Search

Study design

Objective

Summary of background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Study design

Objective

Summary of background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Study design

Objective

Summary of background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation when added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS:An economic evaluation was conducted alongside 3 pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in The Netherlands with a follow up of 52 weeks. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain; a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (n = 251), sacroiliac (SI) joints (n = 228), or a combination of facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs (n = 202); and were unresponsive to initial conservative care. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS:After 52 weeks, no difference in costs between groups was found in the facet joint or combination RCT. The total costs were significantly higher for the intervention group in the SI joint RCT. The maximum probability of radiofrequency denervation being cost-effective when added to a standardized exercise program ranged from 0.10 in the facet joint RCT to 0.17 in the SI joint RCT irrespective of the ceiling ratio, and 0.65 at a ceiling ratio of €30 000 per QALY in the combination RCT. CONCLUSIONS:Although equivocal among patients with symptoms in a combination of the facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs, evidence suggests that radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program cannot be considered cost-effective from a societal perspective for patients with chronic low back pain originating from either facet or SI joints in a Dutch healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation when added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS:An economic evaluation was conducted alongside 3 pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in The Netherlands with a follow up of 52 weeks. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain; a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (n = 251), sacroiliac (SI) joints (n = 228), or a combination of facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs (n = 202); and were unresponsive to initial conservative care. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS:After 52 weeks, no difference in costs between groups was found in the facet joint or combination RCT. The total costs were significantly higher for the intervention group in the SI joint RCT. The maximum probability of radiofrequency denervation being cost-effective when added to a standardized exercise program ranged from 0.10 in the facet joint RCT to 0.17 in the SI joint RCT irrespective of the ceiling ratio, and 0.65 at a ceiling ratio of €30 000 per QALY in the combination RCT. CONCLUSIONS:Although equivocal among patients with symptoms in a combination of the facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs, evidence suggests that radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program cannot be considered cost-effective from a societal perspective for patients with chronic low back pain originating from either facet or SI joints in a Dutch healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVE:This study compares participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (the Minimal Invasive Treatment [MinT] trials) to participants in a related observational study with regard to their low back pain (LBP) symptom course. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Eligible patients were diagnosed with chronic LBP originating from the facet joints (N = 615) or sacroiliac (SI) joints (N = 533) and were treated with radiofrequency denervation and an exercise program. Randomized patients were compared to patients in the related observational study who fulfilled all RCT eligibility criteria (observational group 1) and to patients who did not fulfill at least one of the RCT eligibility criteria (observational group 2). Outcomes were pain intensity, treatment success, and functional status over a 3-month period. Longitudinal mixed-model analyses and linear regression models were applied to analyze the differences in outcomes between the RCT and observational study groups. RESULTS:No differences in symptom course were found between patients in the RCTs and patients in observational group 1. Patients with facet joint pain in observational group 2 had overall less treatment success (odds ratios [OR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.90), and less improvement in physical functioning (mean difference [MD], 5.82; 95% CI, 2.54-9.11) compared to the RCT patients. Patients with SI joint pain in observational group 2 had higher pain scores (MD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.09-0.72), less treatment success (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96), and less improvement in physical functioning (MD, 7.16; 95% CI, 3.84-10.47) compared to the RCT patients. CONCLUSION:This supports the generalizability of results from the MinT RCTs as this study suggests that these RCTs reflect clinical practice when comparing similar populations. To what extent this holds true for all RCTs in LBP should be further explored.

OBJECTIVE:This study compares participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (the Minimal Invasive Treatment [MinT] trials) to participants in a related observational study with regard to their low back pain (LBP) symptom course. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Eligible patients were diagnosed with chronic LBP originating from the facet joints (N = 615) or sacroiliac (SI) joints (N = 533) and were treated with radiofrequency denervation and an exercise program. Randomized patients were compared to patients in the related observational study who fulfilled all RCT eligibility criteria (observational group 1) and to patients who did not fulfill at least one of the RCT eligibility criteria (observational group 2). Outcomes were pain intensity, treatment success, and functional status over a 3-month period. Longitudinal mixed-model analyses and linear regression models were applied to analyze the differences in outcomes between the RCT and observational study groups. RESULTS:No differences in symptom course were found between patients in the RCTs and patients in observational group 1. Patients with facet joint pain in observational group 2 had overall less treatment success (odds ratios [OR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.90), and less improvement in physical functioning (mean difference [MD], 5.82; 95% CI, 2.54-9.11) compared to the RCT patients. Patients with SI joint pain in observational group 2 had higher pain scores (MD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.09-0.72), less treatment success (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96), and less improvement in physical functioning (MD, 7.16; 95% CI, 3.84-10.47) compared to the RCT patients. CONCLUSION:This supports the generalizability of results from the MinT RCTs as this study suggests that these RCTs reflect clinical practice when comparing similar populations. To what extent this holds true for all RCTs in LBP should be further explored.

