Randomized Trial of General Strength and Conditioning Versus Motor Control and Manual Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain on Physical and Self-Report Outcomes

A bibliometric study on trends in chiropractic research from 1920 to 2023

OBJECTIVE

An increasing body of evidence suggests a positive role of chiropractic in the treatment of neuro-musculoskeletal disorders. This study aims to explore current research hotspots and trends, providing insights into the broad prospects of this field.

METHODS

A bibliometric review was conducted on all chiropractic articles included in the Web of Science Core Collection before December 31, 2023.

RESULTS

Over the past century, the volume of research in the field of chiropractic has been fluctuating annually, with four peaks observed in total. The United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom are leading countries. Chu, Eric Chun-Pu is the author with the most publications, while Bronfort, Gert has the highest total citation count. The University of Southern Denmark has produced the most publications, while Queens University - Canada is the most central institution. The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is the journal with the most publications and citations, while the Journal of the American Medical Association is the most central journal. The two most-cited articles were both authored by Eisenberg DM. Emerging keywords include "chronic pain" and "skills". The theoretical mechanisms and scientific basis of chiropractic, its clinical practice and safety, education and training, integration with other disciplines, and patient experiences and satisfaction are the frontiers and hotspots of research.

CONCLUSION

This study integrates bibliometric analysis to summarize the current state of research and global network centers in the field of chiropractic, further highlighting the hotspots and trends in this field. However, Individual and national rankings should be interpreted with caution due to our focus on Web of Science rather than PubMed.

Endophytes: a uniquely tailored source of potential antibiotic adjuvants

Multidrug microbial resistance is risking an annual loss of more than 10 million people' lives by 2050. Solutions include the rational use of antibiotics and the use of drugs that reduce resistance or completely obliterate them. Here endophytes come to play due to their high-yield production and inherent nature to produce antimicrobial molecules. Around 40%, 45% and 17% of antibacterial agents were obtained from fungi, actinomycetes, and bacteria, respectively, whose secondary metabolites revealed effectiveness against resistant microbes such as MRSA, MRSE, and Shigella flexneri. Endophyte's role was not confined to bactericidal effect but extended to other mechanisms against MDR microbes, among which was the adjuvant role or the "magic bullets". Scarce focus was given to antibiotic adjuvants, and many laboratories today just screen for the antimicrobial activity without considering combinations with traditional antibiotics, which means real loss of promising resistance combating molecules. While some examples of synthetic adjuvants were introduced in the last decade, the number is still far from covering the disused antibiotics and restoring them back to clinical use. The data compiled in this article demonstrated the significance of quorum sensing as a foreseen mechanism for adjuvants from endophytes secondary metabolites, which call for urgent in-depth studies of their molecular mechanisms. This review, comprehensively and for the first time, sheds light on the significance of endophytes secondary metabolites in solving AMR problem as AB adjuvants.

Exercise prescription variables predict reductions in pain intensity in adults with chronic low back pain: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Objectives

The relationship between exercise training variables and clinical outcomes in low back pain (LBP) is unclear. The current study aimed to explore the relationship between exercise training parameters and pain intensity in individuals with chronic LBP.

Methods

This study is a secondary analysis of a previously reported randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of general strength and conditioning to motor control exercises and manual therapy. This secondary analysis includes adults with chronic LBP (n=20) randomised to the general strength and conditioning programme only. Primary outcomes of this analysis were exercise training parameters (time under tension, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), session duration, session-RPE and training frequency) and pain intensity (0-100 mm visual analogue acale) measured every 2 weeks from baseline to 6 months follow-up. Linear mixed models with random effects (participants) and allowance for heterogeneity of variance (study date) were used to determine the association between pain intensity and training parameters over time.

Results

Mean (95% CI) pain intensity decreased over time from baseline to 6 months follow-up by 10.7 (2.8 to 18.7) points (p=0.008). Over the 6-month intervention, lower pain intensity was associated with higher RPE (β (95% CI) -27.168 (-44.265 to -10.071), p=0.002), greater time under tension (-0.029 (-0.056 to -0.001), p=0.040) and shorter session duration (1.938 (0.011 to 3.865), p=0.049).

