Predicting response to motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with low back pain: preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Chronic Low Back Pain: History, Symptoms, Pain Mechanisms, and Treatment

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the most frequently reported cause of years lived with disability. Identifying the anatomical structures or dysfunction contributing to patients' symptoms is critical to guiding treatment. The etiology of back pain and differential diagnosis is often broad, ranging from non-degenerative cLBP (trauma, tumor, inflammation, infection, etc.) to degenerative (also described as nonspecific) cLBP. After eliminating suspicion for more insidious causes of cLBP, a thorough investigation can be conducted in an attempt to identify a source of degenerative cLBP. Degenerative cLBP can originate from many sources, and a detailed understanding of the structures potentially involved is invaluable for an accurate diagnosis. This review article aims to provide a broad overview of the utility of clinical history, physical exam findings, imaging findings, and diagnostic procedures in identifying the cause of patients' cLBP. We provide a framework to help guide clinicians by dividing the structures into groups as follows: anterior vertebral column, posterior vertebral column, and extra-vertebral pain. For each condition listed, we touch on the treatment options that can be considered.

Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability and healthcare expenditure worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally from somatic and psychosocial factors. While non-pharmacological management, and in particular physiotherapy, has been recommended as a first-line treatment for cLBP, it is not clear what type of physiotherapeutic approach is the most effective in terms of pain reduction and function improvement. This analysis is rendered more difficult by the vast number of available therapies and a lack of a widely accepted classification that can effectively highlight the differences in the outcomes of different management options. This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In January 2024, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of physiotherapy programs in patients with cLBP were accessed. Studies reporting on non-specific or mechanical cLPB were included. Data concerning the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data from 12,773 patients were collected. The mean symptom duration was 61.2 ± 51.0 months and the mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 5.9 months. The mean age was 44.5 ± 9.4 years. The mean BMI was 25.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest pain score, followed by Multidisciplinary and Adapted Training Exercise/Complementary Medicine. The Adapted Physical Exercise group evidenced the lowest RMQ score followed by Therapeutic Exercises and Multidisciplinary. The Multidisciplinary group evidenced the lowest ODI score, followed by Adapted Physical Exercise and Physical Agent modalities. Within the considered physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches to manage nonspecific and/or mechanic cLBP, adapted physical exercise, physical agent modalities, and a multidisciplinary approach might represent the most effective strategy to reduce pain and disability.

Effects of Motor Control Exercises in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess whether motor control exercises consisting of the methodology described by Richardson and Hodges improve the pain and disability of patients with nonspecific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and a meta-analysis.

SETTING

A literature review was conducted using PubMed, PEDro, Scielo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dialnet, Scopus, and MEDLINE from inception to November 2021.

PATIENTS

Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomized controlled trials assessing motor control exercises versus inactive control, placebo or minimal intervention, and other exercises.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity, disability, and physical activity were considered as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1356 patients were finally included in the systematic review, of which only 13 randomized clinical trials could be meta-analyzed. Statistically significant results were found in favor of the motor control group for the comparison with other exercises in disability at postintervention term (Mean Difference, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -3.13 [-5.87 to -0.38], P = 0.03); for the comparison with inactive control, placebo, or minimal intervention in pain at postintervention term (MD, 95% CI, -18.10 [-30.79 to -5.41], P = 0.008); and for comparison with general exercises (MD, 95% CI, -12.70 [-20.80 to -4.60], P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of motor control exercises to reduce pain intensity and disability exists, but the reduction should be interpreted with caution.

The Role of Back Muscle Dysfunctions in Chronic Low Back Pain: State-of-the-Art and Clinical Implications

Changes in back muscle function and structure are highly prevalent in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Since large heterogeneity in clinical presentation and back muscle dysfunctions exists within this population, the potential role of back muscle dysfunctions in the persistence of low back pain differs between individuals. Consequently, interventions should be tailored to the individual patient and be based on a thorough clinical examination taking into account the multidimensional nature of CLBP. Considering the complexity of this process, we will provide a state-of-the-art update on back muscle dysfunctions in patients with CLBP and their implications for treatment. To this end, we will first give an overview of (1) dysfunctions in back muscle structure and function, (2) the potential of exercise therapy to address these dysfunctions, and (3) the relationship between changes in back muscle dysfunctions and clinical parameters. In a second part, we will describe a framework for an individualised approach for back muscle training in patients with CLBP.

Rasch analysis, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire

Background/aim

Lumbar instability is an important condition that can be seen frequently in people with low back pain, affecting both the progression and the choice of appropriate exercise. The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a simple and low-cost tool for evaluating disturbed back stability in people with low back pain. The aim of this study is to develop the Turkish version of the LSIQ (LSIQ-T) and to evaluate its psychometric properties using the Rasch model.

Materials and methods

One hundred participants with chronic low back pain completed the LSIQ-T. The LSIQ-T was repeated for 30 participants after 1 week to establish its test-retest reliability. While internal and external construct validity were investigated using Rasch analysis and the Spearman correlation coefficient, respectively, reliability was evaluated in terms of internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha and the Person Separation Index (PSI).

Results

All items of the LSIQ-T were found to fit the Rasch model (chi-square: 34.07 (df = 15), p = 0.0033). The internal construct validity was good, the overall mean item fit residual was 0 (SD: 0.765), and the mean person fit residual was 0.322 (SD: 1.123). Internal consistency reliability was low with a PSI of 0.63 although Cronbach's alpha was acceptable (0.68). When the test-retest reliability was examined via differential item functioning (DIF) by time, none of the items showed DIF.

Conclusion

The LSIQ-T is a valid unidimensional scale for the Turkish population. Although the LSIQ-T had low internal consistency, it demonstrated unidimensionality and is appropriate for use. Therefore, the LSIQ-T can be used in clinical practice and scientific research.

