Search

Background: Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.Methods: In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.Results: We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.Conclusions: This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the responsiveness of disability measures with physical activity measures in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) undergoing a course of physical therapy treatment. Design: This is a prospective cohort study with two-month follow-up. Subjects: A total of 106 patients presenting with non-specific CLBP of more than three months duration were recruited. Main measures: Disability measures investigated were Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Physical activity measures analyzed include the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire and objective measures derived from an accelerometer (i.e. total time spent in moderate-to-vigorous and light physical activity, number of steps and counts per minute). Disability and physical activity measures were collected at the baseline and after eight weeks of treatment. For the responsiveness analyses, effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) were calculated. Correlations between the change in disability and physical activity measures were calculated. Results: Responsiveness for disability measures was considered to be large with ESs ranging from −1.03 to −1.45 and SRMs ranging from −0.99 to −1.34, whereas all physical activity measures showed values lower than 0.20. Changes in disability measures did not correlate with changes in physical activity measures (correlation coefficients ranged from −0.10 to 0.09). Conclusion: Disability measures were responsive after a course of physical therapy treatment in patients with CLBP. The lack of responsiveness in the physical activity measures might be due to the inability of these measures to detect change over time or the use of an intervention not designed to increase physical activity levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To measure the attitudes and beliefs of Brazilian physical therapists about chronic low back pain and to identify the sociodemographic characteristics that are more likely to influence these attitudes and beliefs. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 100 Brazilian physical therapists who routinely work with chronic low back pain patients. The attitudes and beliefs were measured by the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) and the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). Multivariate linear regression models were built to identify sociodemographic characteristics that could be associated with physical therapists' attitudes and beliefs. Results: Mean scores on the biomedical and biopsychosocial factors of PABS.PT were 27.06 (SD 7.19) and 24.34 (SD 6.31), respectively, and the mean score on HC-PAIRS was 45.45 (SD 10.45). The score on PABS.PTbiomedical was associated with gender and years of professional experience. No variable was associated with the score on PABS.PTbiopsychosocial. The score on HC-PAIRS was significantly associated with the number of back pain patients seen by the physical therapist each month. These results indicate that male and less experienced physical therapists tend to follow a biomedical approach to the treatment of chronic low back pain patients, and that the lower the professional experience the stronger the belief in the relationship between pain and disability. Conclusions: Brazilian physical therapists are uncertain of the factors involved in the development and maintenance of chronic low back pain and about the relationship between pain and disability in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no clinimetrically tested instruments for measuring attitudes and beliefs of health care providers with regards to chronic low back pain in Brazil. Objectives: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and the PABS.PT. Methods: The PABS.PT was crossculturally adapted following the recommendations of current guidelines. The PABS.PT and the HC-PAIRS were clinimetrically tested in 100 physical therapists who routinely treat patients with low back pain in their clinical practice. The internal consistency, construct validity and ceiling and floor effects were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. Results: Both scales demonstrated adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.67 to 0.74). Their reproducibility ranged from moderate to substantial (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient2,1 ranging from 0.70 to 0.84; Standard Error of the Measurement ranging from 3.48 to 5.06). The validity coefficients of the scales ranged from weak to moderate (Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.19 to 0.62). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate that both PABS.PT and HC-PAIRS are reproducible scales for the measurement of attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain in Brazilian physical therapists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Motor Control Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial," by L. O. P. Costa, C. G. Maher and J. Latimer in a previous issue.

Background: Although clinical guidelines generally portray chronic low back pain as a condition with a poor prognosis this portrayal is based on studies of potentially unrepresentative survival cohorts. The aim of this study is to describe the prognosis of an inception cohort of people with chronic low back pain presenting for primary care. Methods/Design: The study will be an inception cohort study with one year follow-up. Participants are drawn from a cohort of consecutive patients presenting with acute low back pain (less than 2 weeks duration) to primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Those patients who continue to experience pain at three months, and are therefore classified as having chronic back pain, are invited to participate in the current study. The cohort will be followed up by telephone at baseline, 9 months and 12 months after being diagnosed with chronic low back pain. Recovery from low back pain will be measured by sampling three different outcomes: pain intensity, interference with function due to pain, and work status. Life tables will be generated to determine the one year prognosis of chronic low back pain. Prognostic factors will be assessed using Cox regression. Discussion: This study will determine the prognosis of chronic non-specific low back pain in a representative cohort of patients sourced from primary care. The results of this study will improve understanding of chronic low back pain, allowing clinicians to provide more accurate prognostic information to their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: This was a cross-sectional observational study.Objectives: (i) to investigate whether Brazilian physical therapists make clinical decisions for patients with low back pain based upon clinical practice guidelines and (ii) to determine whether the physical therapists are able to recognize differential diagnoses of low back pain associated with red or yellow flags.Summary Of Background Data: Early adherence to clinical practice guidelines may accelerate recovery and reduce the costs associated with low back pain. It is unknown whether Brazilian physical therapists follow clinical practice guidelines to make their clinical decisions in the treatment of patients with low back pain.Methods: The sample consisted of physical therapists from two Brazilian physical therapy associations. The data were collected via electronic survey and face-to-face interviews. The survey was composed of six hypothetical clinical cases of low back pain, which served as a basis to evaluate clinical decisions and adherence to clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. The study participants had 27 possible answers for each clinical case and could choose up to five answers. The results were analyzed in three ways: full adherence, partial adherence, or no adherence to the recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.Results: A total of 530 physical therapists were invited and 189 participated in the study (response rate = 35.6%). Full adherence to the guidelines was low for all six cases (rates ranging from 5%-24%). Partial adherence to the guidelines was higher when compared with full adherence (rates ranging from 32%-75%). The participants were more likely to identify differential diagnoses associated with yellow flags than with red flags.Conclusion: Brazilian physical therapists are not using the best available evidence in their clinical decision making for patients with low back pain. Wider dissemination of clinical practice guidelines should be urgently undertaken.Level Of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ear Acupuncture (EA) is a form of acupuncture in which needles are applied to the external ear and has been used in multiple painful conditions. Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in active individuals and causes high economic burden to health systems worldwide. LBP affects the person's ability to keep balance, especially in challenging conditions. Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of a single session of EA on pain intensity and body sway during postural tasks. Method: Eighty adults with LBP and pain intensity equal to or greater than 4 (0-10 scale) were randomly allocated (1:1) to EA group (EAG) or placebo group (PG). Initially, the level of pain intensity was assessed. Next, participants stood still on a force plate either with feet in parallel or in semi-tandem and with eyes open or closed. Then, the EAG was treated with EA for 20 min and the PG was treated with detuned ultrasound. After the treatment, pain intensity was assessed again and the postural test was repeated. Pain intensity was the primary outcome and center of pressure sway area and speed were the secondary outcomes measured. Results: Results revealed that pain intensity decreased in both groups after treatment, but decreased more in the EAG. For postural control, no effect of treatment and no interaction between treatment and postural condition on body sway were found. Conclusion: Those findings indicate that EA is better than placebo to reduce pain, but neither treatment has any effect on postural control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A systematic review.Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of motor control exercise (MCE) in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).Summary Of Background Data: MCE is a common form of exercise used for managing LBP. MCE focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and coordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles.Methods: We conducted electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases, and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. We included randomized controlled trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment, or as a supplement to other interventions in patients with nonspecific LBP. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group 12-item criteria. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference and 95% confidence interval. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Results: We included 32 trials (n = 2628). Most included trials had a low risk of bias. For acute LBP, low to moderate quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy or other forms of exercise. There is very low-quality evidence that the addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvements. For recurrence at one year, there is very low-quality evidence that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence. For chronic LBP, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for reducing pain compared with minimal intervention. There is low to high-quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises or manual therapy. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPAs) or telerehabilitation for pain and disability.Conclusion: MCE is probably more effective than a minimal intervention for reducing pain, but probably does not have an important effect on disability, in patients with chronic LBP. There was no clinically important difference between MCE and other forms of exercises or manual therapy for acute and chronic LBP.Level Of Evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Systematic review.Objective: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with nonspecific acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.Summary Of Background Data: The Pilates method is one of the most common forms of intervention based on exercise used for treating patients with low back pain. However, its effectiveness is not well established.Methods: We conducted searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus up to March 2014. We included randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of Pilates in patients with acute, subacute, or chronic nonspecific low back pain. The outcomes evaluated were pain, disability, function, and global impression of recovery. Two independent reviewers screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and treatment effect sizes were described using mean differences and 95% confidence intervals.Results: Searches retrieved 126 trials, of which 10 were included in the review (n = 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered at high risk of bias. When compared to minimal intervention, Pilates reduces pain at short and intermediate term with low- to moderate-quality evidence and medium effect sizes. For disability, there is also a significant difference in favor to Pilates with low- to moderate-quality evidence and small effect size for short term and medium effect size for intermediate term compared with minimal intervention. It is unclear whether Pilates is better than other exercises for short-term pain, but there is low-quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain at intermediate term. For disability, there is moderate-quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercises in either the short term or the intermediate term.Conclusion: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.Level Of Evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) is an assessment tool used in clinical practice and research aimed to indirectly analyze the transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle activity. The concurrent validity of the PBU in a clinically relevant sample is still unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the PBU in measuring TrA muscle activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Method: This study was performed using a validation, cross-sectional design. Fifty patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were recruited for this study. To test the concurrent validity both PBU measures (index test) and superficial electromyographic measures (reference-standard test) were compared and collected by a physical therapist in a series of voluntary contraction maneuvers of TrA muscle. Results: Participants were on average 22 years old, weighed 63.7 kilos, 1.70 meters height and mean low back pain duration was 1.9 years. It was observed a weak and non-significant Phi coefficient (r=0.2, p<0.20). With regards to diagnostic accuracy tests, our results suggest a low sensitivity (60%) and specificity (60%) of the PBU. The positive predictive value was high (0.8) and negative predictive value was low (0.2). Conclusions: Concurrent validity of the PBU in measuring TrA muscle activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain is poor given the low correlation and diagnostic accuracy with superficial EMG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]