Search

Background: The aims of the current study were to calibrate the item parameters of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank using a sample of Dutch patients with chronic pain and to evaluate cross-cultural validity between the Dutch-Flemish and the US PROMIS Pain Behavior item banks. Furthermore, reliability and construct validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank were evaluated., Methods: The 39 items in the bank were completed by 1042 Dutch patients with chronic pain. To evaluate unidimensionality, a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. A graded response model (GRM) was used to calibrate the items. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, Differential item functioning (DIF) for language (Dutch vs. English) was evaluated. Reliability of the item bank was also examined and construct validity was studied using several legacy instruments, e.g. the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire., Results: CFA supported the unidimensionality of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank (CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.958), the data also fit the GRM, and demonstrated good coverage across the pain behavior construct (threshold parameters range: -3.42 to 3.54). Analysis showed good cross-cultural validity (only six DIF items), reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and construct validity (all correlations ≥0.53)., Conclusions: The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank was found to have good cross-cultural validity, reliability and construct validity. The development of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank will serve as the basis for Dutch-Flemish PROMIS short forms and computer adaptive testing (CAT)., (© 2015 European Pain Federation - EFIC®)

Background: Work disability has serious consequences for individuals as well as society. It is possible to facilitate resumption of work by reducing barriers to return to work (RTW) and promoting collaboration with key stakeholders. This review was first published in 2009 and has now been updated to include studies published up to February 2015., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions in preventing work disability among sick-listed workers, when compared to usual care or clinical interventions., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Work Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases on 2 February 2015., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions that aimed to improve RTW for disabled workers. We only included studies where RTW or conversely sickness absence was reported as a continuous outcome., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the studies. We performed meta-analysis where possible, and we assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included 14 RCTs with 1897 workers. Eight studies included workers with musculoskeletal disorders, five workers with mental health problems, and one workers with cancer. We judged six studies to have low risk of bias for the outcome sickness absence.Workplace interventions significantly improved time until first RTW compared to usual care, moderate-quality evidence (hazard ratio (HR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.01). Workplace interventions did not considerably reduce time to lasting RTW compared to usual care, very low-quality evidence (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.57). The effect on cumulative duration of sickness absence showed a mean difference of -33.33 (95% CI -49.54 to -17.12), favouring the workplace intervention, high-quality evidence. One study assessed recurrences of sick leave, and favoured usual care, moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82). Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results.In subgroup analyses, we found that workplace interventions reduced time to first and lasting RTW among workers with musculoskeletal disorders more than usual care (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.82 and HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.29, respectively; both moderate-quality evidence). In studies of workers with musculoskeletal disorders, pain also improved (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.06), as well as functional status (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.08). In studies of workers with mental health problems, there was a significant improvement in time until first RTW (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.95), but no considerable reduction in lasting RTW (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.17). One study of workers with cancer did not find a considerable reduction in lasting RTW (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.47).In another subgroup analysis, we did not find evidence that offering a workplace intervention in combination with a cognitive behavioural intervention (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93) is considerably more effective than offering a workplace intervention alone (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.82, test for subgroup differences P = 0.17).Workplace interventions did not considerably reduce time until first RTW compared with a clinical intervention in workers with mental health problems in one study (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.95, very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: We found moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to first RTW, high-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce cumulative duration of sickness absence, very low-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to lasting RTW, and moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions increase recurrences of sick leave. Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results. Workplace interventions reduce time to RTW and improve pain and functional status in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of a considerable effect of workplace interventions on time to RTW in workers with mental health problems or cancer.We found moderate-quality evidence to support workplace interventions for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for workers with mental health problems and cancer is low, and results do not show an effect of workplace interventions for these workers. Future research should expand the range of health conditions evaluated with high-quality studies.

Background: In clinically suspected scaphoid fractures, early diagnosis reduces the risk of non-union and minimises loss in productivity resulting from unnecessary cast immobilisation. Since initial radiographs do not exclude the possibility of a fracture, additional imaging is needed. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are widely used to establish a definitive diagnosis, but there is uncertainty about the most appropriate method., Objectives: The primary aim of this study is to identify the most suitable diagnostic imaging strategy for identifying clinically suspected fractures of the scaphoid bone in patients with normal radiographs. Therefore we looked at the diagnostic performance characteristics of the most used imaging modalities for this purpose: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy., Search Methods: In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. In September 2012, we searched MEDION, ARIF, Current Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings and reference lists of all articles., Selection Criteria: We included all prospective or retrospective studies involving a consecutive series of patients of all ages that evaluated the accuracy of BS, CT or MRI, or any combination of these, for diagnosing suspected scaphoid fractures. We considered the use of one or two index tests or six-week follow-up radiographs as adequate reference standards., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible studies. The same authors extracted data from full-text reports and assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. For each index test, estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study were plotted in ROC space; and forest plots were constructed for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the HSROC model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity., Main Results: We included 11 studies that looked at diagnostic accuracy of one or two index tests: four studies (277 suspected fractures) looked at CT, five studies (221 suspected fractures) looked at MRI and six studies (543 suspected fractures) looked at BS. Four of the studies made direct comparisons: two studies compared CT and MRI, one study compared CT and BS, and one study compared MRI and BS. Overall, the studies were of moderate to good quality, but relevant clinical information during evaluation of CT, MRI or BS was mostly unclear or unavailable.As few studies made direct comparisons between tests with the same participants, our results are based on data from indirect comparisons, which means that these results are more susceptible to bias due to confounding. Nonetheless, the direct comparisons showed similar patterns of differences in sensitivity and specificity as for the pooled indirect comparisons.Summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.00); for MRI, these were 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.00); for BS, these were 0.99 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). Indirect comparisons suggest that diagnostic accuracy of BS was significantly higher than CT and MRI; and CT and MRI have comparable diagnostic accuracy. The low prevalence of a true fracture among suspected fractures (median = 20%) means the lower specificity for BS is problematic. For example, in a cohort of 1000 patients, 112 will be over-treated when BS is used for diagnosis. If CT is used, only 8 will receive unnecessary treatment. In terms of missed fractures, BS will miss 2 fractures and CT will miss 56 fractures., Authors' Conclusions: Although quality of the included studies is moderate to good, findings are based on only 11 studies and the confidence intervals for the summary estimates are wide for all three tests. Well-designed direct comparison studies including CT, MRI and BS could give valuable additional information.Bone scintigraphy is statistically the best diagnostic modality to establish a definitive diagnosis in clinically suspected fractures when radiographs appear normal. However, physicians must keep in mind that BS is more invasive than the other modalities, with safety issues due to level of radiation exposure, as well as diagnostic delay of at least 72 hours. The number of overtreated patients is substantially lower with CT and MRI.Prior to performing comparative studies, there is a need to raise the initially detected prevalence of true fractures in order to reduce the effect of the relatively low specificity in daily practice. This can be achieved by improving clinical evaluation and initial radiographical assessment.

