Individual Patient Education for Managing Acute and/or Subacute Low Back Pain: Little Additional Benefit for Pain and Function Compared to Placebo. A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Educational needs and preferences of adult patients with acute pain: a mixed-methods systematic review

ABSTRACT

Many patients experience acute pain, which has been associated with numerous negative consequences. Pain education has been proposed as a strategy to improve acute pain management. However, studies report limited effects with educational interventions for acute pain in adults, which can be explained by the underuse of the person-centered approach. Thus, we aimed to systematically review and synthetize current evidence from quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies describing patients' needs and preferences for acute pain education in adults. We searched original studies and gray literature in 7 databases, from January 1990 to October 2023. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A total of 32 studies were included (n = 1847 patients), two-thirds of which were qualitative studies of high methodological quality. Most of the studies were conducted over the last 15 years in patients with postsurgical and posttraumatic pain, identified as White, with a low level of education. Patients expressed the greatest need for education when it came to what to expect in pain intensity and duration, as well how to take the medication and its associated adverse effects. The most frequently reported educational preferences were for in-person education while involving caregivers and to obtain information first from physicians, then by other professionals. This review has highlighted the needs and preferences to be considered in pain education interventions, which should be embedded in an approach cultivating communication and partnership with patients and their caregivers. The results still need to be confirmed with different patient populations.

Neurophysiological pain education for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of neurophysiological pain education in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis considering pain-related variables.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted in PubMed, PEDro Database, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Only randomized controlled trials enrolling patients ≥ 18 years of age with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were included. The Downs and Black quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of the articles, and the risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies were included in the study. Most of the studies were rated as "fair" on the Downs and Black quality assessment tool, and in the category of "some concerns" according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Neurophysiological pain education was conducted alone or combined with exercise, joint mobilizations, or self-management programs. The number of sessions ranged from 1 to 10. The meta-analysis results showed significant differences in favor of the intervention group in pain (MD = -0.49; 95% CI = -0.66; -0.32; p < 0.001) and catastrophization (MD = -1.81; 95% CI = -3.31, -0.3; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION, PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Neurophysiological pain education interventions in isolation or combined with exercise, joint mobilizations, or self-management programs have proven to significantly improve pain and catastrophization in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. These findings could provide clinicians with more information regarding the management of patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Minimal Intervention of Patient Education for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of minimal intervention of patient education (MIPE) for reducing disability and pain intensity in patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing MIPE, consisting of a single session of patient education, to no or other interventions in patients with LBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible. A noninferiority margin of 5 points (0-100 scale) was considered for noninferiority hypotheses. We assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: A total of 21 trials were included. There were no differences between MIPE and no intervention for effects on disability and pain intensity. There was low-certainty evidence that MIPE had inferior effects on short-term disability (mean difference = 3.62; 95% CI: 0.85, 6.38; 15 trials; n = 3066; I2 = 75%) and pain intensity (mean difference = 9.43; 95% CI: 1.31, 17.56; 10 trials; n = 1394; I2 = 90%) than other interventions. No differences were found for subsequent time points. CONCLUSION: As an intervention delivered in isolation, and without tailoring (ie, one-size-fits-all intervention), MIPE on average did not provide benefits for reducing disability and pain intensity over no or other interventions. We encourage clinicians to consider using additional/other or more tailored treatments when helping people manage LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-13. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11865.

Nonopioid pharmacological management of acute low back pain: A level I of evidence systematic review

Acute low back pain (LBP) imposes a significant socioeconomical burden as it is the condition that, worldwide, cause the most disability. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the best pharmacological management of acute LBP is limited, and the indications available in the literature are conflicting. This work investigates whether the pharmacological management of acute LBP can effectively reduce pain and disability, and aims to identify which drugs show the highest efficacy. This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In September 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were accessed. All the randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of myorelaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and paracetamol for acute LPB were accessed. Only studies that investigated the lumbar spine were included. Only studies reporting on patients with acute LBP with symptom duration of less than 12 weeks were included. Only patients older than 18 years and with nonspecific low back pain were included. Studies that investigated the use of opioids in acute LBP were not considered. Data from 18 studies and 3478 patients were available. Myorelaxants and NSAIDs were effective in reducing pain and disability in acute LBP at approximately one week. The combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol was associated with a greater improvement than the use of NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol alone did not induce any significant improvement. Placebo was not effective in reducing pain. Clinical Significance: Myorelaxants, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs with paracetamol could reduce pain and disability in patients with acute LBP.