Conclusion

During 6 months of general strength and conditioning, lower pain intensity was associated with higher participant-reported training intensity, greater volume and shorter session duration. To ensure positive outcomes to exercise training, these variables should be monitored on a short-term basis.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12615001270505.

Evidence- and data-driven classification of low back pain via artificial intelligence: Protocol of the PREDICT-LBP study

In patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), once specific causes are excluded (fracture, infection, inflammatory arthritis, cancer, cauda equina and radiculopathy) many clinicians pose a diagnosis of non-specific LBP. Accordingly, current management of non-specific LBP is generic. There is a need for a classification of non-specific LBP that is both data- and evidence-based assessing multi-dimensional pain-related factors in a large sample size. The "PRedictive Evidence Driven Intelligent Classification Tool for Low Back Pain" (PREDICT-LBP) project is a prospective cross-sectional study which will compare 300 women and men with non-specific LBP (aged 18-55 years) with 100 matched referents without a history of LBP. Participants will be recruited from the general public and local medical facilities. Data will be collected on spinal tissue (intervertebral disc composition and morphology, vertebral fat fraction and paraspinal muscle size and composition via magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), central nervous system adaptation (pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, brain resting state functional connectivity, structural connectivity and regional volumes via MRI), psychosocial factors (e.g. depression, anxiety) and other musculoskeletal pain symptoms. Dimensionality reduction, cluster validation and fuzzy c-means clustering methods, classification models, and relevant sensitivity analyses, will classify non-specific LBP patients into sub-groups. This project represents a first personalised diagnostic approach to non-specific LBP, with potential for widespread uptake in clinical practice. This project will provide evidence to support clinical trials assessing specific treatments approaches for potential subgroups of patients with non-specific LBP. The classification tool may lead to better patient outcomes and reduction in economic costs.

Towards data-driven biopsychosocial classification of non-specific chronic low back pain: a pilot study

The classification of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) according to multidimensional data could guide clinical management; yet recent systematic reviews show this has not been attempted. This was a prospective cross-sectional study of participants with CLBP (n = 21) and age-, sex- and height-matched pain-free controls (n = 21). Nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors were collected. Dimensionality reduction was followed by fuzzy c-means clustering to determine sub-groups. Machine learning models (Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbour, Naïve Bayes and Random Forest) were used to determine the accuracy of classification to sub-groups. The primary analysis showed that four factors (cognitive function, depressive symptoms, general self-efficacy and anxiety symptoms) and two clusters (normal versus impaired psychosocial profiles) optimally classified participants. The error rates in classification models ranged from 4.2 to 14.2% when only CLBP patients were considered and increased to 24.2 to 37.5% when pain-free controls were added. This data-driven pilot study classified participants with CLBP into sub-groups, primarily based on psychosocial factors. This contributes to the literature as it was the first study to evaluate data-driven machine learning CLBP classification based on nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors. Future studies with larger sample sizes should validate these findings.

Effects of exercise/physical activity on fear of movement in people with spine-related pain: a systematic review

Background

Kinesiophobia (i.e., fear of movement) can be an important contributor for ongoing pain and disability in people with spine-related pain. It remains unclear whether physical activity interventions/exercise influence kinesiophobia in this population. A systematic review was therefore conducted to synthesize the available evidence on whether physical activity interventions/exercise influence kinesiophobia in people with chronic non-specific spine-related pain.