© 2018 The Author(s). Main text: We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients. For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach. We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.

© 2018 The Author(s). Main text: We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients. For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach. We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.

© 2017 American Physical Therapy Association. The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews. During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions. In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement "acting as usual." In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar. In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary. In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and on

© 2017 American Physical Therapy Association. The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews. During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions. In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement "acting as usual." In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar. In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary. In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and on

© 2016 European Pain Federation - EFIC ® Patient history and physical examination are frequently used procedures to diagnose chronic low back pain (CLBP) originating from the facet joints, although the diagnostic accuracy is controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of patient history and/or physical examination to identify CLBP originating from the facet joints using diagnostic blocks as reference standard. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Collaboration database from inception until June 2016. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated sensitivity and specificity values, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Twelve studies were included, in which 129 combinations of index tests and reference standards were presented. Most of these index tests have only been evaluated in single studies with a high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Revel's criteria combination. Because of the clinical heterogeneity, results were not pooled. The published sensitivities ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.02–0.29) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.75–1.00), and the specificities ranged from 0.66 (95% CI 0.46–0.82) to 0.91 (95% CI 0.83–0.96). Due to clinical heterogeneity, the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of patient history and/or physical examination to identify facet joint pain is inconclusive. Patient history and physical examination cannot be used to limit the need of a diagnostic block. The validity of the diagnostic facet joint block should be studied, and high quality studies are required to confirm the results of single studies. Significance: Patient history and physical examination cannot be used to limit the need of a diagnostic block. The validity of the diagnostic facet joint block should be studied, and high quality studies are required to confirm the results of single studies.

© 2016 European Pain Federation - EFIC ® Patient history and physical examination are frequently used procedures to diagnose chronic low back pain (CLBP) originating from the facet joints, although the diagnostic accuracy is controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of patient history and/or physical examination to identify CLBP originating from the facet joints using diagnostic blocks as reference standard. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Collaboration database from inception until June 2016. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated sensitivity and specificity values, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Twelve studies were included, in which 129 combinations of index tests and reference standards were presented. Most of these index tests have only been evaluated in single studies with a high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Revel's criteria combination. Because of the clinical heterogeneity, results were not pooled. The published sensitivities ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.02–0.29) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.75–1.00), and the specificities ranged from 0.66 (95% CI 0.46–0.82) to 0.91 (95% CI 0.83–0.96). Due to clinical heterogeneity, the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of patient history and/or physical examination to identify facet joint pain is inconclusive. Patient history and physical examination cannot be used to limit the need of a diagnostic block. The validity of the diagnostic facet joint block should be studied, and high quality studies are required to confirm the results of single studies. Significance: Patient history and physical examination cannot be used to limit the need of a diagnostic block. The validity of the diagnostic facet joint block should be studied, and high quality studies are required to confirm the results of single studies.

© 2017 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. IMPORTANCE Radiofrequency denervation is a commonly used treatment for chronic low back pain, but high-quality evidence for its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Three pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials on the effectiveness of minimal interventional treatments for participants with chronic low back pain (Mint study) were conducted in 16 multidisciplinary pain clinics in the Netherlands. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain, a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (facet joint trial, 251 participants), sacroiliac joints (sacroiliac joint trial, 228 participants), or a combination of facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or intervertebral disks (combination trial, 202 participants) and were unresponsive to conservative care. INTERVENTIONS All participants received a 3-month standardized exercise program and psychological support if needed. Participants in the intervention group received radiofrequency denervation as well. This is usually a 1-Time procedure, but the maximum number of treatments in the trial was 3. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas pain intensity (numeric rating scale, 0-10; whereby 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated worst pain imaginable) measured 3 months after the intervention. The prespecified minimal clinically important difference was defined as 2 points or more. Final follow-up was at 12 months, ending October 2015. RESULTS Among 681 participants who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 years; 421 women [61.8%], mean baseline pain intensity, 7.1), 599 (88%) completed the 3-month follow-up, and 521 (77%) completed the 12-month follow-up. The mean difference in pain intensity between the radiofrequenc

