.08 for the direct costs of the procedures, and USD $4,432 for the estimated overall cost per one year of QALY, in chronic persistent low back pain non-responsive to conservative management.

Systematic Review of Costs and Effects of Self-Management Interventions for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Spotlight on Analytic Perspective and Outcomes Assessment

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) lacks consensus, which may be due to variability in the costing methods employed.

PURPOSE

The purposes of the study were to identify how costs and effects have been assessed in economic analysis of self-management interventions for CMP and to identify the effect of the chosen analytical perspective on cost-effectiveness conclusions.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases were searched for all study designs using relevant terms.

STUDY SELECTION

Two independent researchers reviewed all titles for predefined inclusion criteria: adults (≥18 years of age) with CMP, interventions with a primary aim of promoting self-management, and conducted a cost analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Descriptive data including population, self-management intervention, analytical perspective, and costs and effects measured were collected by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifty-seven studies were identified: 65% (n = 37) chose the societal perspective, of which 89% (n = 33) captured health care utilization, 92% (n = 34) reported labor productivity, 65% (n = 24) included intervention delivery, and 59% (n = 22) captured patient/family costs. Types of costs varied in all studies. Eight studies conducted analyses from both health service and societal perspectives; cost-effectiveness estimates varied with perspective chosen, but in no case was the difference sufficient to change overall policy recommendations.

LIMITATIONS

Chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions where self-management is recommended, but not as a primary treatment, were excluded. Gray literature was excluded.

CONCLUSION

Substantial heterogeneity in the cost components captured in the assessment of self-management for CMP was found; this was independent of the analytic perspective used. Greater efforts to ensure complete and consistent costings are required if reliable cost-effectiveness evidence of self-management interventions is to be generated and to inform the most appropriate perspective for economic analyses in this field.

Non-specific mechanisms in orthodox and CAM management of low back pain (MOCAM): theoretical framework and protocol for a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Components other than the active ingredients of treatment can have substantial effects on pain and disability. Such 'non-specific' components include: the therapeutic relationship, the healthcare environment, incidental treatment characteristics, patients' beliefs and practitioners' beliefs. This study aims to: identify the most powerful non-specific treatment components for low back pain (LBP), compare their effects on patient outcomes across orthodox (physiotherapy) and complementary (osteopathy, acupuncture) therapies, test which theoretically derived mechanistic pathways explain the effects of non-specific components and identify similarities and differences between the therapies on patient-practitioner interactions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This research comprises a prospective questionnaire-based cohort study with a nested mixed-methods study. A minimum of 144 practitioners will be recruited from public and private sector settings (48 physiotherapists, 48 osteopaths and 48 acupuncturists). Practitioners are asked to recruit 10-30 patients each, by handing out invitation packs to adult patients presenting with a new episode of LBP. The planned multilevel analysis requires a final sample size of 690 patients to detect correlations between predictors, hypothesised mediators and the primary outcome (self-reported back-related disability on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Practitioners and patients complete questionnaires measuring non-specific treatment components, mediators and outcomes at: baseline (time 1: after the first consultation for a new episode of LBP), during treatment (time 2: 2 weeks post-baseline) and short-term outcome (time 3: 3 months post-baseline). A randomly selected subsample of participants in the questionnaire study will be invited to take part in a nested mixed-methods study of patient-practitioner interactions. In the nested study, 63 consultations (21/therapy) will be audio-recorded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, to identify communication practices associated with patient outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol is approved by the host institution's ethics committee and the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences and a stakeholder workshop.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Design and conduct of implementation trials of interventions for osteoarthritis

Rigorous implementation research is important for testing strategies to improve the delivery of effective osteoarthritis (OA) interventions. The objective of this manuscript is to describe principles of implementation research, including conceptual frameworks, study designs and methodology, with specific recommendations for randomized clinical trials of OA treatment and management. This manuscript includes a comprehensive review of prior research and recommendations for implementation trials. The review of literature included identification of seminal articles on implementation research methods, as well as examples of previous exemplar studies using these methods. In addition to a comprehensive summary of this literature, this manuscript provides key recommendations for OA implementation trials. This review concluded that to date there have been relatively few implementation trials of OA interventions, but this is an emerging area of research. Future OA clinical trials should routinely consider incorporation of implementation aims to enhance translation of findings.