Methods

The study protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42021295755). The following databases were systematically searched from inception to 31 January 2022 and updated on 22 June 2023: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ZETOC, PROSPERO and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were randomized or non-randomized controlled studies investigating adults aged ≥18 years, reporting the effect of exercise or physical activity on kinesiophobia in individuals with chronic non-specific spine-related pain. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

Seventeen studies from seven countries involving a total of 1,354 individuals were selected for inclusion. The majority of studies (n = 13) involved participants with chronic low back pain (LBP), and Pilates was the most common form of exercise evaluated. Most of the studies reported a positive direction of effect in favor of exercise reducing kinesiophobia when compared to a control group. There was moderate to high risk of bias among the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

Conclusion

This review supports the use of exercise for reducing kinesiophobia in people with chronic LBP albeit with very low certainty of evidence; Pilates (especially equipment-based) was shown to be effective as were strengthening training programmes. There was limited evidence available on the effects of exercise on kinesiophobia for people with chronic neck or thoracic pain and further research is required.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=295755.

Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management of Lower Back Pain Associated with Spinal Stenosis: A Narrative Review

Lower back pain (LBP) is an extremely common symptom experienced by people of all ages and is also one of the most frequent causes of disability worldwide. This article aims to review the presentation, diagnosis, and management of lower back pain associated with spinal stenosis. The paper we prepared was classified as a "literature narrative review." Nonetheless, when searching for manuscripts included in our work and reviewing them critically, we concentrated on the keywords: "lower back pain", "lumbar spine stenosis", "diagnostic", "rehabilitation", "neurosurgery", "spine", and "elderly". The incidence of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) increases linearly starting with the third decade of life until 60 years old, and it more often affects women. The course of non-specific LBP above all depends on factors not connected with the spine, which include psychological, behavioral, and social factors, determined by the way the condition is perceived by the patient the environment. Lumbar spine stenosis (LSS) is an age-related process of degeneration of the intervertebral discs, ligamentum flavum, and facet joints, which results in narrowing of the space around the neurovascular structures of the spine. Diagnosis of spinal pain syndromes includes radiography (RTG), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Based on the results of imaging studies, neurological examination, and the severity of the disease, treatment can consist of analgesics and rehabilitation, or, when conservative methods are insufficient, surgical treatment is indicated.

Do people with musculoskeletal pain differ from healthy cohorts in terms of global measures of strength? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is currently unknown if people with musculoskeletal pain display different multi-joint strength capacities than healthy cohorts. The aim was to investigate whether people with musculoskeletal pain show differences in global measures of strength in comparison to healthy cohorts.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted using three databases (Medline, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies involving participants with painful musculoskeletal conditions and multi-joint strength assessment measured at baseline were included. A meta-analysis was also performed to compute standardized mean differences (± 95% confidence intervals), using Hedge's g, and examined the differences in multi-joint strength at baseline between participants with painful musculoskeletal conditions and healthy participants.

RESULTS

In total, 5043 articles were identified, of which 20 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. The available evidence revealed that multi-joint strength values were limited to knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, and rheumatoid arthritis. Only four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis and revealed that only small differences in both chest press (g = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.03]) and leg press (g = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.02]) existed between adult women with fibromyalgia and active community women.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of multi-joint strength values in participants with musculoskeletal pain. Quantitative comparison with healthy cohorts was limited, except for those with fibromyalgia. Adult women with fibromyalgia displayed reduced multi-joint strength values in comparison to active community women.

Assessing safety and treatment efficacy of running on intervertebral discs (ASTEROID) in adults with chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Poor intervertebral disc (IVD) health is associated with low back pain (LBP). This 12-week parallel randomised controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of a progressive interval running programme on IVD health and other clinical outcomes in adults with chronic LBP. Participants will be randomised to either a digitally delivered progressive interval running programme or waitlist control. Participants randomised to the running programme will receive three individually tailored 30 min community-based sessions per week over 12 weeks. The waitlist control will undergo no formal intervention. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Primary outcomes are IVD health (lumbar IVD T2 via MRI), average LBP intensity over the prior week (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes include a range of clinical measures. All outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models. This study has received ethical approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 2022-162). All participants will provide informed written consent before participation. Regardless of the results, the findings of this study will be disseminated, and anonymised data will be shared via an online repository. This will be the first study to evaluate whether a progressive interval running programme can improve IVD health in adults with chronic LBP. Identifying conservative options to improve IVD health in this susceptible population group has the potential to markedly reduce the burden of disease. This study was registered via the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 29 September 2022 (ACTRN12622001276741).