© 2017 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. IMPORTANCE Radiofrequency denervation is a commonly used treatment for chronic low back pain, but high-quality evidence for its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Three pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials on the effectiveness of minimal interventional treatments for participants with chronic low back pain (Mint study) were conducted in 16 multidisciplinary pain clinics in the Netherlands. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain, a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (facet joint trial, 251 participants), sacroiliac joints (sacroiliac joint trial, 228 participants), or a combination of facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or intervertebral disks (combination trial, 202 participants) and were unresponsive to conservative care. INTERVENTIONS All participants received a 3-month standardized exercise program and psychological support if needed. Participants in the intervention group received radiofrequency denervation as well. This is usually a 1-Time procedure, but the maximum number of treatments in the trial was 3. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas pain intensity (numeric rating scale, 0-10; whereby 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated worst pain imaginable) measured 3 months after the intervention. The prespecified minimal clinically important difference was defined as 2 points or more. Final follow-up was at 12 months, ending October 2015. RESULTS Among 681 participants who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 years; 421 women [61.8%], mean baseline pain intensity, 7.1), 599 (88%) completed the 3-month follow-up, and 521 (77%) completed the 12-month follow-up. The mean difference in pain intensity between the radiofrequenc

Background Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain. Objectives To determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews. Selection criteria We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.3

Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions. A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45 %. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity' and 'health-related quality of life'. Consensus on 'physical functioning' and 'pain intensity' was consistent across all stakeholders, 'health-related quality of life' was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and t

BackgroundOlder patients with back pain are more likely to visit their general practitioner (GP) and are more likely to be prescribed analgesics. ObjectiveTo assess analgesic use in older adults with back pain in general practice. MethodsThe BACE study in the Netherlands is a prospective cohort study. Patients (aged>55 years) with back complaints were recruited when consulting their GP or shortly thereafter. Measurements took place at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. For medication use, patients were asked if they had used any medication for their back pain in the previous 3 months and, if so, to specify the medication name, dosage used, frequency of usage, and whether the medication was prescribed or purchased over the counter. ResultsOf the 1,402 patients who were approached to enter the study, 675 were included. Of these patients, 484 (72%) reported medication use at baseline. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (57%) were more often used than paracetamol (49%). Paracetamol was mostly obtained over the counter (69%), and NSAIDs were mostly obtained by prescription (85%). At baseline, patients with severe pain (numerical rating scale score7) used more paracetamol, opioids, and muscle relaxants. Patients with chronic pain (back pain>3 months) used more paracetamol, while patients with a shorter duration of pain used more NSAIDs. During follow-up there was an overall decline in medication use; however, at 3- and 6-month follow-up, 36% and 30% of the patients, respectively, still used analgesics. ConclusionsIn these older adults consulting their GP with back pain, 72% used analgesics at baseline. Despite a decrease in medication use during follow-up, at 3 and 6 months a considerable proportion still used analgesics.

ObjectiveNeuropathic symptoms are reported in 16-55.6% of patients with back pain. Studies were performed in various populations; however, none focused on older adults. The aim of the study was to assess prevalence of neuropathic pain in older adults with back pain. MethodsPrevalence of neuropathic pain, measured with the Dolour Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), was assessed in the Back Complaints in the Elders study (Netherlands). Patients (>55 years) consulting their general practitioner with a new episode of back complaints were included. Two DN4-versions were used: one based on interview plus physical examination, the other based on interview alone. In the interview plus physical examination version, patients' and complaint characteristics were compar ResultsOf the 261 included patients available for analysis were 250 patients (95.8%) with the DN4 interview plus physical examination, and 259 patients (99.2%) with the DN4 interview. In DN4 interview plus physical examination (N=250), five patients (2%) scored positive (score 4). Higher score was associated with pain radiating below the knee (P<0.001) and use of paracetamol (P=0.02). In DN4 interview (N=259), 29 (11.2%) patients scored positive (score 3). Positive score was associated with high ConclusionsIn older adults with back pain presenting with a new episode in primary care, prevalence of neuropathic pain is low and seems to be associated with pain radiating below the knee, use of paracetamol, and higher body mass index.

Objective To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013. Inclusion criteria Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language. Review methods Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag. Results We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9%, Conclusions While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.

Background: Minimal interventional procedures are frequently applied in patients with mechanical low back pain which is defined as pain presumably resulting from single sources: facet, disc, sacroiliac joint or a combination of these. Usually, these minimal interventional procedures are an integral part of a multidisciplinary pain programme. A recent systematic review issued by the Dutch Health Insurance Council showed that the effectiveness of these procedures for the total group of patients with chronic low back pain is yet unclear and cost-effectiveness unknown. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether a multidisciplinary pain programme with minimal interventional procedures is cost-effective compared to the multidisciplinary pain programme alone for patients with chronic mechanical low back pain who did not respond to conservative primary care and were referred to a pain clinic. Methods: All patients with chronic low back pain who are referred to one of the 13 participating pain clinics will be asked to participate in an observational study. Patients with a suspected diagnosis of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will receive a diagnostic block to confirm this diagnosis. If confirmed, they will be asked to participate in a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). For each single source a separate RCT will be conducted. Patients with a combination of facet, disc or sacr Discussion: No trials are yet available which have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of minimal interventional procedures in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain, which emphasizes the importance of this study.