Professional kinesiology practice for chronic low back pain: single-blind, randomised controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is a highly prevalent condition with no definitive treatment. Professional Kinesiology Practice (PKP) is a little known complementary medicine technique using non-standard muscle testing; no previous effectiveness studies have been performed.

METHODS

This is an exploratory, pragmatic single-blind, 3-arm randomised sham-controlled pilot study with waiting list control (WLC) in private practice UK (2007-2009). 70 participants scoring ≥4 on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were randomised to real or sham PKP receiving 1 treatment weekly for 5 weeks or a WLC. WLC's were re-randomised to real or sham after 6 weeks. The main outcome was a change in RMDQ from baseline to end of 5 weeks of real or sham PKP.

RESULTS

With an effect size of 0.7 real treatment was significantly different to sham (mean difference RMDQ score = -2.9, p = 0.04, 95% CI -5.8 to -0.1). Compared to WLC, real and sham groups had significant RMDQ improvements (real -9.0, p < 0.01, 95% CI -12.1 to -5.8; effect size 2.1; sham -6.1, p < 0.01, 95% CI -9.1 to -3.1; effect size 1.4). Practitioner empathy (CARE) and patient enablement (PEI) did not predict outcome; holistic health beliefs (CAMBI) did, though. The sham treatment appeared credible; patients did not guess treatment allocation. 3 patients reported minor adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Real treatment was significantly different from sham demonstrating a moderate specific effect of PKP; both were better than WLC indicating a substantial non-specific and contextual treatment effect. A larger definitive study would be appropriate with nested qualitative work to help understand the mechanisms involved in PKP.

Eletroestimulação e core training sobre dor e arco de movimento na lombalgia

INTRODUÇÃO: Eletrotermofototerapia e cinesioterapia são opções para o tratamento de lombalgias. Exercícios voltados para a musculatura paravertebral visam ao aumento de força e arco de movimento (ADM). A eletroestimulação neuromuscular (EENM) incrementa a função muscular. OBJETIVOS: Apurar a influência da EENM associada a um programa de core training (CT) sobre a lombalgia inespecífica crônica, com as variáveis de dor e ADM da coluna vertebral. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foi realizado ensaio clínico controlado randomizado duplo cego, com 27 pacientes atendidos na Clínica-Escola FIT-UGF, com diagnóstico médico relacionado a lombalgias. Foram formados dois grupos aleatoriamente: controle ativo (CORE; n = 13) e experimental (CORE + EENM; n = 14). O questionário de McGill e a fotogrametria foram aplicados antes da primeira e após a última sessão de tratamentos para medir dor e ADM, respectivamente. RESULTADOS: Os grupos eram homogêneos quanto à dor inicial (p = 0,99); a dor final do grupo CORE + EENM foi significativamente menor que a do grupo CORE (p = 0,03); a dor final do grupo CORE não apresentou diferença significativa em relação à inicial (p = 0,93); a dor final do grupo CORE + EENM foi significativamente menor que a inicial (p = 0,00). O ADM não apresentou diferença significativa intragrupos e intergrupos (p = 0,10). CONCLUSÃO: A aplicação de EENM em região lombar após CT foi eficaz, causando diminuição significativa da lombalgia inespecífica. Entretanto, não ocorreu diferença significativa do ADM entre os grupos.

Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal disorders are a major cause of disability and compromise in health-related quality of life. The direct and indirect costs of treating spinal disorders are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. With limited resources, the cost-utility of interventions is important for allocating resources.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature on cost-utility for nonoperative and operative interventions for treating spinal disorders.

METHODS

We searched four databases for cost-utility analysis studies on low back pain management and identified 1004 items. The titles and abstracts of 752 were screened before selecting 27 studies for inclusion; full texts of these 27 studies were individually evaluated by five individuals.