A Mixed Comparison of Interventions for Kinesiophobia in Individuals With Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This systematic review aims to make a mixed comparison of interventions for kinesiophobia and individuals with musculoskeletal pain.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in the database of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science with the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled design; (2) patients with musculoskeletal pain as participants; (3) treatments protocols of kinesiophobia as interventions or comparisons; (4) the score of Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK) as outcome measures. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesize the data after checking the model consistency. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

Results

Thirty-one studies were included in this review after a comprehensive search strategy with a low risk of bias and good consistency. According to the results of the network meta-analysis, a multi-modal treatment protocol had the highest probability to become the best choice in dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain, whereas psychological treatment protocols also showed a potentially positive effect on musculoskeletal pain-induced kinesiophobia.

Conclusion

Multi-modal protocols could be recommended as the preferred option when dealing with kinesiophobia caused by musculoskeletal pain. However, it is still worth mentioning that there are also potentially positive therapeutic effects of psychological interventions. Since the concept of kinesiophobia is based on the fear-avoidance model, the psychological mechanism should be paid enough attention to during treatment.

Registration Number

CRD42021286450.

Electromyography of the Multifidus Muscle in Horses Trotting During Therapeutic Exercises

Thoracolumbar pain has been identified in both human and equine patients. Rehabilitation and conditioning programs have focused specifically on improving trunk and abdominal muscle function (1–5). Equine exercise programs routinely incorporate ground poles and training devices for the similar goals of increasing spinal and core stability and strength (6–8). The multifidus muscle has been an area of focus due to atrophy associated with disease (9). To date, there have been no reports on the activity of the multifidus muscle in horses in relation to therapeutic exercises. Our objectives were to use electromyography to determine the average work performed and peak muscle activity of the multifidus in horses trotting, trotting over ground poles, trotting while wearing a resistance band-based training device and trotting while wearing the training device over ground poles. We hypothesized that ground poles and the training device would each increase average work performed and peak multifidus muscle activity. Right and left cranial thoracic locations showed significant increased muscle work and peak activation when horses were trotted over ground poles versus without. The peak activation was significantly greater in horses trotting over poles in both lumbar regions, but there was no significant change in peak activation in either location due to the training device. When the influence of the training device was investigated without ground poles, left caudal thoracic muscle work and peak activity, and right lumbar muscle work were significantly lower when using the training device, as compared to without. When the training device was combined with trotting over ground poles, both left and right caudal thoracic regions showed significantly lower muscle work and peak activity when the device was used. There was no significant difference between with and without the device in either left or right lumbar muscle work. In conclusion, implementing ground poles can be an effective strategy to increase the activation of the multifidus muscle, however, caution should be taken when incorporating the use of a resistance band training device as muscle work and peak activation were significantly reduced in most locations. Further study should be performed in regards to the training device to determine its effects on epaxial musculature.

Effects of Complex Rehabilitation Program on Reducing Pain and Disability in Patients with Lumbar Disc Protrusion—Is Early Intervention the Best Recommendation?