Background: No cure for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known at present, so treatment often focuses on management of symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility. Treatment options include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. Balneotherapy is defined as bathing in natural mineral or thermal waters (e.g. mineral baths, sulphur baths, Dead Sea baths), using mudpacks or doing both. Despite its popularity, reported scientific evidence for the effectiveness or efficacy of balneotherapy is sparse. This review, which evaluates the effects of balneotherapy in patients with RA, is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2008., Objectives: To perform a systematic review on the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA in terms of pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field Register (to December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLIINE (1950 to December 2014), EMBASE (1988 to December 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to December 2014), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1985 to December 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to December 2014) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We applied no language restrictions; however, studies not reported in English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German or French are awaiting assessment. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and recently completed trials., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA as defined by the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria of 1958, the ARA/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1988 or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria of 2010, or by studies using the criteria of Steinbrocker.Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention.The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) determined in 1992 a core set of eight endpoints in clinical trials concerning patients with RA. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus and, if necessary, by third party adjudication., Main Results: This review includes two new studies and a total of nine studies involving 579 participants. Unfortunately, most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Four out of nine studies did not contribute to the analysis, as they presented no data.One study involving 45 participants with hand RA compared mudpacks versus placebo. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of pain on a 0 to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 1.84), improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.70) or number of swollen joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.10) (very low level of evidence). We found a very low level of evidence of reduction in the number of tender joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD -4.60, 95% CI -8.72 to -0.48; 16% absolute difference). We reported no physical disability and presented no data on withdrawals due to adverse events or on serious adverse events.Two studies involving 194 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths. We found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in terms of pain frequency (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 31% reduction; improvement in one or more points (categories) on a 4-point scale; moderate level of evidence) and 9.6% reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.6 mm, 95% CI 1.6 to 17.6; moderate level of evidence). We also observed some benefit in one study including 60 participants in terms of improvement in one or more categories based on a 4-point scale (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7; 30% absolute difference; low level of evidence). Study authors did not report physical disability, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events.One study involving 148 participants with RA compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain on the McGill Questionnaire or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between balneotherapy and the other interventions. No data on improvement, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were presented.One study involving 57 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of mineral baths (balneotherapy) versus Cyclosporin A. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 20.94; low level of evidence) at 8 weeks (absolute difference 10%). We found some benefit of balneotherapy in overall improvement on a 5-point scale at eight weeks of 54% (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83). We found no statistically significant differences (low level of evidence) in the number of swollen joints, but some benefit of Cyclosporin A in the number of tender joints (MD 8.9, 95% CI 3.8 to 14; very low level of evidence). Physical disability, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported., Authors' Conclusions: Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment, that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than mudpacks, exercise or relaxation therapy.

Background: Several rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery., Objectives: To determine whether active rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is more effective than no treatment, and to describe which type of active rehabilitation is most effective. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002.First, we clustered treatments according to the start of treatment.1. Active rehabilitation that starts immediately postsurgery.2. Active rehabilitation that starts four to six weeks postsurgery.3. Active rehabilitation that starts longer than 12 months postsurgery.For every cluster, the following comparisons were investigated.A. Active rehabilitation versus no treatment, placebo or waiting list control.B. Active rehabilitation versus other kinds of active rehabilitation.C. Specific intervention in addition to active rehabilitation versus active rehabilitation alone., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO to May 2013., Selection Criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed if studies were clinically homogeneous. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall quality of evidence., Main Results: In this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight-week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13-week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low- to very low-quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low-quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co-ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high- versus low-intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low-quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.24), and low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (SMD -0.67; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long-term follow-up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high-intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low-intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30), and low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36). Very low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short-term pain relief (SMD -0.76;  95% CI -2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.15)., Authors' Conclusions: Considerable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high- or moderate-quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high-intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low-intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. High-quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.

Background: Work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD), repetitive strain injury (RSI), occupational overuse syndrome (OOS) and work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) are the most frequently used umbrella terms for disorders that develop as a result of repetitive movements, awkward postures and impact of external forces such as those associated with operating vibrating tools. Work-related CANS, which is the term we use in this review, severely hampers the working population., Objectives: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 31 May 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2013), AMED (1985 to 31 May 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to 31 May 2013), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; inception to 31 May 2013) and the Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence Database (OTseeker; inception to 31 May 2013). We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. We excluded trials undertaken to test injections and surgery. We included studies that evaluated effects on pain, functional status or work ability., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed statistical pooling of reported results., Main Results: We included 44 studies (62 publications) with 6,580 participants that evaluated 25 different interventions. We categorised these interventions according to their working mechanisms into exercises, ergonomics, behavioural and other interventions.Overall, we judged 35 studies as having a high risk of bias mainly because of an unknown randomisation procedure, lack of a concealed allocation procedure, unblinded trial participants or lack of an intention-to-treat analysis.We found very low-quality evidence showing that exercises did not improve pain in comparison with no treatment (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to 0.03), or minor intervention controls (three studies, SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.37) or when provided as additional treatment (two studies, inconsistent results) at short-term follow-up or at long-term follow-up. Results were similar for recovery, disability and sick leave. Specific exercises led to increased pain at short-term follow-up when compared with general exercises (four studies, SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75)We found very low-quality evidence indicating that ergonomic interventions did not lead to a decrease in pain when compared with no intervention at short-term follow-up (three studies, SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.22) but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up (four studies, SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.16). There was no effect on disability but sick leave decreased in two studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76). None of the ergonomic interventions was more beneficial for any outcome measures when compared with another treatment or with no treatment or with placebo.Behavioural interventions had inconsistent effects on pain and disability, with some subgroups showing benefit and others showing no significant improvement when compared with no treatment, minor intervention controls or other behavioural interventions.In the eight studies that evaluated various other interventions, there was no evidence of a clear beneficial effect of any of the interventions provided., Authors' Conclusions: We found very low-quality evidence indicating that pain, recovery, disability and sick leave are similar after exercises when compared with no treatment, with minor intervention controls or with exercises provided as additional treatment to people with work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder. Low-quality evidence also showed that ergonomic interventions did not decrease pain at short-term follow-up but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect on other outcomes. For behavioural and other interventions, there was no evidence of a consistent effect on any of the outcomes.Studies are needed that include more participants, that are clear about the diagnosis of work-relatedness and that report findings according to current guidelines.