Measurement Properties of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire for Patients With Low Back Pain in Mainland China

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a simplified Chinese version of Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (SC-LSIQ) and test its measurement properties.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The LSIQ has been translated into several languages. Different versions of LSIQ have proved good reliability and validity in evaluating patients with low back pain. However, there is no simplified Chinese version of LSIQ (SC-LSIQ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SC-LSIQ has been translated into a simplified Chinese version according to a standard procedure. A total of 155 patients with low back pain completed the SC-LSIQ along with Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and visual analogue scale (VAS). The internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity of SC-LSIQ were then calculated to evaluate the measurement properties of SC-LSIQ.

RESULTS

The results of SC-LSIQ demonstrated that there was no ceiling or floor effect detected. The Cronbach α coefficient of 0.911 determined a well internal consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (0.98) presented an excellent reliability of SC-LSIQ. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) showed that the SC-LSIQ was excellent correlated to Oswestry Disability Index (r=0.809), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (r=0.870), and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (r=0.945,). Furthermore, it moderately correlated to visual analogue scale (r=0.586).

CONCLUSION

The SC-LSIQ features good internal consistency, reliability, and validity for evaluating Chinese patients with LBP. Results suggest that the SC-LSIQ can be appropriately applied to patients with LBP in routine clinical practice.

The Swedish version of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire: A clinimetric study of validity and reliability

INTRODUCTION

The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) suggested to measure clinical instability of the spine.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the LSIQ into Swedish and to test its measurement properties.

METHODS

We included people with low back pain (LBP) seeking primary care (n = 101). The LSIQ was translated using international recommendations. Construct validity was investigated via the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Reliability was tested via test-retest (Intra Class Correlation, ICC_2.1) (n = 50) and by analyzing internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha). A suggested cutoff score was used to study discriminative ability.

RESULTS

The LSIQ was successfully translated into Swedish. For construct validity, a moderate correlation was shown with the RM (rho 0.58) and the NPRS (rho 0.47). Test-retest demonstrated high reliability for the total score (ICC_2.1 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-0.96). Internal consistency reached a Cronbach Alpha of 0.64. Participants scoring higher on the LSIQ (≥9) showed significantly higher pain and lower disability levels, were of higher age and less physically active.

CONCLUSION

The Swedish LSIQ shows acceptable measurement properties regarding test-retest reliability and validity. To further study the usefulness of the LSIQ and the suggested cutoff score, the dimensionality needs to be investigated.

Comparison of supervised exercise therapy with or without biopsychosocial approach for chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

A biopsychosocial rehabilitation is recommended for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP); however, its effectiveness compared to the traditional supervised exercise therapy of CNLBP treatment is still unclear.

Methods

This was a parallel-group randomized controlled clinical trial. The sample consisted of 180 participants of both sexes, aged ≥18 years, with CNLBP for ≥3 months. Using web randomization and concealed allocation, they were assigned to three groups; graded activity receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy, group-based combined exercise therapy and education (GA; n = 59), supervised group-based combined exercise therapy and education (SET; n = 63), and a control group receiving usual care (n = 58). Interventions were administered for 4 weeks (8 sessions). The primary outcome was pain intensity. Outcome measures were collected baseline, after interventions (4 weeks), and during two follow-up periods (3 and 6 months).

Results

After the intervention, GA had a significant large effect on pain reduction compared to the control group (MD of 22.64 points; 95% CI = 16.10 to 29.19; p < 0.0001; Cohen’s d = 1.70), as well as SET compared with the control group (MD of 21.08 points; 95% CI = 14.64 to 27.52; p < 0.0001; Cohen’s d = 1.39), without significant difference between two intervention groups. At 3 and 6 months of follow-up, GA had a statistically significantly better effect in reducing pain, disability and fear-avoidance beliefs, and improving spinal extensor endurance, range of extension and quality of life compared to SET and the control group. A statistically significantly better effect of SET compared with the control group was found in reducing pain, disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, and improving the physical component of quality of life. Harms were not reported.

Conclusion

This study suggests that graded activity and group-based supervised exercise therapy have beneficial effects over the control group in the treatment of CNLBP. The graded activity was more beneficial than supervised group-based exercise therapy only during the follow-up.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04023162; registration date: 17/07/2019).

How do psychologically based interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain work? A systematic review and meta-analysis of specific moderators and mediators of treatment

Psychologically based interventions aim to improve pain-related functioning by targeting pain-related fears, cognitions and behaviors. Mediation and moderation analyses permit further examination of the effect of treatment on an outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthetize the evidence of specific mediators and moderators (i.e., treatment targets) of psychologically based treatment effects on pain and disability. A total of 28 mediation and 11 moderation analyses were included. Thirteen mediation studies were included in a meta-analysis, and the rest was narratively synthetized. Reductions in pain-related fear (indirect effect [IE]: -0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.11, -0.04) and catastrophizing (IE: -0.07; 95%CI: -0.14, -0.00), as well as increases in self-efficacy (IE: -0.07; 95%CI: -0.11, -0.04), mediated effects of cognitive behavioral therapy on disability but not on pain intensity, when compared to control treatments. Enhancing pain acceptance (IE: -0.17; 95%CI: -0.31, -0.03) and psychological flexibility (IE: -0.30; 95%CI: -0.41, -0.18) mediated acceptance and commitment therapy effects on disability. The narrative synthesis showed conflicting evidence, which did not support a robust moderated effect for any of the examined constructs. Overall, the methodological quality regarding mediation was low, and some key pitfalls are highlighted alongside recommendations to provide a platform for future research.

Cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Persian version of the lumbar spine instability questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a self-reported measure of clinical instability of the lumbar spine. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the LSIQ into Persian language (LSIQ-P) and to evaluate its reliability and validity in a sample of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, the LSIQ was translated using guidelines. Participants with chronic non-specific LBP, aged ≥ 18 years old, answered an online survey consisting of LSIQ-P, the Persian Functional Rating Index (FRI), and the pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Construct validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC), discriminant validity, and factor analysis were evaluated.