RESULTS

Studies of nonoperative treatments demonstrated greater value for graded activity over physical therapy and pain management; spinal manipulation over exercise; behavioral therapy and physiotherapy over advice; and acupuncture and exercise over usual general practitioner care. Circumferential fusion and femoral ring allograft had greater value than posterolateral fusion and titanium cage, respectively. The relative cost-utility of operative versus nonoperative interventions was variable with the most consistent evidence indicating superior value of operative care for treating spinal disorders involving nerve compression and instability.

CONCLUSION

The literature on cost-utility for treating spinal disorders is limited. Studies addressing cost-utility of nonoperative and operative management of low back pain encompass a broad spectrum of diagnoses and direct comparison of treatments based on cost-utility thresholds for comparative effectiveness is limited by diversity among disorders and methods to assess cost-utility. Future research will benefit from uniform methods and comparison of treatments in cohorts with well-defined pathology.

Database recruitment: a solution to poor recruitment in randomized trials?

BACKGROUND

Achieving sample size is imperative to obtaining sufficient power to detect potential effects in health care research, yet many research studies are prone to under-recruitment. Not only does this create problems with power but also it contributes to research extensions, additional costs and delayed results. To combat this problem, one increasingly used technique is database recruitment, a method of searching the electronic medical records system for potential research participants.

OBJECTIVE

We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of identifying potential research participants using database recruitment with particular reference to primary care.

CONCLUSION

Database recruitment is a relatively simple and affordable means to recruit large numbers of patients in a timely manner; however, it is not without limitations.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more cost-effective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves.

Trials in primary care: statistical issues in the design, conduct and evaluation of complex interventions

Trials carried out in primary care typically involve complex interventions that require considerable planning if they are to be implemented successfully. The role of the statistician in promoting both robust study design and appropriate statistical analysis is an important contribution to a multi-disciplinary primary care research group. Issues in the design of complex interventions have been addressed in the Medical Research Council's new guidance document and over the past 7 years by the Royal Statistical Society's Primary Health Care Study Group. With the aim of raising the profile of statistics and building research capability in this area, particularly with respect to methodological issues, the study group meetings have covered a wide range of topics that have been of interest to statisticians and non-statisticians alike. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the statistical issues that have arisen over the years related to the design and evaluation of trials in primary care, to provide useful examples and references for further study and ultimately to promote good practice in the conduct of complex interventions carried out in primary care and other health care settings. Throughout we have given particular emphasis to statistical issues related to the design of cluster randomised trials.

Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Chiropractors commonly use a combination of interventions to treat people with low-back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of combined chiropractic interventions (that is, a combination of therapies, other than spinal manipulation alone) on pain, disability, back-related function, overall improvement, and patient satisfaction in adults with LBP, aged 18 and older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: The Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register (May 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), and MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), CINAHL (from January 1982), MANTIS (from Inception) and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (from Inception) to May 2009. We also screened references of identified articles and contacted chiropractic researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing the use of combined chiropractic interventions (rather than spinal manipulation alone) with no treatment or other therapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data using standardised forms. Both descriptive synthesis and meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies involving 2887 participants with LBP. Three studies had low risk of bias. Included studies evaluated a range of chiropractic procedures in a variety of sub-populations of people with LBP.No trials were located of combined chiropractic interventions compared to no treatment. For acute and subacute LBP, chiropractic interventions improved short- and medium-term pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.04) and MD -0.89 (95%CI -1.60 to -0.18)) compared to other treatments, but there was no significant difference in long-term pain (MD -0.46 (95% CI -1.18 to 0.26)). Short-term improvement in disability was greater in the chiropractic group compared to other therapies (SMD -0.36 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.02)). However, the effect was small and all studies contributing to these results had high risk of bias. There was no difference in medium- and long-term disability. No difference was demonstrated for combined chiropractic interventions for chronic LBP and for studies that had a mixed population of LBP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short-term and pain in the medium-term for acute and subacute LBP. However, there is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with LBP when compared to other interventions. Future research is very likely to change the estimate of effect and our confidence in the results.

Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial

Background

Reporting numbers needed to treat (NNT) improves interpretability of trial results. It is unusual that continuous outcomes are converted to numbers of individual responders to treatment (i.e., those who reach a particular threshold of change); and deteriorations prevented are only rarely considered. We consider how numbers needed to treat can be derived from continuous outcomes; illustrated with a worked example showing the methods and challenges.