Background: Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006., Objectives: To assess the effects of traction compared to placebo, sham traction, reference treatments and no treatment in people with LBP., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 2006 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 2006 to August 2012), CINAHL (January 2006 to August 2012), and reference lists of articles and personal files. The review authors are not aware of any important new randomized controlled trial (RCTs) on this topic since the date of the last search., Selection Criteria: RCTs involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks' duration), subacute (four to 12 weeks' duration) or chronic (more than 12 weeks' duration) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a descriptive analysis. We did not find any case series that identified adverse effects, therefore we evaluated adverse effects that were reported in the included studies., Main Results: We included 32 RCTs involving 2762 participants in this review. We considered 16 trials, representing 57% of all participants, to have a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane Back Review Group's 'Risk of bias' tool.For people with mixed symptom patterns (acute, subacute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica), there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status, global improvement or return to work when compared to placebo, sham traction or no treatment. Similarly, when comparing the combination of physiotherapy plus traction with physiotherapy alone or when comparing traction with other treatments, there was very-low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status or global improvement.For people with LBP with sciatica and acute, subacute or chronic pain, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction probably has no impact on pain intensity, functional status or global improvement. This was true when traction was compared with controls and other treatments, as well as when the combination of traction plus physiotherapy was compared with physiotherapy alone. No studies reported the effect of traction on return to work.For chronic LBP without sciatica, there was moderate-quality evidence that traction probably makes little or no difference in pain intensity when compared with sham treatment. No studies reported on the effect of traction on functional status, global improvement or return to work.Adverse effects were reported in seven of the 32 studies. These included increased pain, aggravation of neurological signs and subsequent surgery. Four studies reported that there were no adverse effects. The remaining studies did not mention adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: These findings indicate that traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, has little or no impact on pain intensity, functional status, global improvement and return to work among people with LBP. There is only limited-quality evidence from studies with small sample sizes and moderate to high risk of bias. The effects shown by these studies are small and are not clinically relevant. Implications for practice To date, the use of traction as treatment for non-specific LBP cannot be motivated by the best available evidence. These conclusions are applicable to both manual and mechanical traction. Implications for research Only new, large, high-quality studies may change the point estimate and its accuracy, but it should be noted that such change may not necessarily favour traction. Therefore, little priority should be given to new studies on the effect of traction treatment alone or as part of a package.

Background: The identification of serious pathologies, such as spinal malignancy, is one of the primary purposes of the clinical assessment of patients with low-back pain (LBP). Clinical guidelines recommend awareness of "red flag" features from the patient's clinical history and physical examination to achieve this. However, there are limited empirical data on the diagnostic accuracy of these features and there remains very little information on how best to use them in clinical practice., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic performance of clinical characteristics identified by taking a clinical history and conducting a physical examination ("red flags") to screen for spinal malignancy in patients presenting with LBP., Search Methods: We searched electronic databases for primary studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and systematic reviews (PubMed and Medion) from the earliest date until 1 April 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible articles was also performed., Selection Criteria: We considered studies if they compared the results of history taking and physical examination on patients with LBP with those of diagnostic imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, myelography)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the quality of each included study with the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool and extracted details on patient characteristics, study design, index tests, and reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals for all index tests., Main Results: We included eight cohort studies of which six were performed in primary care (total number of patients; n = 6622), one study was from an accident and emergency setting (n = 482), and one study was from a secondary care setting (n = 257). In the six primary care studies, the prevalence of spinal malignancy ranged from 0% to 0.66%. Overall, data from 20 index tests were extracted and presented, however only seven of these were evaluated by more than one study. Because of the limited number of studies and clinical heterogeneity, statistical pooling of diagnostic accuracy data was not performed.There was some evidence from individual studies that having a previous history of cancer meaningfully increases the probability of malignancy. Most "red flags" such as insidious onset, age > 50, and failure to improve after one month have high false positive rates.All of the tests were evaluated in isolation and no study presented data on a combination of positive tests to identify spinal malignancy., Authors' Conclusions: For most "red flags," there is insufficient evidence to provide recommendations regarding their diagnostic accuracy or usefulness for detecting spinal malignancy. The available evidence indicates that in patients with LBP, an indication of spinal malignancy should not be based on the results of one single "red flag" question. Further research to evaluate the performance of different combinations of tests is recommended.