RESULTS

The LSIQ was successfully adapted into Persian. A sample of 100 participants with LBP and 100 healthy subjects completed the survey. Floor and ceiling effects were not observed. Cronbach's alpha = 0.767 and ICC_agreement = 0.78 indicated good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The SEM and SDC were 1.53 and 4.24, respectively. Construct validity of LSIQ-P was confirmed with significant correlation with Persian FRI (r = 0.44, p < 0.001) and pain NRS (r = 0.30, p = 0.003). An evidence of discriminant validity was demonstrated by significant difference in LSIQ-P total scores between the patients with LBP and healthy subjects, and between the patients with high total score ≥ 9 and those with low total score < 9 on the LSIQ-P. The LSIQ-P was found a multidimensional instrument with eight items appeared being redundant.

CONCLUSIONS

The Persian LSIQ showed satisfactory metric characteristics of reliability and validity. Further studies are required to elucidate the internal structure of the LSIQ-P.

Psychosocial Predictors of Pain and Disability Outcomes in People with Chronic Low Back Pain Treated Conservatively by Guideline-Based Intervention: A Systematic Review

Objective

Previous evidence has recommended conservative interventions as the best treatment in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the influence of psychosocial factors on the treatment outcomes is unclear. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to address the psychosocial factors that influence changes in pain and disability in patients with CLBP after a guideline-based conservative intervention.

Methods

Four electronic databases were systematically searched from inception until September 2020 for prospective studies examining the relationship between psychosocial factors and the outcomes of pain and disability after conservative intervention. All included studies were selected, extracted, and critically evaluated by two independent reviewers.

Results

In total, 15 studies were included in this systematic review. The results support the link between the baseline fear of movement, depression, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing with future functional disability outcomes after conservative interventions. However, these factors were less likely to predict changes in pain intensity outcomes after conservative interventions. Self-efficacy seems to mediate between some of the baseline psychosocial factors (eg, fear) and future pain and disability.

Conclusion

Fear of movement, self-efficacy, catastrophizing and depression were consistently reported to predict disability outcomes irrespective of the type of conservative intervention. This highlights the importance of addressing these factors in conservative management of CLBP.

Research progress of diagnosing methodology for lumbar segmental instability: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar segmental instability (LSI) is due to a pathologic movement of the vertebral body on the vertebra below and often causes clinical symptoms. The study was to achieve the research progress of diagnosing methodology for lumbar segmental instability and help clinicians make treatment choices.

METHODS

The data for this study were collected from the MEDLINE, Springer, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, VIP, and CNKI. The search terms were integrated as follows: "(∗lumbar instability∗ OR ∗lumbar spondylolisthesis∗) and (∗image∗ or ∗diagnosis∗)". Studies without clear radiographic instable criteria, case reports, letter, and basic research were excluded.

RESULT

In total, 39 articles published met our inclusion criteria. The various modalities were used to diagnosis LSI in these studies included radiographs, facet joint degeneration and physical examination tests.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there have been a variety of researches to develop the diagnosing methodology for LSI, and many have been successful, although no consensus has been reached yet. However, it is believed that the diagnosis of LSI will become easier and more accurate in the near future.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.

Characterisation of motor cortex organisation in patients with different presentations of persistent low back pain

Persistence of low back pain is thought to be associated with different underlying pain mechanisms, including ongoing nociceptive input and central sensitisation. We hypothesised that primary motor cortex (M1) representations of back muscles (a measure of motor system adaptation) would differ between pain mechanisms, with more consistent observations in individuals presumed to have an ongoing contribution of nociceptive input consistently related to movement/posture. We tested 28 participants with low back pain sub-grouped by the presumed underlying pain mechanisms: nociceptive pain, nociplastic pain and a mixed group with features consistent with both. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to study M1 organisation of back muscles. M1 maps of multifidus (deep and superficial) and longissimus erector spinae were recorded with fine-wire electromyography and thoracic erector spinae with surface electromyography. The nociplastic pain group had greater variability in M1 map location (centre of gravity) than other groups (p < .01), which may suggest less consistency, and perhaps relevance, of motor cortex adaptation for that group. The mixed group had greater overlap of M1 representations between deep/superficial muscles than nociceptive pain (deep multifidus/longissimus: p = .001, deep multifidus/thoracic erector spinae: p = .008) and nociplastic pain (deep multifidus/longissimus: p = .02, deep multifidus/thoracic erector spinae: p = .02) groups. This study provides preliminary evidence of differences in M1 organisation in subgroups of low back pain classified by likely underlying pain mechanisms. Despite the sample size, differences in cortical re-organisation between subgroups were detected. Differences in M1 organisation in subgroups of low back pain supports tailoring of treatment based on pain mechanism and motor adaptation.

Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has been the leading cause of disability globally for at least the past three decades and results in enormous direct healthcare and lost productivity costs.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of exercise treatment on pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo and other conservative treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Back and Neck trials register), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and conducted citation searching of relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. The review includes data for trials identified in searches up to 27 April 2018. All eligible trials have been identified through searches to 7 December 2020, but have not yet been extracted; these trials will be integrated in the next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed exercise treatment compared to no treatment, usual care, placebo or other conservative treatment on the outcomes of pain or functional limitations for a population of adult participants with chronic non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and assessed studies independently, with consensus. We extracted outcome data using electronic databases; pain and functional limitations outcomes were re-scaled to 0 to 100 points for meta-analyses where 0 is no pain or functional limitations. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and used GRADE to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence. When required, we contacted study authors to obtain missing data. To interpret meta-analysis results, we considered a 15-point difference in pain and a 10-point difference in functional limitations outcomes to be clinically important for the primary comparison of exercise versus no treatment, usual care or placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 249 trials of exercise treatment, including studies conducted in Europe (122 studies), Asia (38 studies), North America (33 studies), and the Middle East (24 studies). Sixty-one per cent of studies (151 trials) examined the effectiveness of two or more different types of exercise treatment, and 57% (142 trials) compared exercise treatment to a non-exercise comparison treatment. Study participants had a mean age of 43.7 years and, on average, 59% of study populations were female. Most of the trials were judged to be at risk of bias, including 79% at risk of performance bias due to difficulty blinding exercise treatments. We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise treatment is more effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons for pain outcomes at earliest follow-up (MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2), a clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to heterogeneity. For the same comparison, there was moderate-certainty evidence for functional limitations outcomes (MD -6.8 (95% CI -8.3 to -5.3); this finding did not meet our prespecified threshold for minimal clinically important difference. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to some evidence of publication bias.  Compared to all other investigated conservative treatments, exercise treatment was found to have improved pain (MD -9.1, 95% CI -12.6 to -5.6) and functional limitations outcomes (MD -4.1, 95% CI -6.0 to -2.2). These effects did not meet our prespecified threshold for clinically important difference. Subgroup analysis of pain outcomes suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than education alone (MD -12.2, 95% CI -19.4 to -5.0) or non-exercise physical therapy (MD -10.4, 95% CI -15.2 to -5.6), but with no differences observed for manual therapy (MD 1.0, 95% CI -3.1 to 5.1). In studies that reported adverse effects (86 studies), one or more adverse effects were reported in 37 of 112 exercise groups (33%) and 12 of 42 comparison groups (29%). Twelve included studies reported measuring adverse effects in a systematic way, with a median of 0.14 (IQR 0.01 to 0.57) per participant in the exercise groups (mostly minor harms, e.g. muscle soreness), and 0.12 (IQR 0.02 to 0.32) in comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low-certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