Methods

We used data from the UK BEAM trial (n = 1, 334) of physical treatments for back pain; originally reported as showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. Participants were randomised to receive 'best care' in general practice, the comparator treatment, or one of three manual and/or exercise treatments: 'best care' plus manipulation, exercise, or manipulation followed by exercise. We used established consensus thresholds for improvement in Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores at three and twelve months to derive NNTs for improvements and for benefits (improvements gained+deteriorations prevented).

Results

At three months, NNT estimates ranged from 5.1 (95% CI 3.4 to 10.7) to 9.0 (5.0 to 45.5) for exercise, 5.0 (3.4 to 9.8) to 5.4 (3.8 to 9.9) for manipulation, and 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9) to 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) for manipulation followed by exercise. Corresponding between-group mean differences in the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire were 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3), 1.4 (0.6 to 2.1), and 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) points.

Conclusion

In contrast to small mean differences originally reported, NNTs were small and could be attractive to clinicians, patients, and purchasers. NNTs can aid the interpretation of results of trials using continuous outcomes. Where possible, these should be reported alongside mean differences. Challenges remain in calculating NNTs for some continuous outcomes.

Trial Registration

UK BEAM trial registration: ISRCTN32683578.

Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back-related leg complaints: a literature synthesis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this project was to review the literature for the use of spinal manipulation for low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

A search strategy modified from the Cochrane Collaboration review for LBP was conducted through the following databases: PubMed, Mantis, and the Cochrane Database. Invitations to submit relevant articles were extended to the profession via widely distributed professional news and association media. The Scientific Commission of the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) was charged with developing literature syntheses, organized by anatomical region, to evaluate and report on the evidence base for chiropractic care. This article is the outcome of this charge. As part of the CCGPP process, preliminary drafts of these articles were posted on the CCGPP Web site www.ccgpp.org (2006-8) to allow for an open process and the broadest possible mechanism for stakeholder input.

RESULTS

A total of 887 source documents were obtained. Search results were sorted into related topic groups as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LBP and manipulation; randomized trials of other interventions for LBP; guidelines; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; basic science; diagnostic-related articles, methodology; cognitive therapy and psychosocial issues; cohort and outcome studies; and others. Each group was subdivided by topic so that team members received approximately equal numbers of articles from each group, chosen randomly for distribution. The team elected to limit consideration in this first iteration to guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, and coh ort studies. This yielded a total of 12 guidelines, 64 RCTs, 13 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and 11 cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

As much or more evidence exists for the use of spinal manipulation to reduce symptoms and improve function in patients with chronic LBP as for use in acute and subacute LBP. Use of exercise in conjunction with manipulation is likely to speed and improve outcomes as well as minimize episodic recurrence. There was less evidence for the use of manipulation for patients with LBP and radiating leg pain, sciatica, or radiculopathy.

Content and outcome of usual primary care for back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Most patients seeking help for back pain are managed in primary care.

AIM

To describe the content and outcome of 'usual care' for low back pain in primary care trials.

DESIGN OF STUDY

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials published since 1998.

SETTING

Primary care.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trials of back pain in adults were scrutinised to obtain data on treatment and outcome measures in groups receiving usual primary care. A narrative review of the resulting heterogeneous data was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty-three papers were identified for analysis. Overall the exact nature of the treatment received in the 'usual' primary care group was poorly recorded. Medication was frequently used, and there were suggestions that levels of opioid prescription were higher than might be expected from clinical guidelines. Requesting of plain-film X-rays occurred more often than recommended. There was very little information to suggest that doctors were promoting physical activity for patients with back pain. Disability scores (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and pain scores improved over time for patients with acute or subacute back pain, but not for those with chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

Treatment received by patients with back pain was varied and often not in line with back-pain guidelines, particularly with respect to opioid prescription and X-ray investigation. The content of the 'usual care' arm in trials is crucial to interpreting the outcome of studies, but was poorly described in the papers reviewed. Future trials should more fully describe the 'usual care' arm.

Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of lessons in the Alexander technique, massage therapy, and advice from a doctor to take exercise (exercise prescription) along with nurse delivered behavioural counselling for patients with chronic or recurrent back pain.