(1) Background: Due to its frequency and possible complications, low back pain (LBP) has a high social impact, it is a common problem of the active population and the second reason for visiting a physician. In patients with lumbar disc protrusion (LDP), one of the most common causes of LBP, the nucleus pulposus bulges against the disc and then protrudes into the spinal cord, but the annulus fibrosus remains intact; (2) Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of a rehabilitation treatment (RT) comprising electrotherapy (ET), hydrotherapy (HT) and individualized physical therapy (PT) versus ET alone in patients with LDP. The second objective was to investigate whether there is a correlation between early RT and the symptomatology of patients with LDP; (3) Methods: The research was conducted between July 2021 and January 2022 at the Ceres Hotel Treatment Centre from Baile 1 Mai, Romania, and all the study subjects signed an informed consent form. For this study, the block randomization method was used to randomize subjects into groups that resulted in equal sample size, in order to maintain a reasonably good balance among groups. Therefore, the two groups had the same number of subjects (30 subjects) and the randomization was made taking into account the patient’s motivation or the subject’s willingness to receive not only electrotherapy treatment, but also the physical exercises and hydrotherapy. The eligibility criteria were: low back pain for more than three months, an MRI confirmed diagnosis of LDP (without dural compression), and ability to perform a PT program. The control group received only a classical ET program. In addition, the patients in the experimental group received a complex individualized PT program associated with HT and ET. To achieve these objectives, the study subjects were monitored for spinal mobility (lateral lumbar flexion—LLF, index fingers-ground—IFG, lumbar Schober tests for flexion—LS, Inverted Schober test for extension—ILS), trunk flexor and extensor muscle strength (LF strength, LE strength), level of pain (Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire—SF-MPQ, Visual Analogue Scale—VAS), and the degree of limitation in activities of daily living (Oswestry Disability Index—ODI); (4) Results: Comparing the evolution of the subjects, using the One-Way ANOVA between groups, we observed a significant improvement in all variables [SF-MPQ (95% CI, 7.996/11.671), VAS (95% CI, 1.965/3.169), mobility FTF (95% CI, −7.687/−3.940), LS (95% CI, 2.272/2.963), LE strength (95% CI, −5.676/−3.324), LF strength (95% CI, −5.970/−3.630), disability (95% CI, 8.026/10.441) after six months of treatment for the experimental group subjects. A clear correlation was found, using the Bravis–Pearson test, between the earliest possible initiation of RT and improvement of patients’ symptoms; (5) Conclusion: The current study proves the importance of combining ET with HT and PT. The earlier the RT is implemented, the lower the pain perception and level of disability associated with the lumbar disease.

Protection motivation theory screening tool for predicting chronic low back pain rehabilitation adherence: analysis of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore a protection motivation theory screening tool for predicting rehabilitation adherence.

DESIGN

Analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

An exercise physiology and physiotherapist clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with chronic low back pain (n=40).

INTERVENTIONS

General strength and conditioning (GSC) compared with motor control and manual therapy. Primary and secondary outcome measures: predicting patient adherence to supervised sessions and dropout using the Sports Injury Rehabilitation Beliefs Scale, seven-item barriers checklist and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale.

RESULTS

Average attendance was 77% (motor control and manual therapy) and 60% (GSC) with eight dropouts. No Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale values other than 5 across all three components were recorded. Treatment efficacy (p=0.019), self-efficacy (p=0.001), rehabilitation value (p=0.028) and injury severity (p=0.002) positively correlated with susceptibility (the extent of vulnerability to having health problems from not taking action). Rehabilitation value positively correlated with self-efficacy (p=0.005). Injury severity positively correlated with rehabilitation value (p=0.011). The final model for number of cancellations included rehabilitation value only and accounted for approximately 12% of variance (p=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived value of rehabilitation should be considered by clinicians in the rehabilitation setting to improve treatment adherence in patients with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615001270505.

Effectiveness of lumbar stabilization exercise with real-time ultrasound imaging biofeedback on lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Structural impairment of the lumbar multifidus muscle, such as reduced cross-sectional area, is evident among individuals with chronic low back pain. Real-time ultrasound imaging (RUSI) biofeedback has been reported to improve preferential activation of as well as retention in the ability to activate the lumbar multifidus muscle during lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE). However, evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment approach in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) is still limited. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to determine the effectiveness of LSE with RUSI biofeedback on lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area in individuals with NCLBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a prospective, single-center, assessor-blind, three-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial to be conducted at National Orthopedic Hospital, Kano State, Nigeria. Ninety individuals with NCLBP will be randomized in a 1:1:1: ratio to receive LSE, LSE with RUSI biofeedback, or minimal intervention. All participants will receive treatment twice weekly for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the lumbar multifidus muscle cross-sectional area. The secondary outcomes will include pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale), functional disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), and quality of life (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey). All outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 8 weeks post-intervention,  and 3 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study will be the first powered randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of LSE training with and without RUSI biofeedback in individuals with NCLBP. The outcome of the study may provide evidence for the effectiveness of LSE with RUSI biofeedback on enhancing the recovery of the lumbar multifidus muscle in individuals with NCLBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry ( PACTR201801002980602) . Registered on January 16, 2018.