Effectiveness of motor control exercise on non-specific chronic low back pain, disability and core muscle morphological characteristics: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has been recognized as the leading cause of disability. Up to 90% of patients with CLBP are classified as having non-specific CLBP (NSCLBP). Motor control exercise (MCE) is one of the most popular and widespread treatment options, and has many advantages in alleviating pain and disability. This meta-analysis is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of MCE on NSCLBP, disability, and core muscles reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched from inception to August 2020. Articles were eligible if they were RCTs that evaluated MCE against sham or other treatments in isolation and measured outcomes including pain intensity and disability or core muscles morphologic characteristics.

RESULTS

Two authors independently extracted the data. Eighteen studies of 897 studies with a total of 1333 individuals with NSCLBP were retained for the meta-analysis. Compared with other conservative treatments, MCE was better in reducing pain and disability posttreatment and was better in reducing pain at the 6-month follow-up period. However, it had comparable effects on pain reduction at 12-month and 24-month follow-up period, and on disability at the 6-month, 12-month and 24-month follow-up period. MCE resulted in comparable effects to other treatments in improving the core muscle thickness posttreatment. However, other important outcomes, such as the function, strength and endurance of core muscles, which could hamper a comprehensive understanding of the effects of MCE on NSCLBP.

LIMITATIONS

Publication bias was not assessed in several comparisons due to the scarcity of data in published literature. This might downgrade the strength of the evidence. The protocol of this meta-analysis was reviewed by an expert committee, but was not registered in a public trial registry.

CONCLUSIONS

Low to very low quality of evidence supported that MCE resulted in a greater reduction of pain and disability posttreatment, and a greater reduction of pain at the 6-month follow-up than other treatments for NSCBLP. The findings in this review further support that MCE may be more effective than other treatments at short-term followups, and at least has equivalent long-term effects to other forms of treatments in NSCLBP.

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

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation induces disability improvement, pain reduction and favours return-to-work in patients with subacute low back pain (LBP). Current research advises additional high-quality trials.

AIM

To test the effect of a multidisciplinary rehabilitative programme incorporating cognitivebehavioural interventions compared to general physiotherapy alone to treat subacute LBP, and to appraise its long-term extent.

DESIGN

Randomised parallel-group superiority-controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient rehabilitation hospital.

POPULATION

150 patients with subacute LBP.

METHODS

Patients were assigned randomly to a 10-week individual-based multimodal programme of task-oriented exercises integrated with cognitive-behavioural therapy (experimental group, 75 patients) or individual-based general physiotherapy (control group, 75 patients). Before treatment, 10 weeks later (post-treatment), and 12 months after treatment, the staff administered the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, primary outcome), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Pain Beliefs and Perception Inventory (PBAPI), the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Score (HADS) and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire-revised (CSQ-R). Linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures was carried out for each outcome measure.

RESULTS

Significant group (p<0.001), time (p=0.002), and time-by-group interaction (p<0.001) effects were found for ODI, with a between-group difference (standard error) after training of 11.5 (1.0) and at follow-up of 15.7 (0.9), in favour of the experimental group. A significant interaction effect (p<0.001) was found for all secondary outcome measures, with significantly greater improvements in the experimental group, after rehabilitation and at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The multidisciplinary intervention was superior to general physiotherapy in reducing disability, pain, psychological factors and coping strategies of patients with subacute LBP. The effects were reinforced after one year.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

Treatment of subacute LBP requires cognitive modifications closely linked to physical performances in order to achieve mental adjustments and guarantee cognitive-behavioural and motor lasting changes.

Investigation on the effectiveness of abdominal hollowing home-exercises using a portable ultrasound: Randomized controlled trial

We used a 3-arm randomized control trial to investigate whether abdominal hollowing (AH) home exercise using pocket-sized ultrasonography (US)-miruco (AH with miruco group)-was more effective than conventional AH home exercise using abdominal palpation and or also a wait-and-see approach (control group) to improve isolated control of the transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle during AH. We randomized 60 participants with low back pain into the three groups equally. Primary outcome measures for the US group were percentage of change in TrA thickness and excursion of the edge of the TrA fascia during AH when the thickness of the internal or external oblique muscles increased. Score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was a secondary outcome measure. The intervention period was 1 week, followed by 1 week without intervention. As a result, we found no statistically significant interaction effect (P > .05) in changes of the primary outcome measures from baseline for each follow-up period. The AH with miruco group had a statistically lower ODI (P = .036) than did the control group after the intervention. Results indicate a limited benefit for use of the miruco in AH home exercise to improve isolated control of the TrA muscle during AH.

Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? (WELBack) trial predicting response to exercise treatments for patients with low back pain: a validation randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Exercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Participants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04283409.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness

Background

Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP).

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change.

Results

Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes.

Conclusions

The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another.