DESIGN

Factorial randomised trial.

SETTING

64 general practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

579 patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain; 144 were randomised to normal care, 147 to massage, 144 to six Alexander technique lessons, and 144 to 24 Alexander technique lessons; half of each of these groups were randomised to exercise prescription.

INTERVENTIONS

Normal care (control), six sessions of massage, six or 24 lessons on the Alexander technique, and prescription for exercise from a doctor with nurse delivered behavioural counselling.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Roland Morris disability score (number of activities impaired by pain) and number of days in pain.

RESULTS

Exercise and lessons in the Alexander technique, but not massage, remained effective at one year (compared with control Roland disability score 8.1: massage -0.58, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to 0.77, six lessons -1.40, -2.77 to -0.03, 24 lessons -3.4, -4.76 to -2.03, and exercise -1.29, -2.25 to -0.34). Exercise after six lessons achieved 72% of the effect of 24 lessons alone (Roland disability score -2.98 and -4.14, respectively). Number of days with back pain in the past four weeks was lower after lessons (compared with control median 21 days: 24 lessons -18, six lessons -10, massage -7) and quality of life improved significantly. No significant harms were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

One to one lessons in the Alexander technique from registered teachers have long term benefits for patients with chronic back pain. Six lessons followed by exercise prescription were nearly as effective as 24 lessons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Research Register N0028108728.

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

Background

Clinical guidelines for the management of back pain frequently recommend 'manual therapy' as a first line intervention, with psychosocial screening and 'active rehabilitation' for those not improving at 6 weeks post onset. The potential for psychosocial factors to predict treatment response and therefore outcome has not been adequately explored. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a study to compare manual therapy and active rehabilitation outcomes for subjects with sub-acute/chronic back pain, investigate whether any difference in outcome was related to psychosocial factors, and to inform the design of a main study.

Methods

A convenience sample of 39 patients with non-specific low back pain referred to the physiotherapy department of an acute NHS Trust hospital was recruited over a nine month period. Patients completed the Linton and Hallden psychological screening questionnaire (LH) and were allocated to a low LH (105 or below) or high LH (106 or above) scoring group. The low or high LH score was used to sequentially allocate patients to one of two treatment groups – Manual Therapy comprising physiotherapy based on manual means as chosen by the treating therapist or Active Rehabilitation comprising a progressive exercise and education programme – with the first low LH scoring patient being allocated to active rehabilitation and the next to manual therapy and so on. Treatment was administered for eight sessions over a four-week period and outcome measures were taken at baseline and at four weeks. Measures used were the Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), two components of the Short Form McGill (total pain rating index [PRI] and pain intensity via visual analogue scale [VAS]), and the LH.

Results

The manual therapy group demonstrated a greater treatment effect compared with active rehabilitation for RMQ (mean difference 3.6, 95% CI 1.1 – 6.2, p = 0.006) and PRI (7.1, 95% CI 2.0 – 12.2, p = 0.007) and marginally significant results for VAS (15, 95% CI -1.1 to 31.2, p = 0.067). A linear model allowing for confounding effects and the interaction between high or low LH scores supported these results. The interaction effect was not significant for any outcome measure but this could be due to an insufficient number of subjects to detect this effect.

Conclusion

Comparative evaluation of manual therapy and active rehabilitation with reference to LH psychosocial scores is likely to be detectable by the methods used here. However several alterations to the study design are recommended for the main study. A pragmatic trial using a randomisation process with stratification on the LH score and priori power analysis to determine sample size are suggested for the main study.

Primary care research networks in the United Kingdom

Frank Sullivan and colleagues describe the new bodies emerging to coordinate and boost primary care research in the four UK countries

Differential recruitment in a cluster randomized trial in primary care: the experience of the UK back pain, exercise, active management and manipulation (UK BEAM) feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials, which randomize groups of patients rather than individuals, are commonly used to evaluate healthcare interventions such as training programmes targeted at health professionals. This article reports the dangers of randomizing entire primary care practices when participants cannot be identified before randomization, as shown by a UK national trial.

