Search

* OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (eg, interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. * DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials * DATA SOURCES: We searched for trials in 6 databases, citation tracking, and clinical trials registers. We included trials that compared treatments with enhanced contextual effects with the same treatments without enhancement in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. * DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, global ratings of improvement, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. We evaluated risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. * RESULTS: Of 17 637 records, we included 10 trials with 990 participants and identified 5 ongoing trials. The treatments were acupuncture, education, exercise training, and physical therapy. The contextual effects that were improved in the enhanced treatments were patient-practitioner relationship, patient beliefs and characteristics, therapeutic setting/environment, and treatment characteristics. Our analysis showed that improving contextual effects in nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD], -1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.71, 5.16; k = 7 trials; N = 719 participants; Scale: 0-100; GRADE: Low) or physical functioning (MD, -0.27; 95% CI: -1.02, 0.49; 95% prediction interval [PI]: -2.04, 1.51; k = 6; N = 567; Scale: 0-10; GRADE: Low) in the short term and at later followups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings. * CONCLUSION: While evidence gaps exist, per current evidence, it may not be possible to achieve meaningful benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain by manipulating the context of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SYNOPSIS: Low back pain classification systems are structured assessments used to guide choices of more specific treatments. Classification systems examined in randomized controlled trials have limited effects on pain intensity and disability compared to nonclassified interventions. Potential reasons for the lack of efficacy include (1) failing to assess multidimensional factors that contribute to pain, (2) relying on clinician judgement, (3) low accessibility, and (4) poor classification reliability. Overcoming these limitations is critical to deciding whether classification systems can improve clinical practice. Only once these limitations are addressed, can we feel certain about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of classification systems. This Viewpoint guides the reader through some limitations of common classification approaches and presents a path forward to open-access, reliable, and multidimensional precision medicine for managing low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Examine the effectiveness of interventions to approach guideline-adherent surgical referrals for low back pain assessed via systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Five databases (10 September 2021), Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched and forward and backward citation tracking of included studies were implemented. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain of interventions to optimise surgery rates or referrals to surgery or secondary referral were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A random effects meta-analysis with a Paule Mandel estimator plus Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman method was used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively. Results: Of 886 records, 6 studies were included (N = 258,329) participants; cluster sizes ranged from 4 to 54. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as having some concerns. Two studies reporting spine surgery referral or rates could only be pooled via combination of p values and gave evidence for a reduction (p = 0.021, Fisher's method, risk of bias: low). This did not persist with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.053). For secondary referral, meta-analysis revealed a non-significant odds ratio of 1.07 (95% CI [0.55, 2.06], I2 = 73.0%, n = 4 studies, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE] evidence certainty: very low). Conclusion: Few RCTs exist for interventions to improve guideline-adherent spine surgery rates or referral. Clinician education in isolation may not be effective. Future RCTs should consider organisational and/or policy level interventions. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020215137. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP). * DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. * LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened. * STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded. * DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration. * RESULTS: Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful. * CONCLUSION: For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Worldwide, low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability and affects 16% of the Australian population. Pain that lasts more than 12 weeks and is presumed lumbar musculoskeletal in origin is deemed non-specific chronic LBP. Managing LBP requires a multidisciplinary approach. Objective The aim of this article is to provide evidence for incorporating exercise training into the multidisciplinary treatment plans of patients with non-specific chronic LBP. Discussion There is mounting evidence in support of the integration of exercise training for the multidisciplinary treatment of non-specific chronic LBP. Clinically meaningful reductions in pain intensity may be achieved with Pilates, aerobic, stabilisation/motor control and resistance exercise training. Clinically meaningful reductions in disability may be attained with resistance, stabilisation/motor control, water-based, Pilates and yoga exercise. Resistance and aerobic exercise can also improve mental health in this susceptible population group. The evidence suggests it is reasonable to consider including exercise-based services in the care team to enable patients with non-specific chronic LBP to transition to self-management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fear of pain and movement is an important factor in the development of hypervigilance and avoidance behaviours. Objective: We examined the effectiveness of exercise training on improving fear-avoidance beliefs. Methods: A systematic review (data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and metaanalysis of randomised controlled/clinical trials of exercise training in adults versus relevant nonexercise comparators that quantified fear-avoidance was conducted. Results: After screening 4603 identified records, 17 (2014 participants) and 13 (1152 participants) studies were eligible for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed exercise training was more effective than all non-exercise comparators (standardised mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] − 0.378 [− 0.623, − 0.133], P = 0.002, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: very low) for reducing fear-avoidance. Exercise training was more effective than true control for reducing fear avoidance (− 0.407 [− 0.750, − 0.065], P = 0.020, GRADE: very low), however it was not more effective than other interventions (− 0.243 [− 0.614, 0.128], P = 0.199, GRADE: very low). In people with low back pain, exercise training was more effective than non-exercise comparator groups for reducing fear-avoidance (− 0.530 [− 0.755, − 0.304], P < 0.001, GRADE: very low). For individuals with neck pain, exercise training was not more effective than non-exercise comparator groups for reducing fear-avoidance (0.061 [− 0.360, 0.482], P = 0.777, GRADE: very low). Conclusion: There is very low to low-quality evidence that exercise training is effective for reducing fear-avoidance, including in people with low back pain. Exercise training may be more effective than no intervention for reducing fear avoidance, but there is very low-quality evidence that non-exercise interventions are as effective as exercise for fear avoidance. Few studies with low risk of bias is a limitation. Trail Registration: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019139678. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test−retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common clinical condition that has impacts at both the individual and societal level. Pain intensity is a primary outcome used in clinical practice to quantify the severity of CLBP and the efficacy of its treatment; however, pain is a subjective experience that is impacted by a multitude of factors. Moreover, differences in effect sizes for pain intensity are not observed between common conservative treatments, such as spinal manipulative therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, and exercise training. As pain science evolves, the biopsychosocial model is gaining interest in its application for CLBP management. The aim of this article is to discuss our current scientific understanding of pain and present why additional factors should be considered in conservative CLBP management. In addition to pain intensity, we recommend that clinicians should consider assessing the multidimensional nature of CLBP by including physical (disability, muscular strength and endurance, performance in activities of daily living, and body composition), psychological (kinesiophobia, fear‐avoidance, pain catastrophizing, pain self‐efficacy, depression, anxiety, and sleep quality), social (social functioning and work absenteeism), and health‐related quality‐of‐life measures, depending on what is deemed relevant for each individual. This review also provides practical recommendations to clinicians for the assessment of outcomes beyond pain intensity, including information on how large a change must be for it to be considered "real" in an individual patient. This information can guide treatment selection when working with an individual with CLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lower back pain is a global health issue affecting approximately 80% of people at some stage in their life. The current literature suggests that any exercise is beneficial for reducing back pain. However, as pain is a subjective evaluation and physical deficits are evident in low back pain, using it as the sole outcome measure to evaluate superiority of an exercise protocol for low back pain treatment is insufficient. The overarching goal of the current clinical trial is to implement two common, conservative intervention approaches and examine their impact on deficits in chronic low back pain.Methods/design: Forty participants, 25-45 years old with chronic (>3 months), non-specific low back pain will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either motor control and manual therapy (n = 20) or general strength and conditioning (n = 20) exercise treatments for 6 months. The motor control/manual therapy group will receive twelve 30-min sessions, ten in the first 3 months (one or two per week) and two in the last 3 months. The general exercise group will attend two 1-hour sessions weekly for 3 months, and one or two a week for the following 3 months. Primary outcome measures are average lumbar spine intervertebral disc T2 relaxation time and changes in thickness of the transversus abdominis muscle on a leg lift using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondary outcomes include muscle size and fat content, vertebral body fat content, intervertebral disc morphology and water diffusion measured by MRI, body composition using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, physical function through functional tests, changes in corticospinal excitability and cortical motor representation of the spinal muscles using transcranial magnetic stimulation and self-reported measure of pain symptoms, health and disability. Outcome measures will be conducted at baseline, at the 3-month follow-up and at 6 months at the end of intervention. Pain, depressive symptomology and emotions will be captured fortnightly by questionnaires.Discussion: Chronic low back pain is ranked the highest disabling disorder in Australia. The findings of this study will inform clinical practice guidelines to assist with decision-making approaches where outcomes beyond pain are sought for adults with chronic low back pain.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001270505 . Registered on 20 November 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Exercise leads to increased pressure pain thresholds. • Exercise improves pain sensitivity more than non-exercise interventions. • Exercise effects are greater locally at the site of pain than at remote regions. BELAVY, D. L., J. Van Oosterwijck, M. Clarkson, E. Dhondt, N. L. Mundell, C. Miller and P. J. Owen. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2020. Exercise training is capable of reducing pain in chronic pain syndromes, yet its mechanisms are less well established. One mechanism may be via the impact of exercise on increasing a person's pain threshold. Here we show, via meta-analysis of fifteen exercise training studies in pain syndromes that exercise training leads to increased pressure pain thresholds (low to moderate quality evidence). We also find low to moderate quality evidence exists that exercise training was more effective than non-exercise interventions, such as pain education, massage and stress management for improving pain sensitivity. Further, the effect of exercise was greater locally at the site of pain and less so at remote regions. These finding suggest that adaptations in central inhibition occur over time with exercise training and, more widely, add to the mechanistic understanding of how effective interventions can improve pain in chronic pain syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]