Effect of adjuvant frequency-specific microcurrents on pain and disability in patients treated with physical rehabilitation for neck and low back pain

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant frequency-specific microcurrent (FSM) application on pain and disability in patients treated with physical rehabilitation for mechanical low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP).

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, pre- and post-treatment numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, neck disability index (NDI) score, disability categories, and treatment outcome categories were compared between 213 patients in the FSM group (167 patients with LBP, 46 patients with NP) and 78 patients in the control group (61 patients with LBP, 17 patients with NP).

RESULTS

In LBP patients, mean post-treatment NPRS score was significantly lower (p = 0.02) and a significantly higher percentage of patients were in the ≤3 NPRS score (p = 0.02), in the minimal disability (p = 0.01), and the full success (p = 0.006) categories post-treatment in the FSM group when compared to the control group. In NP patients, there was no significant difference in the post-treatment pain intensity, disability or treatment outcome when the 2 groups were compared.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of adjuvant FSM application in patients treated with physical rehabilitation for LBP significantly improved pain and disability when compared to patients in the control group. Frequency specific microcurrent could be a useful adjuvant in the rehabilitation treatment of patients with low back pain.

Effects of trunk lean and foot lift exercises in sitting position on abdominal muscle activity and the contribution rate of transversus abdominis

PURPOSE

Abdominal hollowing exercise has been recommended to improve trunk stability. Trunk lean and foot lift exercises while sitting may easily promote abdominal muscle activity even in people who cannot perform abdominal hollowing consciously. The purpose of the present study was to examine the changes in abdominal muscle activity and contribution rate of the transversus abdominis muscle (TrA) when leaning the trunk and lifting the foot during sitting.

METHODS

The muscle stiffnesses (indicators of muscle activity) of the right rectus abdominis, external oblique, internal oblique, and TrA of 14 healthy men were measured during abdominal hollowing and the following nine sitting tasks: reference posture, 15° and maximal posterior trunk lean, 20° and maximal ipsilateral and contralateral trunk lean, and ipsilateral and contralateral foot lift. The TrA contribution rate was calculated by dividing the TrA stiffness by the sum of the abdominal muscles' stiffnesses.

RESULTS

The TrA stiffness was significantly higher in abdominal hollowing than in reference posture, posterior and ipsilateral trunk lean, and ipsilateral foot lift, but not higher than in contralateral trunk lean and contralateral foot lift. There was no significant difference in the TrA contribution rates between abdominal hollowing and ipsilateral or contralateral foot lift.

CONCLUSION

The contralateral trunk lean or contralateral foot lift could enhance TrA activity for people who cannot perform abdominal hollowing consciously. The contralateral foot lift could particularly be beneficial to obtain selective activity of TrA.

Baseline characteristics did not identify people with low back pain who respond best to a Movement System Impairment-Based classification treatment

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

Treatment based on the Movement System Impairment-Based classification for chronic low back pain results in the same benefit when compared to other forms of exercise. It is possible that participant's characteristics measured at baseline can identify people with chronic low back pain who would respond best to a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if specific characteristics of people with chronic low back pain measured at baseline can modify the effects of a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model on pain and disability.

METHODS

Four variables assessed at baseline that could potentially modify the treatment effects of the treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model were selected (age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification). Separate univariate models were used to investigate a possible modifier treatment effect of baseline participant's characteristics on pain and disability after the treatment. Findings of interaction values above 1 point for the outcome mean pain intensity or above 3 points for disability (Roland Morris questionnaire) were considered clinically relevant.

RESULTS

Linear regression analyses for the outcomes of pain and disability did not show interaction values considered clinically relevant for age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification.

CONCLUSION

Age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification did not modify the effects of an 8-week treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model in patients with chronic low back pain. Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02221609 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02221609).

Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials

Background

Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.

Methods

In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.

Results

We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.

Conclusions

This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.

Protocol publication

https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64

Individual recovery expectations and prognosis of outcomes in non-specific low back pain: prognostic factor review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity.

SEARCH METHODS

The search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation. Usable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain.

A Rasch analysis of the lumbar spine instability questionnaire

Purpose: A 2014 study found that the Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire predicts response to two different types of exercise therapy. This is the first decision tool that has predicted response to exercise for chronic low back pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Methods: Baseline data from patients included in a randomized controlled trial with chronic non-specific low back pain were included. Rasch Measurement Theory was used to assess the ordering of items along a common scale, data-to-model fit, Person Separation Index, unidimensionality and Differential Item Functioning. Results: Responses from 172 patients (102 females) underwent Rasch analysis. All Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire items had fit residuals between ± 2.5 and Chi-Square values were non-significant with Bonferroni corrections. The Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire demonstrated a Person Separation Index of 0.64, which is below the recommended cut-off of 0.7. Differential Item Functioning by different pain levels was identified for one item. Conclusion: The Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire was found to be unidimensional, suggesting that the use of a summary score is appropriate. However, the low Person Separation Index value suggests that more items may be needed to increase the questionnaire's ability to discriminate among individuals with high and low clinical instability.

State-of-the-Art Exercise Concepts for Lumbopelvic and Spinal Muscles - Transferability to Microgravity

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Over the last three decades, changes to key recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for management of LBP have placed greater emphasis on self-management and utilization of exercise programs targeting improvements in function. Recommendations have also suggested that physical treatments for persistent LBP should be tailored to the individual. This mini review will draw parallels between changes, which occur to the neuromuscular system in microgravity and conditions such as LBP which occur on Earth. Prolonged exposure to microgravity is associated with both LBP and muscle atrophy of the intrinsic muscles of the spine, including the lumbar multifidus. The finding of atrophy of spinal muscles has also commonly been reported in terrestrial LBP sufferers. Studying astronauts provides a unique perspective and valuable model for testing the effectiveness of exercise interventions, which have been developed on Earth. One such approach is motor control training, which is a broad term that can include all the sensory and motor aspects of spinal motor function. There is evidence to support the use of this exercise approach, but unlike changes seen in muscles of LBP sufferers on Earth, the changes induced by exposure to microgravity are rapid, and are relatively consistent in nature. Drawing parallels between changes which occur to the neuromuscular system in the absence of gravity and which exercises best restore size and function could help health professionals tailor improved interventions for terrestrial populations.