METHOD

The UK BEAM trial, a national cluster randomized 3 x 2 x 2 factorial trial, was designed to evaluate three treatments for back pain in primary care: "active management"; randomized by practice; and spinal manipulation and exercise classes, both randomized by individual.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-one participants were recruited in the feasibility study, 165 (141% of expected recruitment) from active (management) practices but only 66 (54% of expected recruitment) from traditional (management) practices. The participants in active practices were significantly different from those in traditional practices, notably in suffering from milder back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility study highlighted the dangers of randomizing clusters when individuals cannot be identified beforehand. Different numbers and types of participants were recruited in the two types of cluster. This differential recruitment led us to change the main trial design by abandoning practice level randomization. Instead all practices were trained in active management to maximize recruitment. Ideally cluster randomized trials should identify patients beforehand, to minimize the chance of selection bias. If this is not possible, patient recruitment should be independent in both intervention and control clusters. Pilot studies are especially important for cluster randomized trials, to identify unforeseen problems.

Insomnia: does chiropractic help?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of chiropractic care on insomnia.

DESIGN

Tripartite pilot study.

METHODS

The expectations of the chiropractic community were canvassed, a retrospective study to recall changes in sleep patterns was undertaken, and a prospective pilot study to monitor sleep patterns after chiropractic care was carried out. Convenience sampling was used.

RESULTS

The 221 patients and 15 chiropractors who completed the expectation study tended to believe that patients with sleeping difficulties benefited from chiropractic care. The chiropractors were more guarded in their expectations than participating patients. One third of the 154 patients who completed the semistructured interview reported their sleep pattern was changed immediately after their chiropractic adjustment. All but 1 of these 52 patients reported improvement. Twenty patients with insomnia participated in the prospective study. Although compared with the report in their screening questionnaire, improvement was noted in certain sleep parameters in the 6 days after their adjustment, no temporal trends emerged in the days and/or weeks after the chiropractic consultation. Most patients reported experiencing less or no discomfort during the duration of the study.

CONCLUSION

Although a number of patients do perceive chiropractic care offers temporary respite from their insomnia problem, when changes were more objectively monitored, improvements were erratic and no consistent temporal trends were detectable. Convincing evidence has yet to be produced before routine chiropractic care can be considered adequate intervention for patients with sleeping difficulties. More definitive answers may result from future research being undertaken in sleep laboratories.

Patient perceptions of physical therapy within a trial for back pain treatments (UK BEAM) [ISRCTN32683578]

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of participants in a randomized controlled trial of physical treatments for low back pain about the treatment packages they received in the trial.

METHODS

Within a randomized controlled trial that found small to moderate benefits from adding a manipulation package or an exercise programme to general practice care, we elicited participants' views on the treatment using an open question in participant questionnaires. These data were analysed using an adapted framework approach.

RESULTS

We received a total of 1259 comments from 1334 participants. Participants randomized to usual general practice care reported dissatisfaction with receiving only 'usual care', which consisted of providing analgesic medication without providing an explanation for their pain. Those randomized to a manipulation package felt the intervention was appropriate to their needs and commonly reported striking benefits. Participants assigned to the exercise programme developed a sense of self-reliance in managing back pain, although some failed to be sufficiently motivated to continue their exercise regimen outside the classes.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative analysis has found much clearer differences between the groups than the main quantitative analysis. This suggests that some of the added value from being allocated to additional physical treatment for low back pain is not being captured by existing methods of measurement. Improved methods of assessment that consider a wider range of domains may be needed when interpreting the added value of such treatments to individual patients.

Evidence-Based Medicine and the Challenge of Low Back Pain: Where Are We Now?

Low back pain has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists. Management of low back pain has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary, inappropriate, or ineffective. Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisals of the available literature. Evidence-based medicine, an approach to clinical problem solving, is predicated on the premise that high-quality health care will result from practices consistent with the best evidence. In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion, authority, and unsystematic clinical observations, evidence-based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisals of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making. Evidence-based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions. Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature, however, most clinicians are unable to keep up-to-date with all the new data. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Like primary studies, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high methodologic standards to reduce error and bias. As in other areas of medicine, the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings. In addition to more rigorous primary studies, an increasing number of high-quality systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available. Although some research gaps and methodologic shortcomings persist, the richer evidence base has greatly improved our understanding of what does and does not work for low back pain. Despite these advances, the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence-based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care. This article reviews basic principles of evidence-based medicine, discusses evidence-based medicine in the context of low back pain management, and summarizes some useful evidence-based medicine resources.