Network meta-analysis for comparative effectiveness of treatments for chronic low back pain disorders: systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Six electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

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.

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.

Does Motor Control Exercise Restore Normal Morphology of Lumbar Multifidus Muscle in People with Low Back Pain? - A Systematic Review

Aberrant morphological changes in lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM) are prevalent among patients with low back pain (LBP). Motor control exercise (MCE) aims to improve the activation and coordination of deep trunk muscles (eg, LMM), which may restore normal LMM morphology and reduce LBP. However, its effects on LMM morphology have not been summarized. This review aimed to summarize evidence regarding the (1) effectiveness of MCE in altering LMM morphometry and decreasing LBP; and (2) relations between post-MCE changes in LMM morphometry and LBP/LBP-related disability. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 30 September 2020 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Four hundred and fifty-one participants across 9 trials were included in the review. Very low-quality evidence supported that 36 sessions of MCE were better than general physiotherapy in causing minimal detectable increases in LMM cross-sectional areas of patients with chronic LBP. Very low- to low-quality evidence suggested that MCE was similar to other interventions in increasing resting LMM thickness in patients with chronic LBP. Low-quality evidence substantiated that MCE was significantly better than McKenzie exercise or analgesics in increasing contracted LMM thickness in patients with chronic LBP. Low-quality evidence corroborated that MCE was not significantly better than other exercises in treating people with acute/chronic LBP. Low-quality evidence suggested no relation between post-MCE changes in LMM morphometry and LBP/LBP-related disability. Collectively, while MCE may increase LMM dimensions in patients with chronic LBP, such changes may be unrelated to clinical outcomes. This raises the question regarding the role of LMM in LBP development/progression.

Effects of Exercise Training on Fear-Avoidance in Pain and Pain-Free Populations: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain and movement is an important factor in the development of hypervigilance and avoidance behaviours.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effectiveness of exercise training on improving fear-avoidance beliefs.

METHODS

A systematic review (data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and metaanalysis of randomised controlled/clinical trials of exercise training in adults versus relevant nonexercise comparators that quantified fear-avoidance was conducted.

RESULTS

After screening 4603 identified records, 17 (2014 participants) and 13 (1152 participants) studies were eligible for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed exercise training was more effective than all non-exercise comparators (standardised mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] - 0.378 [- 0.623, - 0.133], P = 0.002, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: very low) for reducing fear-avoidance. Exercise training was more effective than true control for reducing fear avoidance (- 0.407 [- 0.750, - 0.065], P = 0.020, GRADE: very low), however it was not more effective than other interventions (- 0.243 [- 0.614, 0.128], P = 0.199, GRADE: very low). In people with low back pain, exercise training was more effective than non-exercise comparator groups for reducing fear-avoidance (- 0.530 [- 0.755, - 0.304], P < 0.001, GRADE: very low). For individuals with neck pain, exercise training was not more effective than non-exercise comparator groups for reducing fear-avoidance (0.061 [- 0.360, 0.482], P = 0.777, GRADE: very low).

CONCLUSION

There is very low to low-quality evidence that exercise training is effective for reducing fear-avoidance, including in people with low back pain. Exercise training may be more effective than no intervention for reducing fear avoidance, but there is very low-quality evidence that non-exercise interventions are as effective as exercise for fear avoidance. Few studies with low risk of bias is a limitation.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019139678.