Effectiveness of self-management of dry and wet cupping therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) can significantly affect a person's quality of life. Cupping has been used to treat LBP. However, various cupping methods are typically included in evaluating the efficacy of cupping therapy. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the evidence from the literature regarding the effects of dry and wet cupping therapy on LBP in adults. Dry and wet cupping therapy are analyzed categorically in this study.

METHODS

We searched for randomized clinical trials with cupping in LBP published between 2008 and 2022. In dry or wet cupping clinical studies, pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale and present pain intensity, and the quality of life intensity was measured using the Oswestry disability index.

RESULTS

The 656 studies were identified, of which 10 studies for 690 patients with LBP were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in the pain intensity score with present pain intensity using wet cupping therapy (P < .01). In addition, both cupping therapy groups displayed significant Oswestry disability index score reduction compared to the control group (both P < .01). The patients with LBP have a substantial reduction by using wet cupping but have not shown a considerable decrease by using dry cupping (P = .19). In addition, only wet cupping therapy groups displayed a significantly improved quality of life compared to the control group. The study had a very high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%). It means there is no standardization in the treatment protocol in randomized clinical trials. In the meta-regression, there was statistically significant evidence that the number of treatment times and intercepts were related (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis shows that wet cupping therapy effectively reduces the pain intensity of LBP. Furthermore, both dry wet cupping therapy improved patients with LBP quality of life.

Best Practices for Chiropractic Management of Adult Patients With Mechanical Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Chiropractors in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper was to update the previously published 2016 best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with mechanical low back pain (LBP) in the United States.

METHODS

Two experienced health librarians conducted the literature searches for clinical practice guidelines and other relevant literature, and the investigators performed quality assessment of included studies. PubMed was searched from March 2015 to September 2021. A steering committee of 10 experts in chiropractic research, education, and practice used the most current relevant guidelines and publications to update care recommendations. A panel of 69 experts used a modified Delphi process to rate the recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 14 clinical practice guidelines, 10 systematic reviews, and 5 randomized controlled trials (all high quality). Sixty-nine members of the panel rated 38 recommendations. All but 1 statement achieved consensus in the first round, and the final statement reached consensus in the second round. Recommendations covered the clinical encounter from history, physical examination, and diagnostic considerations through informed consent, co-management, and treatment considerations for patients with mechanical LBP.

CONCLUSION

This paper updates a previously published best-practice document for chiropractic management of adults with mechanical LBP.

Development and internal validation of a machine learning prediction model for low back pain non-recovery in patients with an acute episode consulting a physiotherapist in primary care

Background

While low back pain occurs in nearly everybody and is the leading cause of disability worldwide, we lack instruments to accurately predict persistence of acute low back pain. We aimed to develop and internally validate a machine learning model predicting non-recovery in acute low back pain and to compare this with current practice and ‘traditional’ prediction modeling.

Methods

Prognostic cohort-study in primary care physiotherapy. Patients (n = 247) with acute low back pain (≤ one month) consulting physiotherapists were included. Candidate predictors were assessed by questionnaire at baseline and (to capture early recovery) after one and two weeks. Primary outcome was non-recovery after three months, defined as at least mild pain (Numeric Rating Scale > 2/10). Machine learning models to predict non-recovery were developed and internally validated, and compared with two current practices in physiotherapy (STarT Back tool and physiotherapists’ expectation) and ‘traditional’ logistic regression analysis.

Results

Forty-seven percent of the participants did not recover at three months. The best performing machine learning model showed acceptable predictive performance (area under the curve: 0.66). Although this was no better than a’traditional’ logistic regression model, it outperformed current practice.

Conclusions

We developed two prognostic models containing partially different predictors, with acceptable performance for predicting (non-)recovery in patients with acute LBP, which was better than current practice. Our prognostic models have the potential of integration in a clinical decision support system to facilitate data-driven, personalized treatment of acute low back pain, but needs external validation first.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05718-7.

Focused Issue on Low Back Pain Clinical Research From Early Career Researchers: Delivering the Best Work From the Brightest Minds in Musculoskeletal Research to Help Clinicians Help Patients

The July 2022 focused issue of the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy is dedicated to clinical research on low back pain (LBP), a societal and economic health problem that is often underfunded. In this issue, the contribution of early career researchers is substantial and, as a testament, each article has an early career researcher as first and last author. The issue includes 2 literature reviews, 3 research reports, 2 clinical commentaries and 1 viewpoint, addressing timely topics in the field of LBP including the diversity of the LBP population under study, in terms of age, setting, and socioeconomic status. Moreover, methodological topics such as clinimetrics, causal mediation analysis, and evidence synthesis (systematic and narrative) are central to the issue. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):412-413. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11385.