Hybrid Approach to Treatment Tailoring for Low Back Pain: A Proposed Model of Care

Various approaches have been used to guide the treatment of low back pain. These approaches have been considered in isolation and often tested against each other. An alternative view is that a model of care that involves a hybrid approach may benefit patients with low back pain. This commentary considers the potential benefits of a sequentially applied hybrid approach for treatment tailoring to optimize resource allocation to those most likely to require comprehensive care, and then decision making toward treatment paths with the greatest potential for success. In a first step, a prognosis-based approach, such as the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back Screening Tool (STarT Back), identifies individuals likely to require greater resource allocation. Although a clear path is indicated toward simple and psychologically informed care for the low- and high-risk groups, respectively, there is limited guidance for the large medium-risk group. For that group, the hybrid model provides a stepwise path of additional methods to guide treatment selection. This includes subgrouping based on pain mechanism to guide priority domains for the next phase, which includes tailoring of psychological and movement-based approaches. Motor control approaches to exercise would be indicated for individuals with medium risk and a nociceptive pain mechanism, with treatment guided by detailed assessment via one of several paradigms. Psychologically informed treatments are tailored to those with medium risk and a predominantly central pain mechanism, guided by detailed assessment of psychosocial features. A hybrid approach to a model of care could simplify treatment selection and take advantage of the benefits of each method in a time- and cost-efficient manner. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):453-463. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8774.

Convergence and Divergence of Exercise-Based Approaches That Incorporate Motor Control for the Management of Low Back Pain

Many approaches for low back pain (LBP) management focus on modifying motor control, which refers to motor, sensory, and central processes for control of posture and movement. A common assumption across approaches is that the way an individual loads the spine by typical postures, movements, and muscle activation strategies contributes to LBP symptom onset, persistence, and recovery. However, there are also divergent features from one approach to another. This commentary presents key principles of 4 clinical physical therapy approaches, including how each incorporates motor control in LBP management, the convergence and divergence of these approaches, and how they interface with medical LBP management. The approaches considered are movement system impairment syndromes of the lumbar spine, Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy, motor control training, and the integrated systems model. These were selected to represent the diversity of applications, including approaches using motor control as a central or an adjunct feature, and approaches that are evidence based or evidence informed. This identification of areas of convergence and divergence of approaches is designed to clarify the key aspects of each approach and thereby serve as a guide for the clinician and to provide a platform for considering a hybrid approach tailored to the individual patient. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):437-452. Epub 15 May 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8451.

Time to Reflect on the Role of Motor Control in Low Back Pain

The articles in this special issue on low back pain are the outcome of work undertaken by a series of working parties established during the meeting, "State-of-the-Art in Motor Control and Low Back Pain: International Clinical and Research Expert Forum," held in Chicago in October 2015. This multidisciplinary meeting provided an opportunity for discussion of key issues that interconnect motor control, pain, and the spine. What started as a relatively straightforward objective to summarize the field subsequently developed into an extensive process of literature review and discussion that culminated in the commentaries and articles presented in this special issue. We hope that the up-to-date information and in-depth insights into pain, motor control, and rehabilitation provide novel insights and a clear trajectory for future work and form the foundation for ongoing lively discussion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):367-369. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.0104.

Changes in Structure and Function of the Back Muscles in Low Back Pain: Different Time Points, Observations, and Mechanisms

Spinal health depends on optimal back muscle performance, and this is determined by muscle structure and function. There has been substantial research evaluating the differences in structure and function of many back muscles, including the multifidus and erector spinae, but with considerable variation in results. Many studies have shown atrophy, fat infiltration, and connective tissue accumulation in back muscles, particularly deep fibers of the multifidus, but the results are not uniform. In terms of function, results are also somewhat inconsistent, often reporting lower multifidus activation and augmented recruitment of more superficial components of the multifidus and erector spinae, but, again, with variation between studies. A major recent observation has been the identification of time-dependent differences in features of back muscle adaptation, from acute to subacute/recurrent to chronic states of the condition. Further, these adaptations have been shown to be explained by different time-dependent mechanisms. This has substantial impact on the rationale for rehabilitation approaches. The aim of this commentary was to review and consolidate the breadth of research investigating adaptation in back muscle structure and function, to consider explanations for some of the variation between studies, and to propose how this model can be used to guide rehabilitation in a manner that is tailored to individual patients and to underlying mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):464-476. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8827.

Motor Control Changes in Low Back Pain: Divergence in Presentations and Mechanisms

Compared to healthy individuals, patients with low back pain demonstrate differences in all aspects of trunk motor control that are most often studied as differences in muscle activity and kinematics. However, differences in these aspects of motor control are largely inconsistent. We propose that this may reflect the existence of 2 phenotypes or possibly the ends of a spectrum, with "tight control" over trunk movement at one end and "loose control" at the other. Both may have beneficial effects, with tight control protecting against large tissue strains from uncontrolled movement and loose control protecting against high muscle forces and resulting spinal compression. Both may also have long-term negative consequences. For example, whereas tight control may cause high compressive loading on the spine and sustained muscle activity, loose control may cause excessive tensile strains of tissues. Moreover, both phenotypes could be the result of either an adaptation process aimed at protecting the low back or direct interference of low back pain and related changes with trunk motor control. The existence of such phenotypes would suggest different motor control exercise interventions. Although some promising data supporting these phenotypes have been reported, it remains to be shown whether these phenotypes are valid, how treatment can be targeted to these phenotypes, and whether this targeting yields superior clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):370-379. Epub 12 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.7917.

Analysis of Motor Control in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Key to Personalized Care?