Testing the effectiveness of an innovative information package on practitioner reported behaviour and beliefs: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low back pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) trial [ISRCTN77245761]

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem. Initiatives designed to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for LBP include printed evidence-based clinical guidelines. The three professional groups of chiropractic, osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy in the UK share common ground with their approaches to managing LBP and are amongst those targeted by LBP guidelines. Even so, many seem unaware that such guidelines exist. Furthermore, the behaviour of at least some of these practitioners differs from that recommended in these guidelines. Few randomised controlled trials evaluating printed information as an intervention to change practitioner behaviour have utilised a no-intervention control. All these trials have used a cluster design and most have methodological flaws. None specifically focus upon practitioner behaviour towards LBP patients. Studies that have investigated other strategies to change practitioner behaviour with LBP patients have produced conflicting results. Although numerous LBP guidelines have been developed worldwide, there is a paucity of data on whether their dissemination actually changes practitioner behaviour. Primarily because of its low unit cost, sending printed information to large numbers of practitioners is an attractive dissemination and implementation strategy. The effect size of such a strategy, at an individual practitioner level, is likely to be small. However, if large numbers of practitioners are targeted, this strategy might achieve meaningful changes at a population level.

METHODS

The primary aim of this prospective, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is to test the short-term effectiveness (six-months following intervention) of a directly-posted information package on the reported clinical behaviour (primary outcome), attitudes and beliefs of UK chiropractors, osteopaths and musculoskeletal physiotherapists. We sought to randomly allocate a combined sample of 1,800 consenting practitioners to receive either the information package (intervention arm) or no information above that gained during normal practice (control arm). We collected questionnaire data at baseline and six-months post-intervention. The analysis of the primary outcome will assess between-arm differences of proportions of responses to questions on recommendations about activity, work and bed-rest, that fall within categories previously defined by an expert consensus exercise as either 'guideline-consistent' and 'guideline-inconsistent'.

United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of adding exercise classes, spinal manipulation delivered in NHS or private premises, or manipulation followed by exercise to "best care" in general practice for patients consulting with back pain. [See figure].

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.

SETTING

181 general practices in Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework; 63 community settings around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

1334 patients consulting their general practices about low back pain.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Scores on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three and 12 months, adjusted for centre and baseline scores.

RESULTS

All groups improved over time. Exercise improved mean disability questionnaire scores at three months by 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 2.1) more than "best care." For manipulation the additional improvement was 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3) at three months and 1.0 (0.2 to 1.8) at 12 months. For manipulation followed by exercise the additional improvement was 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) at three months and 1.3 (0.5 to 2.1) at 12 months. No significant differences in outcome occurred between manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to "best care" in general practice, manipulation followed by exercise achieved a moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; spinal manipulation achieved a small to moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; and exercise achieved a small benefit at three months but not 12 months.

Back pain and health policy research: the what, why, how, who, and when

STUDY DESIGN

A background literature, supported by discussion and outcomes on the subject of Health Policy and Back Pain, from the Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care, in Montreal in May 2002.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A multitude of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have been completed in the field of back pain research. There has been limited health policy research in the field of back pain but a greater amount of health policy research in other medical fields.

METHODS

The focus of the workshop was on the contribution health policy could make in the area of back pain, the methodologies that are appropriate to research in back pain, and the barriers to back pain health policy research. The workshop was supported by the workshop coordinators' literature review.

RESULTS

There was consensus about the lack of improved outcomes from randomized controlled trials and individual treatments and general agreement on the importance supporting current research initiatives with health policy research. That policy-makers were developing policy in this area was agreed, and study methodology to support evidence based policy development was explored.

CONCLUSIONS

Health policy research is a relatively underdeveloped area of research in back pain. Back pain as a public health problem may be supported by a broader research approach and a collaborative association with policy-makers in this area.