Search

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as an analgesic medication in a range of painful conditions., Study Design: Systematic review of systematic reviews of the analgesic effects of paracetamol in randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Conduct of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2; confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; systematic reviews published 1 January 2010 - 30 April 2020., Data Synthesis: We extracted pain and adverse events outcomes from 36 systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of paracetamol in 44 painful conditions. Continuous pain outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs; standardised 0-10-point scale); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol provides modest pain relief for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (MD, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 points) and after craniotomy (MD, -0.8 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2 points); there is moderate quality evidence for its efficacy in tension-type headache (pain-free at 2 hours: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4) and perineal pain soon after childbirth (patients experiencing 50% pain relief: RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol is not effective for relieving acute low back pain (MD, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 points). Evidence regarding efficacy in other conditions was of low or very low quality. Frequency of adverse events was generally similar for people receiving placebo or paracetamol, except that transient elevation of blood liver enzyme levels was more frequent during repeated administration of paracetamol to patients with spinal pain (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.4)., Conclusions: For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain. Investigations that evaluate more typical dosing regimens are required., Prospero Registration: CRD42015029282 (prospective)., (© 2021 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Background: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain., Methods: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool., Results: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term., Limitations: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis., Conclusion: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain., Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42017068422.

Background: The impact of the relationship (therapeutic alliance) between patients and physical therapists on treatment outcome in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) has not been previously investigated., Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the therapeutic alliance between physical therapists and patients with chronic LBP predicts clinical outcomes., Design: This was a retrospective observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial., Methods: One hundred eighty-two patients with chronic LBP who volunteered for a randomized controlled trial that compared the efficacy of exercises and spinal manipulative therapy rated their alliance with physical therapists by completing the Working Alliance Inventory at the second treatment session. The primary outcomes of function, global perceived effect of treatment, pain, and disability were assessed before and after 8 weeks of treatment. Linear regression models were used to investigate whether the alliance was a predictor of outcome or moderated the effect of treatment., Results: The therapeutic alliance was consistently a predictor of outcome for all the measures of treatment outcome. The therapeutic alliance moderated the effect of treatment on global perceived effect for 2 of 3 treatment contrasts (general exercise versus motor control exercise, spinal manipulative therapy versus motor control exercise). There was no treatment effect modification when outcome was measured with function, pain, and disability measures., Limitations: Therapeutic alliance was measured at the second treatment session, which might have biased the interaction during initial stages of treatment. Data analysis was restricted to primary outcomes at 8 weeks., Conclusions: Positive therapeutic alliance ratings between physical therapists and patients are associated with improvements of outcomes in LBP. Future research should investigate the factors explaining this relationship and the impact of training interventions aimed at optimizing the alliance.

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo‐controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate‐certainty to low‐certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate‐to‐severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). * DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. * METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. * RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. * CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What motivates individuals to start a walking program for the prevention of low back pain? What strategies optimise short-term and long-term adherence to a walking program? What strategies can physiotherapists incorporate into clinical practice to facilitate commencement of and adherence to a walking program? Qualitative study. Twenty-two adults recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain who participated in a 6-month, progressive and individualised walking program that was prescribed by a physiotherapist trained in health coaching. Semi-structured focus groups conducted online following completion of the walking program. Interview questions explored: primary motivations for starting a walking program, identification of which elements were useful in optimising adherence to the program, and identification of the barriers to and facilitators of engagement with the program. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted. Three major themes were identified. Theme one identified that strong motivators to start a walking program were anticipated improvements in low back pain management and the added general health benefits of a more active lifestyle. Theme two identified that fear of high-impact exercises led to avoidance; however, walking was considered a safe exercise option. Theme three identified accountability, enjoyment of exercise and health benefits were critical to adherence. Participants recently recovered from low back pain reflected positively on a physiotherapist-prescribed walking program. Participants described what elements of the program were crucial to starting exercise and optimising adherence. These findings have informed a list of practical recommendations for physiotherapists to improve patient commencement and adherence to exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces Australia's clinical care standard for low back pain, published in the Journal of Physiotherapy.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of opioids for analgesic therapy for people with osteoarthritis. Study design: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised, placebo‐controlled trials of opioid therapies for treating the pain of osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was medium term pain relief (six weeks to less than 12 months). Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE criteria. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry; trials published to 31 October 2020. Data synthesis: We extracted pain, disability, health‐related quality of life, and adverse events data for 36 eligible trials (overall dose range: 10‒210 oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day). Continuous pain and disability outcomes were converted to common 0–100‐point scales; changes of less than ten points were deemed to be very small effects. Differences in dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios. Data were pooled for meta‐analysis in random effects models. The evidence from 19 trials (8965 participants; dose range, 10–126 MME/day) for very small medium term pain relief (mean difference [MD], –4.59 points; 95% CI, –7.17 to –2.02 points) was low quality, as was that from 16 trials (6882 participants; dose range, 10–126 MME/day) for a very small effect on disability (MD, –4.15 points; 95% CI, –6.94 to –1.35 points). Opioid dose was not statistically significantly associated with either degree of pain relief or incidence of adverse events in a meta‐regression analysis. Evidence that opioid therapy increased the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.29‒1.59) was of very low quality. Conclusions: Opioid medications may provide very small pain and disability benefits for people with osteoarthritis, but may also increase the risk of adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019142813 (prospective). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Overuse of lumbar imaging is common in the emergency department (ED). Few trials have examined interventions to address this. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain in the emergency department. Methods We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster- randomised trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. After a 13-month control phase of usual care, the EDs received a multifaceted intervention to support guideline- endorsed care in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, every 4 weeks over a 4- month period. All sites were followed up for at least 3 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of low back pain presentations receiving lumbar imaging. Secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes included prescriptions of opioid and non- opioid pain medicines, inpatient admissions, length of ED stay, specialist referrals and re- presentations. Clinician beliefs and knowledge about low back pain care were measured before and after the intervention. Patient-reported pain, disability, quality of life and satisfaction were measured at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post ED presentation. Results A total of 269 ED clinicians and 4625 episodes of care for low back pain (4491 patients) were included. The data did not provide clear evidence that the intervention reduced lumbar imaging (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.29). It did reduce opioid use (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; p=0.006) and improved clinicians' beliefs (mean difference (MD), 2.85; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.85; p<0.001; on a scale from 9 to 45) and knowledge about low back pain care (MD, 0.48; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83; p<0.01; on a scale from 0 to 11). There was no difference in pain scores at 1-week follow-up (MD, 0.04; 95% CI -1.00 to 1.08; p=0.94; on a scale from 0 to 10). A similar trend was observed for all other patient- reported outcomes and time points. This study found no effect on the other secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes. Conclusion It is uncertain if a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain care decreased lumbar imaging in the ED; however, it did reduce opioid prescriptions without adversely affecting patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To describe the diagnoses of people who present to the emergency department (ED) with low back pain (LBP), the proportion of people with a lumbar spine condition who arrived by ambulance, received imaging, opioids and were admitted to hospital; and to explore factors associated with these four outcomes. Methods In this retrospective study, we analysed electronic medical records for all adults presenting with LBP at three Australian EDs from January 2016 to June 2018. Outcomes included discharge diagnoses and key aspects of care (ambulance transport, lumbar spine imaging, provision of opioids, admission). We explored factors associated with these care outcomes using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models and reported data as ORs. Results There were 14 024 presentations with a 'visit reason' for low back pain, of which 6393 (45.6%) had a diagnosis of a lumbar spine condition. Of these, 31.4% arrived by ambulance, 23.6% received lumbar imaging, 69.6% received opioids and 17.6% were admitted to hospital. Older patients (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.04) were more likely to be imaged. Opioids were less used during working hours (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) and in patients with non-serious LBP compared with patients with serious spinal pathology (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55). Hospital admission was more likely to occur during working hours (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.05) and for those who arrived by ambulance (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.53 to 3.51). Conclusion Many ED presentations of LBP were not due to a lumbar spine condition. Of those that were, we noted relatively high rates of lumbar imaging, opioid use and hospital admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Undertake a systematic critical appraisal of contemporary clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain conditions: spinal (lumbar, thoracic and cervical), hip/knee (including osteoarthritis) and shoulder.Design: Systematic review of CPGs (PROSPERO number: CRD42016051653).Included CPGs were written in English, developed within the last 5 years, focused on adults and described development processes. Excluded CPGs were for: traumatic MSK pain, single modalities (eg, surgery), traditional healing/medicine, specific disease processes (eg, inflammatory arthropathies) or those that required payment.Data Sources and Method Of Appraisal: Four scientific databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and four guideline repositories. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was used for critical appraisal.Results: 4664 records were identified, and 34 CPGs were included. Most were for osteoarthritis (n=12) or low back pain (n=11), most commonly from the USA (n=12). The mean overall AGREE II score was 45% (SD=19.7). Lowest mean domain scores were for applicability (26%, SD=19.5) and editorial independence (33%, SD=27.5). The highest score was for scope and purpose (72%, SD=14.3). Only 8 of 34 CPGS were high quality: for osteoarthritis (n=4), low back pain (n=2), neck (n=1) and shoulder pain (n=1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To report health care costs and the factors associated with such costs in people with acute low back pain receiving guideline-recommended first line care.Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a trial which found no difference in clinical outcomes. Participants with acute low back pain received reassurance and advice, and either paracetamol (taken regularly or as needed) or placebo for up to 4 weeks and followed up for 12 weeks. Data on health service utilisation were collected by self-report. A health sector perspective was adopted to report all direct costs incurred (in 2015 AUD, 1 AUD = 0.53 Euro). Costs were reported for the entire study cohort and for each group. Various baseline clinical, demographic, work-related and socioeconomic factors were investigated for their association with increased costs using generalised linear models.Results: The mean cost per participant was AUD167.74 (SD = 427.24) for the entire cohort (n = 1365). Most of these costs were incurred in primary care through visits to a general practitioner or physiotherapist. Compared to the placebo group, there was an increase in cost when paracetamol was taken. Multivariate analysis showed that disability, symptom duration and compensation were associated with costs. Receiving compensation was associated with a twofold increase compared to not receiving compensation.Conclusions: Taking paracetamol as part of first line care for acute low back pain increased the economic burden. Higher disability, longer symptom duration and receiving compensation were independently associated with increased health care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor sleep quality is highly prevalent in patients with low back pain (LBP) and is associated with high levels of pain, psychological distress, and physical disability. Studies have reported a bidirectional relationship between sleep problems and intensity of LBP. Accordingly, effective management of LBP should address sleep quality. In addition, genetics has been found to significantly affect the prevalence of both LBP and insomnia. Our study aims to establish the feasibility of a trial exploring the efficacy of a web-based sleep quality intervention in people with LBP, with the genetic influences being controlled for. 30 twins (15 complete pairs) with subacute or chronic LBP (>6 weeks) will be recruited from the Australian Twin Registry. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups with each twin within a pair receiving either an interactive web-based sleep intervention based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles (intervention) or a web-based education program (control) for 6 weeks. The feasibility of the trial will be investigated with regard to recruitment rate, feasibility of data collection and outcome measure completion, contamination of intervention, acceptability and experience of intervention, and sample size requirement for the full trial. Patient outcomes will be collected electronically at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and at 3-months’ follow-up post-randomization. This trial employs a robust design that will effectively control for the influence of genetics on treatment effect. Additionally, this study addresses sleep quality, a significant but under-explored issue in LBP. Results will inform the design and implementation of the definitive trial. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Globally it is responsible for the most years lived with disability. The most problematic type of LBP is chronic LBP (pain lasting longer than 3 mo); it has a poor prognosis and is costly, and interventions are only moderately effective. Targeting interventions according to risk profile is a promising approach to prevent the onset of chronic LBP. Developing accurate prognostic models is the first step. No validated prognostic models are available to accurately predict the onset of chronic LBP. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate the risk of chronic LBP.Methods and Findings: We used the PROGRESS framework to specify a priori methods, which we published in a study protocol. Data from 2,758 patients with acute LBP attending primary care in Australia between 5 November 2003 and 15 July 2005 (development sample, n = 1,230) and between 10 November 2009 and 5 February 2013 (external validation sample, n = 1,528) were used to develop and externally validate the model. The primary outcome was chronic LBP (ongoing pain at 3 mo). In all, 30% of the development sample and 19% of the external validation sample developed chronic LBP. In the external validation sample, the primary model (PICKUP) discriminated between those who did and did not develop chronic LBP with acceptable performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.69]). Although model calibration was also acceptable in the external validation sample (intercept = -0.55, slope = 0.89), some miscalibration was observed for high-risk groups. The decision curve analysis estimated that, if decisions to recommend further intervention were based on risk scores, screening could lead to a net reduction of 40 unnecessary interventions for every 100 patients presenting to primary care compared to a "treat all" approach. Limitations of the method include the model being restricted to using prognostic factors measured in existing studies and using stepwise methods to specify the model. Limitations of the model include modest discrimination performance. The model also requires recalibration for local settings.Conclusions: Based on its performance in these cohorts, this five-item prognostic model for patients with acute LBP may be a useful tool for estimating risk of chronic LBP. Further validation is required to determine whether screening with this model leads to a net reduction in unnecessary interventions provided to low-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Massage and acupressure are not candidate treatments for rib fracture, just as joint manipulation and exercise are not appropriate options for hip fracture. B TO THE EDITOR: b We noted that the American College of Physicians' guideline on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries ([1]) was informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) ([2]). This NMA questioned what the best treatment was for patients with this condition and concluded that nonopioid drugs showed the "most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.". [Extracted from the article]

Background: Sciatica is a type of neuropathic pain that is characterised by pain radiating into the leg. It is often accompanied by low back pain and neurological deficits in the lower limb. While this condition may cause significant suffering for the individual, the lack of evidence supporting effective treatments for sciatica makes clinical management difficult. Our objectives are to determine the efficacy of pregabalin on reducing leg pain intensity and its cost-effectiveness in patients with sciatica. Methods/Design: PRECISE is a prospectively registered, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin compared to placebo, in addition to usual care. Inclusion criteria include moderate to severe leg pain below the knee with evidence of nerve root/spinal nerve involvement. Participants will be randomised to receive either pregabalin with usual care (n = 102) or placebo with usual care (n = 102) for 8 weeks. The medicine dosage will be titrated up to the participant's optimal dose, to a maximum 600 mg per day. Follow up consultations will monitor individual progress, tolerability and adverse events. Usual care, if deemed appropriate by the study doctor, may include a referral for physical or manual therapy and/or prescription of analgesic medication. Participants, doctors and researchers collecting participant data will be blinded to treatment allocation. Participants will be assessed at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52. The primary outcome will determine the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity. Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity, disability and quality of life. Data analysis will be blinded and by intention-to-treat. A parallel economic evaluation will be conducted from health sector and societal perspectives. Discussion: This study will establish the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity in patients with sciatica and provide important information regarding the effect of pregabalin treatment on disability and quality of life. The impact of this research may allow the future development of a cost-effective conservative treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, ACTRN 12613000530729 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The aim of this study was to test the capacity of the Fear Avoidance Model to explain the relationship between pain and disability in patients with whiplash-associated disorders. Using the method of Baron and Kenny , we assessed the mediating effect of fear of movement on the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between pain and disability. Two hundred and five subjects with neck pain due to a motor vehicle accident provided pain intensity (0 to 10 numerical rating scale), fear of movement (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale) and disability (Neck Disability Index) scores within 4weeks of their accident, after 3months, and after 6months. The analyses were consistent with the Fear Avoidance Model mediating approximately 20% to 40% of the relationship between pain and disability. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, the proportion of the total effect of pain on disability that was mediated by fear of movement did not substantially change as increasing time elapsed after the accident. The proportion mediated was slightly higher when fear of movement was measured by Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia as compared with Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale. The findings of this study suggest that the Fear Avoidance Model plays a role in explaining a moderate proportion of the relationship between pain and disability after whiplash injury. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background. Graded activity and graded exposure are increasingly being used in the management of persistent low back pain; however, their effectiveness remains poorly understood. Purpose. The aim of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of graded activity or graded exposure for persistent (>6 weeks in duration or recurrent) low back pain. Data Sources. Trials were electronically searched and rated for quality by use of the PEDro scale (values of 0-10). Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials of graded activity or graded exposure that included pain, disability, global perceived effect, or work status outcomes were included in the study. Data Extraction. Outcomes were converted to a scale from 0 to 100. Trials were pooled with software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Data Synthesis. Fifteen trials with 1,654 patients were included. The trials had a median quality score of 6 (range=3-9). Pooled effects from 6 trials comparing graded activity with a minimal intervention or no treatment favored graded activity, with 4 contrasts being statistically significant: mean values (95% confidence intervals) for pain in the short term, pain in the intermediate term, disability in the short term, and disability in the intermediate term were -6.2 (-9.4 to -3.0), -5.5 (-9.9 to -1.0), -6.5(-10.1 to -3.0), and -3-9 (-7.4 to -0.4), respectively. None of the pooled effects from 6 trials comparing graded activity with another form of exercise, from 4 trials comparing graded activity with graded exposure, and from 2 trials comparing graded exposure with a waiting list were statistically significant. Limitations. Limitations of this review include the low quality of the studies, primarily those that evaluated graded exposure; the use of various types of outome measures; and differences in the implementation of the interventions, adding to the heterogeneity of the studies. Conclusions. The available evidence suggests that graded activity in the short term and intermediate term is slightly more effective than a minimal intervention but not more effective than other forms of exercise for persistent low back pain. The limited evidence suggests that graded exposure is as effective as minimal treatment or graded activity for persistent low back pain. INSET: The Bottom Line. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents results from a systematic review search conducted through the Cochrane Library concerning the utilization of exercise to address pain and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The search found a benefit for exercise therapy in reducing pain and improving functional ability in OA patients. The article presents two clinical scenarios, one offered through the journal's web site, concerning patients with moderate OA in both knees. Research regarding the long-term benefits of exercise in OA patients is also discussed.