Motor control exercise has been shown to be effective in the management of low back pain (LBP). However, the effect sizes for motor control exercise are modest, possibly because studies have used a one-size-fits-all approach, while the literature suggests that patients may differ in presence or type of motor control issues. In this commentary, we address the question of whether consideration of such variation in motor control issues might contribute to more personalized motor control exercise for patients with LBP. Such an approach is plausible, because motor control changes may play a role in persistence of pain through effects on tissue loading that may cause nociceptive afference, particularly in the case of peripheral sensitization. Subgrouping systems used in clinical practice, which comprise motor control aspects, allow reliable classification that is, in part, aligned with findings in studies on motor control in patients with LBP. Motor control issues may have heuristic value for treatment allocation, as the different presentations observed suggest different targets for motor control exercise, but this remains to be proven. Finally, clinical assessment of patients with LBP should take into account more aspects than motor control alone, including pain mechanisms, musculoskeletal health, and psychosocial factors, and may need to be embedded in a stratification approach based on prognosis to avoid undue diagnostic procedures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):380-388. Epub 12 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.7916.

Are Stability and Instability Relevant Concepts for Back Pain?

Individuals with back pain are often diagnosed with spine instability, even though it is unclear whether the spine is susceptible to unstable behavior. The spine is a complex system with many elements that cannot be directly observed, which makes the study of spine function and direct assessment of spine instability difficult. What is known is that trunk muscle activation is adjusted to meet stability demands, which highlights that the central nervous system closely monitors threats to spine stability. The spine appears to be protected by neural coupling and mechanical coupling that prevent erroneous motor control from producing segmental instability; however, this neural and mechanical coupling could be problematic in an injured spine. Finally, instability traditionally contemplated from a mechanical and control perspective could potentially be applied to study processes involved in pain sensitization, and possibly back pain that is iatrogenic in nature. This commentary argues for a more contemporary and broadened view of stability that integrates interdisciplinary knowledge in order to capture the complexity of back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):415-424. Epub 25 Apr 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8144.

Diverse Role of Biological Plasticity in Low Back Pain and Its Impact on Sensorimotor Control of the Spine

Pain is complex. It is no longer acceptable to consider pain solely as a peripheral phenomenon involving activation of nociceptive neurons. The contemporary understanding of pain involves consideration of different underlying pain mechanisms and an increasing awareness of plasticity in all of the biological systems. Of note, recent advances in technology and understanding have highlighted the critical importance of neuroimmune interactions, both in the peripheral and central nervous systems, and the interaction between the nervous system and body tissues in the development and maintenance of pain, including low back pain (LBP). Further, the biology of many tissues changes when challenged by pain and injury, as reported in a growing body of literature on the biology of muscle, fat, and connective tissue. These advances in understanding of the complexity of LBP have implications for our understanding of pain and its interaction with the motor system, and may change how we consider motor control in the rehabilitation of LBP. This commentary provides a state-of-the-art overview of plasticity of biology in LBP. The paper is divided into 4 parts that address (1) biology of pain mechanisms, (2) neuroimmune interaction in the central nervous system, (3) neuroimmune interaction in the periphery, and (4) brain and peripheral tissue interaction. Each section considers the implications for clinical management of LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):389-401. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8716.

Association Between Clinical Tests Related to Motor Control Dysfunction and Changes in Pain and Disability After Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether clinical tests used to detect motor control dysfunction can predict improvements in pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) who have undergone an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Outpatient physical therapy university clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy people with chronic nonspecific LBP were recruited, and 64 completed the exercise program (N=64).

INTERVENTIONS

The lumbar stabilization program was provided twice a week for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and clinical tests, such as the Deep Muscle Contraction (DMC) scale, Clinical Test of Thoracolumbar Dissociation (CTTD), and Passive Lumbar Extension (PLE) test. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used in the prediction analysis.

RESULTS

Mean changes in pain intensity and disability following the 8-week stabilization program were -3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2 to -4.4) and -7.4 (95% CI, -6.3 to -8.5), respectively. Clinical test scores taken at baseline did not predict changes in pain and disability at 8-week follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed that the DMC scale, CTTD, PLE test, clinical tests used to assess motor control dysfunction, do not predict improvements in pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP following an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program.

Clinimetric Testing of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a self-report measure of 15 items. Previous studies have used the LSIQ as a measure of clinical instability; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its clinimetric properties has not been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the LSIQ in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

In this clinical measurement study, the authors included patients with nonspecific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Australia. Rasch analysis was conducted to assess item hierarchy, targeting, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. The researchers assessed test-retest reliability of total scores and individual item scores, as well as convergent and divergent validity.

RESULTS

A total of 107 participants with LBP (60 men and 47 women) were recruited. The results were variable. The LSIQ appeared to constitute a unidimensional measure, targeted the sample well, and showed adequate test-retest reliability. However, the scale had poor internal consistency, did not appear to function as an interval-level measure, and had unclear construct validity. Although no items appeared to be redundant, several items were biased by factors other than the proposed construct of the measure.

CONCLUSION

The LSIQ does not seem to be ready to be implemented in clinical practice and may require theoretical reconsideration. Although the LSIQ provided satisfactory estimates for some clinimetric features, the authors do not consider the instrument to be useful as an interval-level measure but rather as an index. Future studies are needed to investigate whether the LSIQ could measure clinical instability or some other construct. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):915-922. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7866.

Who Benefits Most From Individualized Physiotherapy or Advice for Low Back Disorders? A Preplanned Effect Modifier Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A preplanned effect modifier analysis of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics associated with larger or smaller treatment effects in people with low back disorders undergoing either individualized physical therapy or guideline-based advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Identifying subgroups of people who attain a larger or smaller benefit from particular treatments has been identified as a high research priority for low back disorders.