In low back pain if serious pathology is suspected diagnostic imaging could be performed. One of the imaging techniques available for this purpose is computed tomography (CT), however, insight in the diagnostic performance of CT is unclear. Diagnostic systematic review. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT in adult patients suggested having low back pain caused by specific pathology were selected. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% CI were calculated. Seven studies were included, all describing the diagnostic accuracy of CT in identifying lumbar disc herniation. Six studies used surgical findings as the reference standard and were considered sufficiently homogenous to carry out a meta-analysis. The pooled summary estimate of sensitivity was 77.4% and specificity was 73.7%. We found no studies evaluating the accuracy of CT for pathologies such as vertebral cancer, infection and fractures and this remains unclear. Our results should be interpreted with some caution. Sensitivity and specificity, regarding the detection of lumbar disc herniation, showed that a substantial part of the patients is still classified as false-negative and false-positive. In future, the diagnostic performance of CT must be assessed in high quality prospective cohort studies with an unselect

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a costeffectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more costeffective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves. © The Author(s) 2011.

The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions [i.e., non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, antidepressants, and opioids] for non-specific chronic low-back pain (LBP). Existing Cochrane reviews for the four interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Then, the literature searches were updated. Only randomized controlled trials on adults (>= 18 years) with chronic (>= 12 weeks) non-specific LBP and evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work) were included. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials was included: NSAIDs (n = 4), antidepressants (n = 5), and opioids (n = 8). No studies were found for muscle relaxants; 14 studies had a low risk of bias. The studies only reported effects on the short term (< 3 months). The overall quality of the evidence was low. NSAIDs and opioids seem to lead to a somewhat higher relief in pain on the short term, as compared to placebo, in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain; opioids seem to have a small effect in improving function for a selection of patients who responded with an exacerbation of their symptoms after stopping their medication. However, both types of medication show more adverse effects than placebo. There seems to be no difference in effect between antidepressants and placebo in patients with non-specific chronic LBP.

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative costeffectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were costeffective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guidelineendorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitivebehavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline. © The Author(s) 2011.

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a costeffectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more costeffective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves. © The Author(s) 2011.

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative costeffectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were costeffective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guidelineendorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitivebehavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline. © The Author(s) 2011.

Background: Hypertensive disease in pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal mortality in the Netherlands. Seventeen percent of the clinical pregnancies are complicated by hypertension and 2% by preeclampsia. The Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG) has developed evidence-based guidelines on the management of hypertension in pregnancy and chronic hypertension. Previous studies showed a low adherence rate to other NVOG guidelines and a large variation in usual care in the different hospitals. An explanation is that the NVOG has no general strategy of practical implementation and evaluation of its guidelines. The development of an effective and cost effective implementation strategy to improve adherence to the guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy is needed. Methods/Design: The objective of this study is to assess the cost effectiveness of an innovative implementation strategy of the NVOG guidelines on hypertension including a computerised decision support system (BOS) compared to a common strategy of professional audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside will be performed. Both pregnant women who develop severe hypertension or pre-eclampsia and professionals involved in the care for these women will participate. The main outcome measures are a combined rate of major maternal complications and process indicators extracted from the guidelines. A total of 472 patients will be included in both groups. For analysis, descriptive as well as regression techniques will be used. A cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle and from a societal perspective. Cost effectiveness ratios will be calculated using bootstrapping techniques.

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), acupuncture and herbal medicine for chronic non-specific LBP. A comprehensive search was conducted by an experienced librarian from the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) in multiple databases up to December 22, 2008. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with chronic non-specific LBP, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant, patient-centred outcome measure were included. Two authors working independently from one another assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The data were pooled when clinically homogeneous and statistically possible or were otherwise qualitatively described. GRADE was used to determine the quality of the evidence. In total, 35 RCTs (8 SMT, 20 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine), which examined 8,298 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these (2 SMT, 8 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine) were thought to have a low risk of bias. In general, the pooled effects for the studied interventions demonstrated short-term relief or improvement only. The lack of studies with a low-risk of bias, especially in regard to SMT precludes any strong conclusions; however, the principal findings, which are based upon low- to very-low-quality evidence, suggest that SMT does not provide a more clinically beneficial effect compared with sham, passive modalities or any other intervention for treatment of chronic low-back pain. There is evidence, however, that acupuncture provides a short-term clinically relevant effect when compared with a waiting list control or when acupuncture is added to another intervention. Although there are some good results for individual herbal medicines in short-term individual trials, the lack of homogeneity across studies did not allow for a pooled estimate of the effect. In general, these results are in agreement with other recent systematic reviews on

Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit.