Search

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: People who live longer often live with multimorbidity. Nevertheless, whether the presence of multimorbidity affects pain and disability in older adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether multimorbidity predicts pain intensity and disability at 6- and 12-month follow-ups in older adults with chronic LBP. Methods: This was a prospective, longitudinal study with 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Participants with chronic LBP (age = 60 years) were recruited and interviewed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Self-reported measures included the number of comorbidities, assessed through the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire, pain intensity, assessed with the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale, and disability, assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate regression models. Results and Discussion: A total of 220 participants were included. The number of comorbidities predicted pain intensity at 6-month (ß = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.12 to 0.50]) and 12-month (ß = 0.29 [95% CI: 0.08 to 0.50]) follow-ups. The number of comorbidities predicted disability at 6-month (ß = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.20 to 0.90]) and 12-month (ß = 0.40 [95% CI: 0.03 to 0.77]) follow-ups. Conclusion: The number of comorbidities at baseline predicted pain and disability at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups in older adults with chronic LBP. These results highlight the role of comorbidities as a predictive factor of pain and disability in patients with chronic LBP, emphasizing the need for timely and continuous interventions in older adults with multimorbidity to mitigate LBP-related pain and disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether adding physical activity coaching and an activity monitor enhanced the effects of a group exercise program on pain intensity and disability for people with chronic nonspecific low back pain. * DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis, and blinding of participants and assessors. * METHODS: One hundred sixty participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain who were aged between 18 and 60 years and seeking care at an outpatient physiotherapy clinic participated. Both groups received supervised group exercise therapy. The intervention group also received physical activity coaching sessions aimed at improving physical activity, and physical activity electronic feedback delivered by an activity monitor. The attention control group received modified approaches of coaching sessions and an activity monitor. Disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24), and pain intensity was measured using the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (0-10). Linear mixed models were performed to test for differences between groups. * RESULTS: There were no differences between groups for reductions in disability (mean difference [MD] = -0.5 out of 24 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.2, 1.1) and pain intensity (MD = -0.4 out of 10 points; 95% CI: -1.3, 0.5) at 3-month follow-up. There were no between-groups differences at 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments. * CONCLUSION: Adding targeted physical activity coaching and an activity monitor did not reduce pain intensity or disability more than an attention control approach in participants with chronic low back pain who were undertaking a group exercise program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate what format for providing patient information (i.e. written summary, infographic or video animation) is most effective for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain (LBP). Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting/Patients: One hundred and fifty-nine patients with non-specific LBP were recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics. Intervention: Participants were randomised to receive patient information in one of three formats: video animation, infographic or written summary. Patients were allowed to read or watch the materials for up to 20 min. Measurements: Outcome were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcome was the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. The secondary outcome was beliefs about imaging for LBP assessed by two questions. Results: All 159 patients completed the study. Our findings revealed no difference between groups for the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. Correct beliefs about imaging were more likely with the infographic than the video animation (Question 1- Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 8.7; Question 2- OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 2.7, 17.2) and more likely with the written summary than the video animation (Question 1- OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 7.4; Question 2- OR = 3.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 8.5). No difference between infographic and written summary formats were reported for the questions assessing LBP imaging beliefs. Conclusion: The three materials were equally effective in improving patient's general beliefs about LBP care. However, the traditional written summary or infographic formats were more effective than the video animation format for improving beliefs about imaging for LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with meeting physical activity guidelines and sedentary recommendations in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). This was a cross-sectional study including 171 people with chronic LBP. Trained assessors collected information regarding demographic, anthropometric, and clinical data. Physical activity levels and sedentary time were objectively measured using a tri-axial accelerometer. Participants were classified as being physically active (ie, performing at least 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity per week) and sedentary (ie, more than 8 hours of time spent in sedentary activities per day). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association of being physically active or sedentary with the range of demographic, anthropometric and clinical variables. Our results showed that although lower body mass index (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85-0.98) and higher self-reported levels of leisure time physical activity (OR = 3.46; 95% CI: 1.94-6.15) were associated with being physically active, lower self-reported levels of physical activity at work (OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.39-0.81) was associated with being sedentary. Our findings showed that, in people with LBP, lower body mass index and higher levels of leisure time physical activity may be important factors for identifying those physically active. In contrast, lower levels of physical activity at work may be considered when identifying sedentary people with LBP. Future studies should consider these factors when designing interventions aiming to promote physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The literature on physical activity practice through sports as a protective factor for back pain in adolescents is conflicting. However, few studies have aimed to verify if continuity of the practice of physical activity from childhood to adolescence may be related to lower chances of back pain in adolescents. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze the association between physical activity practice from childhood to adolescence and back pain in adolescents. METHODS: The random sample was composed of 870 adolescents with a mean age of 13.7 ± 2.0 years. The continuity of physical activity practice was assessed through the continuity of sports practice from childhood to adolescence. Pain in the neck and low back were evaluated through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The prevalence of neck pain and low back pain in boys was 17.5% and in girls was 20.9% for neck pain and 21.9% for low back pain. Physical activity practice during childhood to adolescence was a protective factor for neck pain (OR = 0.57 [CI = 0.35–0.94]) and low back pain (OR = 0.53 [CI = 0.33–0.86]) in girls and neck pain in boys (OR = 0.52 [CI = 0.30–0.90]), even after adjusting for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: Girls with physical activity practice during childhood to adolescence were less likely to develop neck pain and back pain when compared to girls who did not maintain practice of physical activity. Similar results were observed in boys considering neck pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical overload at work has been described as a risk factor for the development of low back pain. However, few studies have investigated the prognostic value of perceived physical overload at work in patients with chronic low back pain.Objective: To investigate the association of perceived physical overload at work with pain and disability over a period of 6 months in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.Methods: Patients with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were considered eligible. Clinical data collected were: pain intensity, disability, fear of movement, depression and perceived physical overload at work. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate the association of perceived physical workload at work at baseline with pain intensity and disability at 6-month follow-up. The total score and the score for each category of the physical overload at work questionnaire were analyzed separately.Results: Ninety-two patients with chronic low back pain were included in the analysis. The subcategories of the physical overload questionnaire were not significantly associated with pain intensity at 6-month follow-up. However, age, disability at baseline and perceived physical overload related to postures of the trunk (B = -0.60 95% CI - 1.18 to - 0.02) and related to positions of the arms (B = 2.72 95% CI 0.07 to 5.37) were significantly associated with disability at 6-month follow-up.Conclusion: Although perceived physical overload at work was not associated with pain intensity in patients with chronic LBP at 6-month follow-up, we identified a significant association between perceived physical overload related to postures of the trunk and positions of the arms with disability at 6-month follow-up. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010.Method: The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines.Results: We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical activity plays an important role in the management of chronic low back pain (LBP). Engaging in an active lifestyle is associated with a better prognosis. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that patients with chronic LBP are less likely to meet recommended physical activity levels. Furthermore, while exercise therapy has been endorsed by recent clinical practice guidelines, evidence from systematic reviews suggests that its effect on pain and disability are at best moderate and not sustained over time. A limitation of current exercises programmes for chronic LBP is that these programmes are not designed to change patients' behaviour toward an active lifestyle. Therefore, we will investigate the short- and long-term efficacy of a multimodal intervention, consisting of supervised exercises, health coaching and use of an activity monitor (i.e. Fitbit Flex) compared to supervised exercises plus sham coaching and a sham activity monitor on physical activity levels, pain intensity and disability, in patients with chronic, nonspecific LBP.Methods: This study will be a two-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. One hundred and sixty adults with chronic, nonspecific LBP will be recruited. Participants allocated to both groups will receive a group exercise programme. In addition, the intervention group will receive health coaching sessions (i.e. assisting the participants to achieve their physical activity goals) and an activity monitor (i.e. Fitbit Flex). The participants allocated to the control group will receive sham health coaching (i.e. encouraged to talk about their LBP or other problems, but without any therapeutic advice from the physiotherapist) and a sham activity monitor. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcomes will be physical activity, measured objectively with an accelerometer, as well as pain intensity and disability at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be physical activity, pain intensity and disability at 6 and 12 months post randomisation as well as other self-report measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour, depression, quality of life, pain self-efficacy and weight-related outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months post randomisation.Discussion: This study is significant as it will be the first study to investigate whether a multimodal intervention designed to increase physical activity levels reduces pain and disability, and increases physical activity levels compared to a control intervention in patients with chronic LBP.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03200509 . Registered on 28 June 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In the low back pain (LBP) field, therapeutic alliance is considered a non-specific factor of interventions associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. However, there is a paucity of studies aimed to evaluate measurement properties of tools used to objectively quantify the alliance between therapist and patients, such as the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and Session Rating Scale (SRS). OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the short-form version of WAI - therapist and SRS into Brazilian Portuguese; to investigate the measurement properties, of the WAI-Patient, WAI-Therapist and SRS in patients with LBP and their physical therapists, respectively. METHODS: One hundred patients with LBP and 18 physical therapists were recruited from physical therapy clinics in Brazil. Therapeutic alliance measures were collected at the initial assessment, prior to the second session, and at 2-month follow-up. The measurement properties investigated were reproducibility, internal consistency, ceiling/floor effects and responsiveness. RESULTS: Although WAI-Patient, WAI-Therapist and SRS were considered to have acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC2,1 > 0.70), these questionnaires showed problems with other measurement properties. WAI-Patient showed problems with internal consistency (i.e. Cronbach's alpha < 0.70 for all subscales). Presence of ceiling effect (i.e. > 15% of participants with the maximum score) and poor internal responsiveness were found for the WAI-Patient (Effect size = 0.15; 84% CI: 0.04 to 0.29) and for the SRS (Effect size = 0.05; 84% CI: -0.22 to 0.11). The WAI-Therapist revealed slightly better measurement properties. CONCLUSION:We identified psychometric limitations with most measurement properties of theWAI questionnaires and SRS. Future studies are needed to refine these tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. * BACKGROUND: Motor control dysfunctions have been commonly reported in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Physical therapists need clinical tools with adequate psychometric properties to assess such patients in clinical practice. The deep muscle contraction (DMC) scale is a clinical rating scale for assessing patients' ability to voluntarily contract deep abdominal muscles. * OBJECTIVES: To investigate the intrarater reliability, floor and ceiling effects, internal and external responsiveness, and correlation analysis (with ultrasound measures) of the DMC scale in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP undergoing a lumbar stabilization exercise program. * METHODS: Sixty-two patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. At baseline, self-report questionnaires were administered to patients and a trained assessor evaluated abdominal muscle recruitment with the DMC scale and ultrasound imaging. Four ratios of the change in abdominal muscle thickness between the resting and contracted states were calculated through the ultrasound measures. After 1 week, the same ultrasound measures and DMC scale were collected again for the reliability analysis. The proportions of patients with the lowest and highest scores on the DMC scale were calculated to investigate floor and ceiling effects. All patients underwent a lumbar stabilization program, administered twice a week for 8 weeks. After the treatment period, all measures were collected again, with the addition of the global perceived effect scale, to assess the internal and external responsiveness of the measures. Correlation coefficients between ultrasound ratios and DMC scale total and subscale scores were also calculated. * RESULTS: The intrarater reliability of the DMC scale and the 4 ratios of abdominal muscle thickness varied from moderate to excellent. The DMC scale showed no floor or ceiling effects. Results for internal responsiveness of the DMC scale showed large effect sizes (2.26; 84% confidence interval [Cl]: 2.06,2.45), whereas the external responsiveness was below the proposed threshold (area under the curve = 0.54; 95% Cl: 0.39,0.68). Fair and significant correlations between some ultrasound ratios and DMC subscales were found. * CONCLUSION: The DMC scale was demonstrated to be a reliable tool, with no ceiling and floor effects, and to detect change in the ability to contract the deep abdominal muscles after a lumbar stabilization exercise program, but with low accuracy for estimating patient-perceived clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors convey their concerns on whether physical therapists should examine sleep quality in patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP). Topics mentioned include percentage of patients with LBP who report having disturbed sleep, and the relationship between sleep quality and pain intensity, and assessment of sleep quality and pattern by clinicians through self-reported questionnaires.