METHODS

The trial involved 300 participants with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 wk, ≤6 mo duration), who satisfied criteria to be classified into five subgroups (with 228 participants classified into three subgroups relating to disc-related disorders, and 64 classified into the zygapophyseal joint dysfunction subgroup). Participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline based advice (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial, and neurophysiological factors (n = 156). Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models determined the interaction between treatment group and potential effect modifiers (defined a priori) for the primary outcomes of back pain, leg pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) and activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) over a 52-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants with higher levels of back pain, higher Örebro scores (indicative of higher risk of persistent pain) or longer duration of symptoms derived the largest benefits from individualized physical therapy relative to advice. Poorer coping also predicted larger benefits from individualized physical therapy in the univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that people with low back disorders could be preferentially targeted for individualized physical therapy rather than advice if they have higher back pain levels, longer duration of symptoms, or higher Örebro scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The Role of Self-Efficacy on the Prognosis of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review

Evidence suggests that self-efficacy can play an essential role as a protective factor as well as a mediator in the relationship between pain and disability in people suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study systematically reviewed and critically appraised the role of self-efficacy on the prognosis of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Study selection was on the basis of longitudinal studies testing the prognostic value of self-efficacy in chronic musculoskeletal pain. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies checklist were used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. A total of 27 articles met the inclusion criteria. Our results suggest that higher self-efficacy levels are associated with greater physical functioning, physical activity participation, health status, work status, satisfaction with the performance, efficacy beliefs, and lower levels of pain intensity, disability, disease activity, depressive symptoms, presence of tender points, fatigue, and presenteeism. Despite the low quality of evidence of included studies, clinicians should be encouraged identify people with chronic musculoskeletal pain who present low self-efficacy levels before prescribing any therapy. It may help clinicians in their clinical decision-making and timely and specific consultations with-or referral to-other health care providers.

PERSPECTIVE

This article presents promising results about the role of self-efficacy on the prognosis of chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, because of the low quality of evidence of included studies, these findings should be taken with caution, and further research is needed.

Effectiveness of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: midterm follow up results of a randomized controlled trial

•

Graded activity and physiotherapy have similar effects in terms of reducing pain and disability.

•

Healthcare professionals may identify inadequate beliefs in patients with low back pain.

•

It is important to stimulate patients with LBP return to work.

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health and economic problem worldwide. Graded activity and physiotherapy are commonly used interventions for nonspecific low back pain. However, there is currently little evidence to support the use of one intervention over the other in the medium-term.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of graded activity exercises to physiotherapy-based exercises at mid-term (three and six months’ post intervention) in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Methods

Sixty-six patients were randomly allocated to two groups: graded activity group (n = 33) and physiotherapy group (n = 33). These patients received individual sessions twice a week for six weeks. Follow-up measurements were taken at three and six months. The main outcome measurements were intensity pain (Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire).

Results

No significant differences between groups after three and six month-follow ups were observed. Both groups showed similar outcomes for pain intensity at three months [between group differences: −0.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.5 to 1.2)] and six months [0.1 (95% CI = −1.1 to 1.5)], disability at three months was [-0.6 (95% CI = −3.4 to 2.2)] and six months [0.0 (95% CI = −2.9 to 3.0)].

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that graded activity and physiotherapy have similar effects in the medium-term for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Measurement Properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese Version of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-cultural adaptation and analysis of measurement properties.

OBJECTIVE

To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test its measurement properties in Brazilian patients with low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The selection of subgroup of patients that respond better to specific interventions is the top research priority in the field of back pain. The LSIQ is a tool able to stratify patients with low back pain who responds better to motor control exercises. There is no Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LSIQ available.

METHODS

The original version of the LSIQ was translated and cross-culturally adapted. We collected data from 100 patients with low back pain. In addition to LSIQ, we also collected information about physical activity levels (measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short version), disability (measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (measured by the Pain numerical Rating Scale), kinesiophobia (measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), and depression (measured by the Beck Depression Inventory). The measurement properties tested were internal consistency, reproducibility (reliability and agreement), construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects.

RESULTS

The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LSIQ showed good measurement properties with a Cronbach alpha of 0.79, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.75, a standard error of measurement of 1.65 points, and a minimal detectable change of 3.54 points. We did not detect ceiling and floor effects. The construct validity analysis was observed a moderate correlation between the LSIQ and Pain Numerical Rating Scale r = 0.46, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire r = 0.66, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia r = 0.49, and Beck Depression Inventory r = 0.44.

CONCLUSION

The Brazilian-Portuguese version of LIQ has adequate measurement properties and can be used in clinical practice and research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA.

Psychometric Properties of the Deep Muscle Contraction Scale for Assessment of the Drawing-in Maneuver in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

Study Design A prospective cohort study. Background Motor control dysfunctions have been commonly reported in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Physical therapists need clinical tools with adequate psychometric properties to assess such patients in clinical practice. The deep muscle contraction (DMC) scale is a clinical rating scale for assessing patients' ability to voluntarily contract deep abdominal muscles. Objectives To investigate the intrarater reliability, floor and ceiling effects, internal and external responsiveness, and correlation analysis (with ultrasound measures) of the DMC scale in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP undergoing a lumbar stabilization exercise program. Methods Sixty-two patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. At baseline, self-report questionnaires were administered to patients and a trained assessor evaluated abdominal muscle recruitment with the DMC scale and ultrasound imaging. Four ratios of the change in abdominal muscle thickness between the resting and contracted states were calculated through the ultrasound measures. After 1 week, the same ultrasound measures and DMC scale were collected again for the reliability analysis. The proportions of patients with the lowest and highest scores on the DMC scale were calculated to investigate floor and ceiling effects. All patients underwent a lumbar stabilization program, administered twice a week for 8 weeks. After the treatment period, all measures were collected again, with the addition of the global perceived effect scale, to assess the internal and external responsiveness of the measures. Correlation coefficients between ultrasound ratios and DMC scale total and subscale scores were also calculated. Results The intrarater reliability of the DMC scale and the 4 ratios of abdominal muscle thickness varied from moderate to excellent. The DMC scale showed no floor or ceiling effects. Results for internal responsiveness of the DMC scale showed large effect sizes (2.26; 84% confidence interval [CI]: 2.06, 2.45), whereas the external responsiveness was below the proposed threshold (area under the curve = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.68). Fair and significant correlations between some ultrasound ratios and DMC subscales were found. Conclusion The DMC scale was demonstrated to be a reliable tool, with no ceiling and floor effects, and to detect change in the ability to contract the deep abdominal muscles after a lumbar stabilization exercise program, but with low accuracy for estimating patient-perceived clinical outcome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(6):432-441. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7140.