Background. The evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled. Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain. Design. This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Setting. The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia. Patients. The participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration. Intervention. Twelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks. Measurements. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patient's global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patient's global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months. Results. The exercise intervention improved activity and patient's global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=-0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise. Limitation. Clinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided. Conclusions. Motor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a systematic review of motor control exercise for patients with persistent, nonspecific low back pain. 14 randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficiency of motor control exercises used to treat patients with persistent low back pain were systematically reviewed through the use of electronic database searches until June 2008. The study found that motor control exercises produced improved results when compared to minimal intervention and as an addition to another therapy for the treatment of pain.

Objective To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. Design Cohort study with one year follow-up. Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks' duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. Main outcome measures Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. Results The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longerto resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. Conclusions In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the review was to appraise clinical practice guidelines and their recommendations for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up until 25/01/2020 for clinical practice guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis with a systematic process to generate recommendations and were publicly available.Results: Ten guidelines were included, with a total of 76 recommendations for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Only 4 of the 10 guidelines were of satisfactory methodological quality according to the AGREE II instrument. Around three-quarters of recommendations (72.4%) were presented with poor evidence, with the remaining 21 presenting (27.6%) fair evidence. No recommendation presented good evidence. Recommendations were made on four types of interventions: surgery, injections, medications, and other nonsurgical treatments, with supporting evidence similar for all four treatment types. Positive recommendations were more common for injections (12/13=92.3%) and surgery (10/15=66%) than for nonsurgical treatments (6/21=28.6%) or medications (1/27=3.75%).Conclusions: Ten guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis were identified in the systematic review, but only four were of adequate methodological quality. While the evidence underpinning the various types of interventions was similar, guidelines tended to endorse surgery and injections but not nonsurgical interventions and medicines. These results support the need for greater rigor and inclusion of steps to minimize bias in the production of guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Characterising the clinical course of back pain by mean pain scores over time may not adequately reflect the complexity of the clinical course of acute low back pain. We analysed pain scores over 12 weeks for 1585 patients with acute low back pain presenting to primary care to identify distinct pain trajectory groups and baseline patient characteristics associated with membership of each cluster. This was a secondary analysis of the PACE trial that evaluated paracetamol for acute low back pain. Latent class growth analysis determined a 5 cluster model, which comprised 567 (35.8%) patients who recovered by week 2 (cluster 1, rapid pain recovery); 543 (34.3%) patients who recovered by week 12 (cluster 2, pain recovery by week 12); 222 (14.0%) patients whose pain reduced but did not recover (cluster 3, incomplete pain recovery); 167 (10.5%) patients whose pain initially decreased but then increased by week 12 (cluster 4, fluctuating pain); and 86 (5.4%) patients who experienced high-level pain for the whole 12 weeks (cluster 5, persistent high pain). Patients with longer pain duration were more likely to experience delayed recovery or nonrecovery. Belief in greater risk of persistence was associated with nonrecovery, but not delayed recovery. Higher pain intensity, longer duration, and workers' compensation were associated with persistent high pain, whereas older age and increased number of episodes were associated with fluctuating pain. Identification of discrete pain trajectory groups offers the potential to better manage acute low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To determine whether trial-design, patient-type, or placebo-type factors influence the size of the placebo analgesic effect in clinical trials. Study Design and Setting: Trials that measured pain outcomes in Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche''s meta-analysis were retrieved and coded for eight factors potentially predictive of placebo effect size. Random effects meta-regression was used to explore the predictive power of each factor on placebo effect size. The factors investigated aspects of trial design (nonstandardized co-analgesia, co-intervention), patients (pain type, patient group, residual pain score), and placebo (placebo type, indistinguishability, structural equivalence). The meta-analysis undertaken in the original study was also repeated to confirm the results. Results: The pooled effect of placebo was 3.2 points on a 100-point scale (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.6–4.7). None of the selected factors influenced the size of placebo effect: the effect of all factors was close to zero, all CIs spanned 0, and P-values ranged from 0.13 to 0.90. Conclusion: This study confirms the findings of previous researchers that, at present, the evidence for large placebo analgesic effects in clinical trials is lacking. Importantly, this analysis also establishes that larger placebo effects are not associated with particular aspects of the trial methodology, patient, or placebo type. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]