Background: The long-term course of long-standing low back pain is largely unknown since long-term data are scarce., Objective: We examined the course of self-reported low back pain in the prospective population-based Doetinchem cohort over a period of 10years., Methods: Between 1993 and 2007, around 5700 randomly selected men and women in four age groups of originally 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59years were measured three times. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the association of sociodemographic (gender, age, education, work status) and lifestyle characteristics (BMI, smoking, physical activity) with persistent and new episodes of long-standing low back pain., Results: The prevalence of long-standing low back pain is quite stable over a 10year period, approximately 20% on population level. On individual level, around 30% of the population was completely free of low back pain during the entire period, 6% can be characterized as persistent back pain sufferers. Individuals with persistent and a varying pattern have a more unhealthy lifestyle (BMI and smoking) than those without low back pain. Age, smoking, obesity and not having a paid job are associated with 10-year persistent back pain in the general population, whereas age and not having a paid job are associated in those with long-lasting back pain at baseline. New episodes of long-standing back pain are relatively frequent among women and smokers., Conclusions: Low back pain in the population is characterized as very dynamic which challenges epidemiological studies highly. Long-term information on the course of back pain is needed to define severe subgroups., (Copyright © 2011 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low-back pain with leg pain (sciatica) may be caused by a herniated intervertebral disc exerting pressure on the nerve root. Most patients will respond to conservative treatment, but in carefully selected patients, surgical discectomy may provide faster relief of symptoms. Primary care clinicians use patient history and physical examination to evaluate the likelihood of disc herniation and select patients for further imaging and possible surgery., Objectives: (1) To assess the performance of tests performed during physical examination (alone or in combination) to identify radiculopathy due to lower lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back pain and sciatica;(2) To assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on diagnostic performance., Search Strategy: We searched electronic databases for primary studies: PubMed (includes MEDLINE), EMBASE, and CINAHL, and (systematic) reviews: PubMed and Medion (all from earliest until 30 April 2008), and checked references of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: We considered studies if they compared the results of tests performed during physical examination on patients with back pain with those of diagnostic imaging (MRI, CT, myelography) or findings at surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed the quality of each publication with the QUADAS tool, and extracted details on patient and study design characteristics, index tests and reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We presented information on sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for all aspects of physical examination. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were computed for subsets of studies showing sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity., Main Results: We included 16 cohort studies (median N = 126, range 71 to 2504) and three case control studies (38 to100 cases). Only one study was carried out in a primary care population. When used in isolation, diagnostic performance of most physical tests (scoliosis, paresis or muscle weakness, muscle wasting, impaired reflexes, sensory deficits) was poor. Some tests (forward flexion, hyper-extension test, and slump test) performed slightly better, but the number of studies was small. In the one primary care study, most tests showed higher specificity and lower sensitivity compared to other settings.Most studies assessed the Straight Leg Raising (SLR) test. In surgical populations, characterized by a high prevalence of disc herniation (58% to 98%), the SLR showed high sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.95) with widely varying specificity (0.10 to 1.00, pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40). Results of studies using imaging showed more heterogeneity and poorer sensitivity. The crossed SLR showed high specificity (pooled estimate 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.94) with consistently low sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.35).Combining positive test results increased the specificity of physical tests, but few studies presented data on test combinations., Authors' Conclusions: When used in isolation, current evidence indicates poor diagnostic performance of most physical tests used to identify lumbar disc herniation. However, most findings arise from surgical populations and may not apply to primary care or non-selected populations. Better performance may be obtained when tests are combined.

Background: Conservative interventions such as physiotherapy and ergonomic adjustments (such as keyboard adjustments or ergonomic advice) play a major role in the treatment of most work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS)., Objectives: This systematic review aims to determine whether conservative interventions have a significant impact on outcomes for work-related CANS in adults., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2005) and Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field Specialised Register (March 2005), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was March 2005. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials studying conservative interventions (e.g. exercises, relaxation, physical applications, biofeedback, myofeedback and work-place adjustments) for adults suffering CANS., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently selected trials from the search yield, assessed the methodological quality using the Delphi list, and extracted relevant data. We pooled data or, in the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data, we used a rating system to assess levels of evidence., Main Results: For this update we included six additional studies; 21 trials in total. Seventeen trials included people with chronic non-specific neck or shoulder complaints, or non-specific upper extremity disorders. Over 25 interventions were evaluated; five main subgroups of interventions could be determined: exercises, manual therapy, massage, ergonomics, and energised splint. Overall, the quality of the studies was poor.In 14 studies a form of exercise was evaluated, and contrary to the previous review we now found limited evidence about the effectiveness of exercises when compared to massage and conflicting evidence when exercises are compared to no treatment. In this update there is limited evidence for adding breaks during computer work; massage as add-on treatment on manual therapy, manual therapy as add-on treatment on exercises; and some keyboard designs when compared to other keyboards or placebo in participants with carpal tunnel syndrome., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of keyboards with an alternative force-displacement of the keys or an alternative geometry, and limited evidence for the effectiveness of exercises compared to massage; breaks during computer work compared to no breaks; massage as an add-on treatment to manual therapy; and manual therapy as an add-on treatment to exercises.

Background: Work disability has serious consequences for all stakeholders and society. Workplace interventions are considered appropriate to facilitate return to work by reducing barriers to return to work, involving the collaboration of key stakeholders., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions compared to usual care or clinical interventions on work-related outcomes and health outcomes; and to evaluate whether the effects differ when applied to musculoskeletal disorders, mental health problems, or other health conditions., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Occupational Health Field Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE (EMBASE.com), and PsycINFO databases (to November 2007)., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials of workplace interventions aimed at return to work for workers where absence from work because of sickness was reported as a continuous outcome., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the studies. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis (using GRADE levels of evidence) were performed., Main Results: We included six randomized controlled trials (749 workers): three on low back pain, one on upper-extremity disorders, one on musculoskeletal disorders, and one on adjustment disorders. Five studies were rated as having low risk of bias for the sickness absence outcome. The results of this review show that there is moderate-quality evidence to support the use of workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence among workers with musculoskeletal disorders when compared to usual care. However, workplace interventions were not effective to improve health outcomes among workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The lack of studies made it impossible to investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions among workers with mental health problems and other health conditions. A comparison of a workplace intervention with a clinical intervention, in one study only, yielded similar results for sickness absence and symptoms for workers with mental health problems., Authors' Conclusions: As a result of the few available studies, no convincing conclusions can be formulated about the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work-related outcomes and health outcomes regardless of the type of work disability. The pooled data for the musculoskeletal disorders subgroup indicated that workplace interventions are effective in the reduction of sickness absence, but they are not effective in improving health outcomes. The evidence from the subgroup analysis on musculoskeletal disorders was rated as moderate-quality evidence. Unfortunately, conclusions cannot be drawn on the effectiveness of these interventions for mental health problems and other health conditions due to a lack of studies.

Background: Several rehabilitation programs are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of active rehabilitation for adults after first-time lumbar disc surgery., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to May 2007., Selection Criteria: We only included randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence., Main Results: Fourteen studies were included, seven of which had a low risk of bias. Most programs were only assessed in one study. Statistical pooling was only completed for three comparisons in which exercises were started four to six weeks post-surgery: exercise programs versus no treatment, high versus low intensity exercise programs, and supervised versus home exercises.There is low quality evidence (three RCTS, N = 156) that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (WMD -11.13; 95% CI -18.44 to -3.82) and moderate evidence (two RCTs, N = 136) that they are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (WMD -6.50; 95% CI -9.26 to -3.74). None of the studies reported that exercises increased the re-operation rate.There is low quality evidence (two RCTs, N =103) that high intensity are slightly more effective than low intensity exercise programs for pain in the short term (WMD -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30) and moderate evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36).There is low quality evidence (three RCTS, N = 95) that there were no significant differences between supervised and home exercises for short-term pain relief (SMD -1.12; 95% CI -2.77 to 0.53) or functional status (three RCTs, N = 88; SMD -1.18; 95% CI -2.63 to 0.26)., Authors' Conclusions: Exercise programs starting four to six weeks post-surgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment. High intensity exercise programs seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than low intensity programs. There were no significant differences between supervised and home exercises for pain relief, disability, or global perceived effect. There is no evidence that active programs increase the re-operation rate after first-time lumbar surgery.

Background: The effectiveness of injection therapy for low-back pain is still debatable. Heterogeneity of target tissue, pharmacological agent and dosage generally found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) points to the need for clinically valid comparisons in a literature synthesis., Objectives: To determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low-back pain., Search Strategy: We updated the search of the earlier systematic review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1999 to March 2007 for relevant trials reported in English, French, German, Dutch and Nordic languages. We also screened references from trials identified., Selection Criteria: RCTs on the effects of injection therapy involving epidural, facet or local sites for subacute or chronic low-back pain were included. Studies which compared the effects of intradiscal injections, prolotherapy or Ozone therapy with other treatments, were excluded unless injection therapy with another pharmaceutical agent (no placebo treatment) was part of one of the treatment arms. Studies about injections in sacroiliac joints and studies evaluating the effects of epidural steroids for radicular pain were also excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the trials. If study data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a best evidence synthesis to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into five levels (strong, moderate, limited, conflicting or no evidence), taking into account the methodological quality of the studies., Main Results: 18 trials (1179 participants) were included in this updated review. The injection sites varied from epidural sites and facet joints (i.e. intra-articular injections, peri-articular injections and nerve blocks) to local sites (i.e. tender- and trigger points). The drugs that were studied consisted of corticosteroids, local anesthetics and a variety of other drugs. The methodological quality of the trials was limited with 10 out of 18 trials rated as having a high methodological quality. Statistical pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Overall, the results indicated that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low-back pain. However, it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder for which several surgical treatment options are available., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome., Search Strategy: We updated the searches in 2006. We conducted computer-aided searches of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (searched in June 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2006) and also tracked references in bibliographies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction independently of each other., Main Results: Thirty-three studies were included in the review of which 10 were newly identified in this update. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from fair to good; however, the use of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only seven trials. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release offered significantly better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. In three studies with a total of 294 participants, endoscopic carpal tunnel release resulted in earlier return to work or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release, with a weighted mean difference of -6 days (95% CI -9 to -3 days)., Authors' Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The decision to apply endoscopic carpal tunnel release instead of open carpal tunnel release seems to be guided by the surgeon's and patient's preferences.

Background: Balneotherapy (or spa therapy, mineral baths) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain and as a consequence to relieve patients' suffering and make them feel well. In this update we included one extra study., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of balneotherapy for patients with osteoarthritis (OA)., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to October 2006: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field database, PEDro, CENTRAL (Issue 3, 2006) and performed reference checking and communicated with authors to retrieve eligible studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing balneotherapy with any intervention or no intervention. At least 90% of the patient population had to be diagnosed with OA., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. In the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data we refrained from statistical pooling., Main Results: Seven trials (498 patients) were included in this review. Two studies compared spa-treatment with no treatment. One study evaluated baths as an add-on treatment to home exercises and another compared thermal water from Cserkeszölö with tap water (placebo). Three studies evaluated sulphur or Dead Sea baths with no treatment or mineral baths with tap water baths or no treatment. Only one of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and two studies provided data to perform an intention-to-treat analysis ourselves. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by one trial. We found: silver level evidence concerning the beneficial effects on pain, quality of life and analgesic intake of mineral baths compared to no treatment (SMD between 1.82 and 0.34). a statistically significant difference in pain and function of Dead Sea + sulphur versus no treatment, only at end of treatment (WMD 5.7, 95%CI 3.3 to 8.1), but not at 3 month follow-up (WMD 2.6, 95%CI -1.1 to 6.3). no statistically significant differences in pain or function at one or three months of Dead Sea baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.5, 95%CI -0.6 to 1.6) or at one or three months of sulphur baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.4, 95%CI -0.9 to 1.7). Adverse events were not measured in the included trials., Authors' Conclusions: We found silver level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) concerning the beneficial effects of mineral baths compared to no treatment. Of all other balneological treatments no clear effects were found. However, the scientific evidence is weak because of the poor methodological quality and the absence of an adequate statistical analysis and data presentation. Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution.

Background: Injection with anaesthetics and/or steroids is one of the treatment modalities used in patients with chronic low back pain which needs evaluation with respect to the effectiveness on short and long term pain relief., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of injection therapy in patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. We distinguished between three injection sites: facet joint, epidural or local injections., Search Strategy: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to 1996 and other search methods as advocated by the Back Review Group search strategy. Abstracts and unpublished studies were not included., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials of injection therapy for pain relief (although additional treatments were allowed) in patients with benign low back pain lasting longer than one month and not originating from cancer., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed the trials for methodological quality. Subgroup analyses were made between trials with different control groups (placebo and active injections), with different injection site (facet joint, epidural and local injection), and timing of outcome measurement (short and long term). Within the resulting 12 subcategories of studies (2*3*2), the overall relative risks and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated, using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). In the case of trials in which control groups were active injections, we refrained from pooling the results., Main Results: Twenty-one randomized trials were included in this review. All studies involved patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. Only 11 studies compared injection therapy with placebo injections (explanatory trials). The methodologic quality of many studies was low: only 8 studies had a methodologic score of 50 or more points. There were only three well designed explanatory clinical trials: one on injections into the facet joints with a short-term RR of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65-1.21) and a long-term RR of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69-1.17); one on epidural injections with a short-term RR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.76-1.15) and a long-term RR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.71-1.41); and one on local injections with a long-term RR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65-0.96). Within the 6 subcategories of explanatory studies the pooled RRs with 95% confidence intervals were: facet joint, short-term: RR=0.89 (0.65-1.21); facet joint, long-term: RR=0.90 (0.69-1.17); epidural, short-term: RR=0.93 (0.79-1.09); epidural, long-term: RR=0.92 (0.76-1.11); local, short-term: RR=0.80 (0.40-1.59); local, long-term: RR=0.79 (0.65-0.96)., Authors' Conclusions: Convincing evidence is lacking on the effects of injection therapies for low back pain. There is a need for more, well designed explanatory trials in this field.

Background: Traction is used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often with other treatments., Objectives: To determine traction's effectiveness, compared to reference treatments, placebo, sham traction or no treatment for LBP., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to October 2006, references in relevant reviews and personal files., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two authors. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative analysis., Main Results: We included 25 RCTs (2206 patients; 1045 receiving traction). Five trials were considered high quality. For patients with mixed symptom patterns (acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica) there is: strong evidence of no statistically significant difference in outcomes between traction as a single treatment and placebo, sham or no treatment; moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; limited evidence of no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with or without continuous traction. For LBP patients with sciatica (with acute, sub-acute or chronic pain), there is conflicting evidence in several comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; different forms of traction. In other comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; the evidence is moderate for continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment, and limited for light versus normal force traction., Implications for Practice: The results of the available studies involving mixed groups of acute, sub-acute and chronic patients with LBP with and without sciatica were quite consistent, indicating that continuous or intermittent traction as a single treatment for LBP is not likely effective for this group. Traction for patients with sciatica cannot be judged effective at present either, due to inconsistent results and methodological problems in most studies. We conclude that traction as a single treatment for LBP is probably not effective., Implications for Research: Any future research on traction for patients with LBP should distinguish between symptom pattern and duration, and should be carried out according to the highest methodological standards.

Background: Conservative interventions such as physiotherapy and ergonomic adjustments (such as keyboard adjustments or ergonomic advice) play a major role in the treatment of most work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS)., Objectives: This systematic review aims to determine whether conservative interventions have a significant impact on outcomes for work-related CANS in adults., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2005) and Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field Specialised Register (March 2005), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was March 2005. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials studying conservative interventions (e.g. exercises, relaxation, physical applications, biofeedback, myofeedback and work-place adjustments) for adults suffering CANS., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently selected trials from the search yield, assessed the methodological quality using the Delphi list, and extracted relevant data. We pooled data or, in the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data, we used a rating system to assess levels of evidence., Main Results: For this update we included six additional studies; 21 trials in total. Seventeen trials included people with chronic non-specific neck or shoulder complaints, or non-specific upper extremity disorders. Over 25 interventions were evaluated; five main subgroups of interventions could be determined: exercises, manual therapy, massage, ergonomics, and energised splint. Overall, the quality of the studies was poor. In 14 studies a form of exercise was evaluated, and contrary to the previous review we now found limited evidence about the effectiveness of exercises when compared to massage and conflicting evidence when exercises are compared to no treatment. In this update there is limited evidence for adding breaks during computer work; massage as add-on treatment on manual therapy, manual therapy as add-on treatment on exercises; and some keyboard designs when compared to other keyboards or placebo in participants with carpal tunnel syndrome., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of keyboards with an alternative force-displacement of the keys or an alternative geometry, and limited evidence for the effectiveness of exercises compared to massage; breaks during computer work compared to no breaks; massage as an add-on treatment to manual therapy; and manual therapy as an add-on treatment to exercises.

Background: Various types of traction are used in the treatment of low-back pain (LBP), often in conjunction with other treatments., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of traction in the management of LBP., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 4, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, references in relevant reviews, and our personal files., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by sets of two reviewers. As available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, a qualitative analysis was performed., Main Results: Twenty-four RCTs, involving 2177 patients (1016 receiving traction) were included in the review. Five trials were considered high quality. There is strong evidence that there is no significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between either continuous or intermittent traction and placebo, sham, or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. There is moderate evidence that: autotraction is more effective other forms of traction are no more effective than placebo, sham or no treatment for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is limited evidence that: there is no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with continuous traction and the same program without traction, for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica autotraction on its own is more effective than a physical therapy program that includes Tru-Trac traction for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is conflicting evidence regarding the short-term effectiveness of either continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or other treatments, in the management of patients who have either chronic LBP or a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence suggests that traction is probably not effective. Neither continuous nor intermittent traction by itself was more effective in improving pain, disability or work absence than placebo, sham or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. Although trials studying patients with sciatica had methodological limitations and inconsistent results, there was moderate evidence that autotraction was more effective than mechanical traction for global improvement in this population.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder, for which several surgical treatment options are available., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work and/or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications, in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome., Search Strategy: We updated the searches in 2003. We conducted computer-aided searches of the trials register of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group (searched in July 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2003) and tracked references in bibliographies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction independently of each other., Main Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was fair to good. However, the application of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only one trial. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release seem to offer better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. There was conflicting evidence about whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release resulted in earlier return to work and/or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release., Reviewers' Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Background: Conservative interventions such as physiotherapy and ergonomic adjustments play a major part in the treatment of most work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMD)., Objectives: The objective of this systematic review is to determine whether conservative interventions have a significant impact on short and long-term outcomes for upper extremity WRMD in adults., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (January 2002) and Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field specialised register (January 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), PubMed (1966 to November 2001), EMBASE (1988 to November 2001), and CINAHL (1982 to November 2001). We also searched the Physiotherapy Index (1988 to November 2001) and reference lists of articles. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: Only randomised controlled trials and concurrent controlled trials studying conservative interventions for adults suffering from upper extremity WRMD were included. Conservative interventions may include exercises, relaxation, physical applications, biofeedback, myofeedback and work place adjustments., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected the trials from the search yield and assessed the clinical relevance and methodological quality using the Delphi list. In the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data we used a rating system to assess levels of evidence., Main Results: We included 15 trials involving 925 people. Twelve trials included people with chronic non-specific neck or shoulder complaints, or non-specific upper extremity disorders. Over 20 interventions were evaluated; seven main subgroups of interventions could be determined: exercises, manual therapy, massage, ergonomics, multidisciplinary treatment, energised splint and individual treatment versus group therapy. Overall, the quality of the studies appeared to be poor. In 10 studies a form of exercise was evaluated, and there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of exercises only when compared to no treatment. Concerning manual therapy (1 study), massage (4 studies), multidisciplinary treatment (1 study) and energised splint (1 study) no conclusions can be drawn. Limited evidence is found concerning the effectiveness of specific keyboards for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome., Reviewer's Conclusions: This review shows limited evidence for the effectiveness of keyboards with an alternative force-displacement of the keys or an alternative geometry, and limited evidence for the effectiveness of individual exercises. The benefit of expensive ergonomic interventions (such as new chairs, new desks etc) in the workplace is not clearly demonstrated.

Background: Balneotherapy (spa therapy) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain, improve joint motion and as a consequence to relieve people' suffering and make them feel well., Objectives: To perform a systematic review on the effectiveness of balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: Using the Cochrane search strategy, studies were found by screening: 1) The MEDLINE CD-ROM database from 1966 to June 2002 and 2) the database from the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field, the Pedro database up to June 2002. Also, 3) reference checking and 4) personal communications with authors was carried out to retrieve eligible studies. Date of the most recent literature search: June, 2002, Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing balneotherapy with any other intervention or with no intervention. Included participants all suffered from definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by the American Rheumatism Association Criteria (ARA) or by the criteria of Steinbrocker. At least one of the WHO/ILAR core set of endpoints for RA clinical trials had to be among the main outcome measures., Data Collection and Analysis: The Delphi list was the criteria list used to assess the components of methodological quality. Two reviewers carried out quality assessment and data extraction of the studies. Disagreements were solved by consensus., Main Results: Six trials, representing 355 people, were included in this review. Most trials reported positive findings (the absolute improvement in measured outcomes ranged from 0 to 44%), but were methodologically flawed to some extent. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by two trials. None of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and only two performed a comparison of effects between groups. Pooling of the data was not performed; because of heterogeneity of the studies, multiple outcome measurements, and the overall data presentation was too scarce., Reviewer's Conclusions: One cannot ignore the positive findings reported in most trials. However the scientific evidence is insufficient because of the poor methodological quality, the absence of an adequate statistical analysis, and the absence, for the patient, of most essential outcome measures (pain, self assessed function, quality of life). Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution. Because of the methodological flaws an answer about the apparent effectiveness of balneotherapy cannot be provided at this moment. A large, methodological sound trial is needed.

Complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I), formerly reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), is a chronic pain syndrome of unknown aetiology. Its diagnosis is a clinical one, for which several criteria systems have been defined. Despite their widespread use, the reliability of these criteria has never been studied. In this interobserver study 25 chronic CRPS patients were interviewed and examined by six physicians. Through structured questionnaires signs, symptoms, and diagnosis were recorded, after which observer agreement for these was calculated with kappa statistics. Physicians' agreement in assessment of signs and symptoms in CRPS patients varied greatly. More importantly, final diagnosis of CRPS showed poor observer agreement (kappa: 0.20). The kappa values were higher, had physicians applied IASP criteria, but still insufficient. The application of Bruehl's criteria results in a fair kappa of 0.38, but then frequency of CRPS diagnosis in our study population decreased from 73% to 43% in comparison with physicians' own diagnosis. We conclude that, using current criteria systems, the diagnosis of CRPS is not reliable.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder, for which several surgical treatment options are available. However, there is no consensus on the most effective method of treatment., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work and/or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome., Search Strategy: We conducted computer-aided searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2000), MEDLINE(searched January 1966-March 2000) and EMBASE (searched January 1988-February 2000), and tracked references in bibliographies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction were performed by two reviewers independently of each other., Main Results: Sixteen studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was fair to good. However, the application of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only two trials. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release seem to offer better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. There is conflicting evidence about whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release results in earlier return to work and/or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release., Reviewer's Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Background: Although several rehabilitation programs, physical fitness programs or protocols regarding instruction for patients to return to work after lumbar disc surgery have been suggested, little is known about the efficacy and effectiveness of these treatments. There are still persistent fears of causing re-injury, re-herniation, or instability., Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of active treatments that are used in the rehabilitation after first-time lumbar disc surgery., Search Strategy: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psyclit databases up to April 2000 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2001, Issue 3., Selection Criteria: Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials on any type of active rehabilitation program after first-time disc surgery were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers performed the inclusion of studies and two other reviewers independently performed the methodological quality assessment. A rating system that consists of four levels of scientific evidence summarizes the results., Main Results: Thirteen studies were included, six of which were of high quality. There is no strong evidence for the effectiveness for any treatment starting immediately post-surgery, mainly because of lack of (good quality) studies. For treatments that start four to six weeks post-surgery there is strong evidence (level 1) that intensive exercise programs are more effective on functional status and faster return to work (short-term follow-up) as compared to mild exercise programs and there is strong evidence (level 1) that on long term follow up there is no difference between intensive exercise programs and mild exercise programs with regard to overall improvement. For all other primary outcome measures for the comparison between intensive and mild exercise programs there is conflicting evidence (level 3) with regard to long-term follow-up. Furthermore, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of supervised training as compared to home exercises. There was also no strong evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation as compared to usual care. There is limited evidence (level 3) that treatments in working populations that aim at return to work are more effective than usual care with regard to return to work. Also, there is limited evidence (level 3) that low-tech and high-tech exercises, started more than 12 months post-surgery are more effective in improving low back functional status as compared to physical agents, joint manipulations or no treatment. Finally, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of any specific intervention when added to an exercise program, regardless of whether exercise programs start immediately post-surgery or later. None of the investigated treatments seem harmful with regard to re-herniation or re-operation., Reviewer's Conclusions: There is no evidence that patients need to have their activities restricted after first time lumbar disc surgery. There is strong evidence for intensive exercise programs (at least if started about 4-6 weeks post-operative) on short term for functional status and faster return to work and there is no evidence they increase the re-operation rate. It is unclear what the exact content of post-surgery rehabilitation should be. Moreover, there are no studies that investigated whether active rehabilitation programs should start immediately post-surgery or possibly four to six weeks later.

Objective: To assess interobserver reliability of two expert headache neurologists when examining the cervical spine of patients with headache., Background: The diagnosis of cervicogenic headache involves the physical examination of the cervical spine., Methods: Twenty-four patients diagnosed as having migraine, tension-type headache, or cervicogenic headache were included in the study. After interview, each patient's cervical spine was examined in a structured way. Reliability was assessed by Cohen's kappa., Results: Reduced range of motion in the cervical spine showed kappa scores indicating moderate agreement. Provocation of headache revealed moderate-to-substantial agreement. Assessment of zygapophyseal joint pressure pain showed slight-to-fair agreement. The kappa values of the circumscribed characteristic tender points showed agreement ranging from "not better than chance" to "substantial agreement.", Conclusions: Our study showed that the interobserver reliability of expert headache neurologists was satisfactory in the majority of the physical examination tests of the cervical spine in patients with different headache syndromes. However, standardization of the clinical tests in order to improve their reliability is recommended.

Background: Injection with anaesthetics and/or steroids is one of the treatment modalities used in patients with chronic low back pain which needs evaluation with respect to the effectiveness on short and long term pain relief., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of injection therapy in patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. We distinguished between three injection sites: facet joint, epidural or local injections., Search Strategy: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to 1996 and other search methods as advocated by the Back Review Group search strategy. Abstracts and unpublished studies were not included., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials of injection therapy for pain relief (although additional treatments were allowed) in patients with benign low back pain lasting longer than one month and not originating from cancer., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed the trials for methodological quality. Subgroup analyses were made between trials with different control groups (placebo and active injections), with different injection site (facet joint, epidural and local injection), and timing of outcome measurement (short and long term). Within the resulting 12 subcategories of studies (2*3*2), the overall relative risks and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated, using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). In the case of trials in which control groups were active injections, we refrained from pooling the results., Main Results: Twenty-one randomized trials were included in this review. All studies involved patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. Only 11 studies compared injection therapy with placebo injections (explanatory trials). The methodologic quality of many studies was low: only 8 studies had a methodologic score of 50 or more points. There were only three well designed explanatory clinical trials: one on injections into the facet joints with a short-term RR of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65-1.21) and a long-term RR of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69-1.17); one on epidural injections with a short-term RR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.76-1.15) and a long-term RR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.71-1.41); and one on local injections with a long-term RR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65-0.96). Within the 6 subcategories of explanatory studies the pooled RRs with 95% confidence intervals were: facet joint, short-term: RR=0.89 (0.65-1.21); facet joint, long-term: RR=0.90 (0.69-1.17); epidural, short-term: RR=0.93 (0. 79-1.09); epidural, long-term: RR=0.92 (0.76-1.11); local, short-term: RR=0.80 (0.40-1.59); local, long-term: RR=0.79 (0.65-0. 96)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Convincing evidence is lacking on the effects of injection therapies for low back pain. There is a need for more, well designed explanatory trials in this field.

Background: Balneotherapy (hydrotherapy or spa therapy) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain and as a consequence to relieve patients' suffering and make them feel well., Objectives: To perform a systematic review to assess the effects of balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis., Search Strategy: Using the Cochrane search strategy, studies were found by screening: 1) The Medline CD-ROM database from 1966 to June 1999 and 2) the database from the Cochrane Field 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies', which contains also studies published in journals not covered by Medline. Also, 3) reference checking and 4) personal communications with authors was carried out to retrieve eligible studies. To perform an adequate assessment of the methodological quality the languages of the publications had to be: Dutch, English, French or German. Date of the most recent literature search: June, 1999, Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing balneotherapy with any intervention or with no intervention. Patients included had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA) or some other form of arthritis. Trials incorporating patients with definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by the American Rheumatism Association Criteria (ARA) (Ropes 1958) (these criteria have changed over time) or by the criteria of Steinbrocker (1949) were regarded as a separate group. At least one of the WHO/ILAR core set of endpoints for RA clinical trials had to be the main outcome measures., Data Collection and Analysis: A criteria list used to assess the methodological quality was the one developed at the Department of Epidemiology at the Maastricht University, called "the Maastricht list". The quality scores and data abstraction of the studies were carried out independently by two reviewers (HdV, RdB). Disagreements were solved by consensus., Main Results: Ten trials with 607 patients were included in this review. Most trials reported positive findings, but were methodologically flawed to some extent. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by two trials. Just one of the randomized trials mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis and only three performed a comparison of effects between groups. Pooling of the data was not performed, because of heterogeneity of the studies, multiple outcome measurements, and, apart from two studies, the overall data presentation was too scarce to enable pooling of the data., Reviewer's Conclusions: One cannot ignore the positive findings reported in most trials. However the scientific evidence is weak because of the poor methodological quality, the absence of an adequate statistical analysis, and the absence, for the patient, of most essential outcome measures (pain, quality of life), Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution. Because of the methodological flaws an answer about the efficacy of balneotherapy cannot be provided at this time. Flaws found in the reviewed studies could be avoided in future trials.

Prescription sequence analysis (PSA) uses pharmacy-based prescription drug histories to detect a subset of drug effects: those that are themselves indications for changes in the prescribing of another drug. Dutch pharmacy practice ensures virtually complete drug histories. With a database of 25,000 patients, we used PSA to test an alleged link between the use of the anti-vertigo drug flunarizine and mental depression. The temporal sequence of anti-depressant use among flunarizine users shows no clustering that would suggest a causal link. PSA can be run within a few days, which may make it helpful in resolving certain of the periodic controversies about adverse drug reactions.