Multidisciplinary program based on early management of psychological factors reduces disability of patients with subacute low back pain. Results of a randomised controlled study with one year follow-up

Physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain: A systematic review and expert consensus

OBJECTIVE

To review the effectiveness of different physical therapies for acute and sub-acute low back pain supported by evidence, and create clinical recommendations and expert consensus for physiotherapists on clinical prescriptions.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published within the previous 15 years.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials assessing patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain were included. Two reviewers independently screened relevant studies using the same inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, respectively. The final recommendation grades were based on the consensus discussion results of the Delphi of 22 international experts.

RESULTS

Twenty-one systematic reviews and 21 randomized controlled trials were included. Spinal manipulative therapy and low-level laser therapy are recommended for acute low back pain. Core stability exercise/motor control, spinal manipulative therapy, and massage can be used to treat sub-acute low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus statements provided medical staff with appliable recommendations of physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain. This consensus statement will require regular updates after 5-10 years.

Trials We Cannot Trust: Investigating Their Impact on Systematic Reviews and Clinical Guidelines in Spinal Pain

We previously conducted an exploration of the trustworthiness of a group of clinical trials of cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise in spinal pain. We identified multiple concerns in 8 trials, judging them untrustworthy. In this study, we systematically explored the impact of these trials ("index trials") on results, conclusions, and recommendations of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We conducted forward citation tracking using Google Scholar and the citationchaser tool, searched the Guidelines International Network library and National Institute of Health and Care Excellence archive to June 2022 to identify systematic reviews and CPGs. We explored how index trials impacted their findings. Where reviews presented meta-analyses, we extracted or conducted sensitivity analyses for the outcomes of pain and disability, to explore how the exclusion of index trials affected effect estimates. We developed and applied an 'Impact Index' to categorize the extent to which index studies impacted their results. We included 32 unique reviews and 10 CPGs. None directly raised concerns regarding the veracity of the trials. Across meta-analyses (55 comparisons), the removal of index trials reduced effect sizes by a median of 58% (Inter Quartlie Range (IQR) 40-74). 85% of comparisons were classified as highly, 3% as moderately, and 11% as minimally impacted. Nine out of 10 reviews conducting narrative synthesis drew positive conclusions regarding the intervention tested. Nine out of 10 CPGs made positive recommendations for the intervention(s) evaluated. This cohort of trials, with concerns regarding trustworthiness, has substantially impacted the results of systematic reviews and guideline recommendations. PERSPECTIVE: We found that a group of trials of CBT for spinal pain with concerns relating to their trustworthiness has had substantial impacts on the analyses and conclusions of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. This highlights the need for a greater focus on the trustworthiness of studies in evidence appraisal. PRE-REGISTRATION: Our protocol was preregistered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/m92ax/.

Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain

ABSTRACT

Evidence-based medicine is replete with studies assessing quality and bias, but few evaluating research integrity or trustworthiness. A recent Cochrane review of psychological interventions for chronic pain identified trials with a shared lead author with highly divergent results. We sought to systematically identify all similar trials from this author to explore their risk of bias, governance procedures, and trustworthiness. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PEDro from 2010 to December 22, 2021 for trials. We contacted the authors requesting details of trial registration, ethical approval, protocol, and access to the trial data for verification. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group's Trustworthiness Screening Tool to guide systematic exploration of trustworthiness. Ten trials were included: 9 compared cognitive behavioural therapy and physical exercise to usual care, exercise alone, or physiotherapy and 1 compared 2 brief cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Eight trials reported results divergent from the evidence base. Assessment of risk of bias and participant characteristics identified no substantial concerns. Responses from the lead author did not satisfactorily explain this divergence. Trustworthiness screening identified concerns about research governance, data plausibility at baseline, the results, and apparent data duplication. We discuss the findings within the context of methods for establishing the trustworthiness of research findings generally. Important concerns regarding the trustworthiness of these trials reduce our confidence in them. They should probably not be used to inform the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, in clinical training, policy documents, or any relevant instruction regarding adult chronic pain management.

Disability and return to work after a multidisciplinary intervention for (sub)acute low back pain: A systematic review

Objective

This systematic review aimed to examine pain, functional status and return to work after a multidisciplinary intervention, with or without additional workplace intervention, for (sub)acute low back pain among adults.

Data sources

A comprehensive search was completed (November 2022) in six electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CENTRAL and Scopus) and in the reference list of all identified studies.

Review methods

The search results were screened against predefined eligibility criteria by two independent researchers. Included articles were systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials examining the effect of a multidisciplinary intervention, with or without workplace intervention, in working adults with (sub)acute low back pain. Relevant information was summarized and clustered, and the methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed respectively using the RoB 2-tool, the ROBIS tool and the GRADE criteria.

Results

The search resulted in a total of 3020 articles. After the screening process, 12 studies remained (11 randomized controlled trials and 1 systematic review), which studied overall 2751 patients, with a follow-up period of at least 12 months.

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary intervention is favorable compared to usual care for pain intensity and functional status but this is less clear for return to work. Comparable work-related effects were found when comparing a multidisciplinary intervention with a less extensive intervention, whereas uncertainties exist regarding outcomes of pain intensity and functional status. Furthermore, adding a workplace intervention to usual care and subdividing patients based on work-related characteristics seems beneficial for return to work.

Trust/untrust is not the same as true/false. Lessons learned and ethical questions on the application of untrustworthiness scales to judge individuals

This special paper reflects on trustworthiness and its implications for scientific medical journals and all the communities they serve: health professionals, policymakers, the public, and a specific discipline, in our case, Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. We start from a recent episode: a paper claimed the untrustworthiness of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine based on a newly developed trustworthiness scale, used until now only in systematic reviews. This likely represents the first case of applying such a scale focusing on a single leading author. Developing a proper answer to this case led us to present some insights from the perspective of a Journal editor. We discuss the impact of false research results, why trust is needed in science and medicine, the difference between untrust and false results, the problems in judging trustworthiness, the unfortunately weak capacity of the peer review system in preventing these issues, the problems of "post-hoc" judgements and the emerging ethical issues. We conclude with some suggestions for the future based on prevention at the system level.

The impact of different intensities and domains of physical activity on analgesic use and activity limitation in people with low back pain: a prospective cohort study with a one-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Analgesics are the most common form of managing low back pain (LBP). No previous study has examined which domains and intensities of physical activity are most beneficial in reducing the frequency of analgesic use for LBP, and its related activity limitation.

METHODS

This cohort study forms part of the AUstralian Twin low BACK pain study, investigating the impact of physical activity on LBP. Information on demographics, LBP and health-related factors, including physical activity were collected at baseline. Data on the total counts of analgesic use and activity limitation for LBP were collected weekly for one-year. Negative binomial regression models were conducted separately for each type of physical activity. Results were presented as Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).

RESULTS

From an initial sample of 366 participants, 86 participants reported counts of analgesic use and 140 recorded counts of activity limitation across the follow up period. The negative binomial regression models for analgesic use counts indicated moderate-vigorous physical activity (IRR 0·97, 95% C.I 0·96-0·99) and physical workload (IRR 1·02, 95% C.I 1·01-1·05) to be significant. For activity limitation counts, significant associations were shown for sedentary time (IRR 1·04, 95% C.I 1·01-1·09) and leisure activity (IRR 0·94, 95% C.I 0·81-0·99).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the potential importance of supporting engagement in moderate-vigorous and leisure physical activity, as well as minimising sedentary time and physical workload to reduce the risk of activity limitation and the need for analgesic use in people with LBP.