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. BACKGROUND: Motor control exercises are believed to improve coordination of the trunk muscles. It is unclear whether increases in trunk muscle thickness can be facilitated by approaches such as the McKenzie method. Furthermore, it is unclear which approach may have superior clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to compare the effects of the McKenzie method and motor control exercises on trunk muscle recruitment in people with chronic low back pain classified with a directional preference. The secondary aim was to conduct a between-group comparison of outcomes for pain, function, and global perceived effect. METHODS: Seventy people with chronic low back pain who demonstrated a directional preference using the McKenzie assessment were randomized to receive 12 treatments over 8 weeks with the McKenzie method or with motor control approaches. All outcomes were collected at baseline and at 8-week follow-up by blinded assessors. RESULTS: No significant between-group difference was found for trunk muscle thickness of the transversus abdominis (-5.8%; 95% confidence interval [Cl]: -15.2%, 3.7%), obliquus internus (-0.7%; 95% Cl: -6.6%, 5.2%), and obliquus externus (1.2%; 95% Cl: -4.3%, 6,8%). Perceived recovery was slightly superior in the McKenzie group (-0.8; 95% Cl: -1.5, -0.1) on a -5 to +5 scale. No significant between-group differences were found for pain or function (P = .99 and P = .26, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found no significant effect of treatment group for trunk muscle thickness. Participants reported a slightly greater sense of perceived recovery with the McKenzie method than with the motor control approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The present study investigated the effect of 2 different lumbar spine postures, neutral and flexed lumbar postures, on transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle function during a voluntary contraction (hollowing and draw-in maneuver) in people with and without low back pain (LBP). Methods: Thirty participants with LBP and 30 healthy participants were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Transversus abdominis muscle function was measured as a change in thickness with ultrasound imaging. Participants performed voluntary TrA contraction in a supine lying position with the lumbar spine in neutral and flexed postures. Data were analyzed using a 2-way (groups, postures) analysis of variance. Results: Lumbar posture influenced TrA function during a voluntary contraction in people with and without LBP. There was a significant main effect of posture (F1,58 = 16.140, P < .001). Neutral lumbar posture improved participants'' ability to recruit TrA in both group (mean difference, 7.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3.8%-11.3%). No significant differences were found between healthy subjects and those with LBP. Conclusions: The results of the present study showed that, in subjects performing a voluntary TrA contraction, the neutral lumbar posture improves the ability to increase change in TrA thickness. This study found no significant difference in TrA thickness change between healthy subjects and those with nonspecific LBP. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Study Design: Cross-sectional study.Objective: To investigate the equivalence of electronic and paper version of self-report questionnaires for the assessment of disability, pain, fear of movement, depression, and physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).Summary Of Background Data: Paper and electronic versions of self-report questionnaires are commonly used for assessment of patients with LBP. However, the equivalence of self-report questionnaires commonly used for assessment of patients with chronic LBP remains unclear.Methods: Seventy-nine individuals with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were recruited. Participants attended the clinic twice with an interval of 1 week and completed the self-reported questionnaires in a random order. The following questionnaires were administered: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK); Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D), and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BPAQ). To investigate the equivalence between the two questionnaire versions, intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plotting was used.Results: The paper and electronic versions of the RMDQ, TSK, and CES-D showed good reliability and the showed moderate reliability. In contrast, the NRS showed poor reliability between the electronic and paper versions.Conclusion: Our findings support that the electronic version of the RMDQ, TSK, CES-D, and BPAQ can be administered in clinical and research settings for assessment of patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, electronic version of the NRS for assessment of pain intensity should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice in patients with chronic LBP.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]