Effectiveness of a Group-Based Progressive Strength Training in Primary Care to Improve the Recurrence of Low Back Pain Exacerbations and Function: A Randomised Trial

Development of the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire and Pilot Reliability Testing

Both chronic and recurrent spinal pain alter sensorimotor integration (SMI), which is demonstrated using complex neurophysiological techniques. Currently, there is no patient-reported outcome measure that documents and/or assesses SMI in populations with spinal problems. The purpose of this study was to develop the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire (SMD-Q) and assess its test-retest reliability and internal consistency in individuals with recurrent spinal pain. The SMD-Q was developed based on the existing literature on motor control disturbances associated with disordered SMI. The initial SMD-Q drafts underwent review by two separate panels of subject matter experts and a focus group with subclinical spine pain. Their suggestions were incorporated into the questionnaire prior to reliability testing. The questionnaire was administered twice at a seven-day interval using QualtricsTM. A total of 20 participants (14 females and 6 males; 20.95 ± 2.46 years of age) completed the study. Quadratic weighted kappa (Kw) was used to assess test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha (α) was used to assess internal consistency. Four items had a Kw < 0.40, seven had a 0.40 < Kw < 0.75, and one had a Kw > 0.75 (excellent agreement), with excellent internal consistency (α > 0.90). The pilot SMD-Q appears to reliably measure altered SMI, suggesting that revisions and testing with a larger sample are worth pursuing.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: Synopsis of the 2021 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

ABSTRACT

Low back pain is a significant issue in the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense populations as well as the general US population at large. This type of pain can be distressing to those who experience its effects, leading patients to seek relief of their symptoms. In 2022, leadership within the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain. The guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for assessing and managing low back pain. Development of the guideline included a systematic evidence review, which was guided by 12 key questions. A multidisciplinary team, which included clinical stakeholders, reviewed the evidence that was retrieved and developed 39 recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The scope of the clinical practice guideline is broad; however, the authors have focused on key recommendations that are important for clinicians in the evaluation and nonoperative treatment of low back pain, including pharmacologic therapies and both noninvasive and invasive nonpharmacologic treatments.

Best Exercise Options for Reducing Pain and Disability in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: Pilates, Strength, Core-Based, and Mind-Body. A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine which type of exercise is best for reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

LITERATURE SEARCH

Six electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs testing the effects of exercise on reducing self-perceived pain or disability in adults (aged 18-65 years) with chronic LBP.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We followed the PRISMA-NMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, incorporating NMAs of health care interventions) statement when reporting our NMA. A frequentist NMA was conducted. The probability of each intervention being the most effective was conducted according to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

We included 118 trials (9710 participants). There were 28 head-to-head comparisons, 7 indirect comparisons for pain, and 8 indirect comparisons for disability. Compared with control, all types of physical exercises were effective for improving pain and disability, except for stretching exercises (for reducing pain) and the McKenzie method (for reducing disability). The most effective interventions for reducing pain were Pilates, mind-body, and core-based exercises. The most effective interventions for reducing disability were Pilates, strength, and core-based exercises. On SUCRA analysis, Pilates had the highest likelihood for reducing pain (93%) and disability (98%).

CONCLUSION

Although most exercise interventions had benefits for managing pain and disability in chronic LBP, the most beneficial programs were those that included (1) at least 1 to 2 sessions per week of Pilates or strength exercises; (2) sessions of less than 60 minutes of core-based, strength, or mind-body exercises; and (3) training programs from 3 to 9 weeks of Pilates and core-based exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):505-521. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10671.

Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk.

Observation on the Curative Effect of Massage Manipulation Combined with Core Strength Training in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

In this prospective study, we used the random number table method to equally divide 141 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) who met the inclusion criteria into 3 groups. One group who received massage manipulation therapy was recorded as the manipulation group (n = 47), one other group who received core strength training therapy was recorded as the training group (n = 47), and the other group who received massage manipulation combined with core strength training was recorded as the combination group (n = 47). All the patients were treated for 1w as the course of treatment, with the treatment conducted for 5 d/w for 4 w and 12 w of follow-up. The efficacies of the 3 groups were evaluated after treatment, and the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and waist dynamic and static muscle endurance before and after treatment of the 3 groups were compared, and the long-term efficacies of the 3 groups were evaluated combined with the VAS scores at 6 w and 12 w after treatment. Our result was that, after treatment, the total effective rate of the combination group (95.74%) is significantly better than that of the manipulation group (80.85%) and the training group (78.72%) (P < 0.05). After treatment, the VAS and ODI scores of the 3 groups significantly decreased, and the waist dynamic endurance and static muscle endurance significantly increased, and the condition of the combination group was significantly improved compared with that of the manipulation group and the training group (P < 0.05). At 6w and 12w after treatment, the VAS scores of the manipulation group and training group were increased compared with those at the end of treatment (P < 0.05), there was no significant change in the combination group (P < 0.05), and the VAS scores of the combination group at 6 w and 12 w after treatment were lower than those of the manipulation group and training group at the same time point (P < 0.05). This suggests that the synergistic effect of massage manipulation combined with core strength training in the treatment of CNLBP can effectively alleviate patients' pain and waist dysfunction, enhance dynamic and static muscle endurance, and have significant short-term and long-term effects, which are worthy of promotion.

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.

Influence of Stabilization Techniques Used in the Treatment of Low Back Pain on the Level of Kinesiophobia

The aim of this study was to try to compare the effectiveness of manual therapy techniques in combination with stabilization techniques: the so-called Australian method and the Neurac method in relation to pain sensations and the level of kinesiophobia. A total of 69 people were examined, divided into three groups of 23 people each. The Visual Analogue Scale was used to assess the antalgic effect, and the Kinesiophobia Causes Scale questionnaire was used to assess the level of kinesiophobia. Patients improved over four weeks, during which they were assessed three times. The evaluation of the desired parameters was also performed over a 24-week period to assess long-term performance. Stabilization techniques are an effective extension of manual therapy techniques in patients with low back pain. People in the groups additionally improved in terms of stabilization techniques, which are characterized by a lower level of kinesiophobia. Its lowest level was found in the group additionally improved with the Neurac method. In the long-term study, the level of kinesiophobia in this group was still maintained at a reduced level. The use of stabilization techniques involving patients in action may significantly affect the level of kinesiophobia, and thus have a much wider effect than just pain reduction.