Search

This study explored the relationship between sleep quality and next-day pain intensity for people with low back pain and investigated whether there was any evidence that this relationship was causal. We conducted a secondary analysis of an observational study that investigated sleep quality in people with low back pain. People with low back pain were recruited from primary care and the community. Sleep quality was measured with subjective (self-report) and objective (polysomnography (PSG)) measures. PSG analysis classifies sleep into stages, of which slow-wave sleep (SWS) is thought to have a key role in maintaining or increasing pain intensity. We drew directed acyclic graphs to identify possible confounders of the relationship between both measures of sleep quality, and pain intensity. We constructed two linear regression models to explore the effect of subjective and objective sleep quality on next-day pain intensity before and after confounder adjustment. Thirty-nine participants were included in the study. For participants with low back pain, self-reported better quality sleep β=−0.38 (95% CI −0.63 to −0.13), or spending a greater proportion of time in SWS β=−0.12 (95% CI −0.22 to −0.02) was associated with lower next day pain intensity. After confounder adjustment, the effect reduced and was no longer significant for either self-reported β=−0.18 (95% CI −0.46 to 0.10), or SWS β=−0.08 (95% CI −0.18 to 0.03). Sleep quality, whether measured by self-report or proportion of time in SWS, was associated with next day pain intensity for people with low back pain. However, this relationship is likely to be confounded and therefore not likely to be causal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is pain that has persisted for greater than three months. It is common and burdensome and represents a significant proportion of primary health presentations. For the majority of people with CLBP, a specific nociceptive contributor cannot be reliably identified, and the pain is categorised as 'non‐specific'. Exercise therapy is recommended by international clinical guidelines as a first‐line treatment for non‐specific CLBP. Aim: This comprehensive review aims to synthesise and appraise the current research to provide practical, evidence‐based guidance concerning exercise prescription for non‐specific CLBP. We discuss detailed initial assessment and being informed by patient preferences, values, expectations, competencies and goals. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) using broad search terms from January 2000 to March 2021, to identify the most recent clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on exercise for CLBP. Results/Discussion: Systematic reviews show exercise is effective for small, short‐term reductions in pain and disability, when compared with placebo, usual care, or waiting list control, and serious adverse events are rare. A range of individualised or group‐based exercise modalities have been demonstrated as effective in reducing pain and disability. Despite this consensus, controversies and significant challenges remain. Conclusion: To promote recovery, sustainable outcomes and self‐management, exercise can be coupled with education strategies, as well as interventions that enhance adherence, motivation and patient self‐efficacy. Clinicians might benefit from intentionally considering their own knowledge and competencies, potential harms of exercise and costs to the patient. This comprehensive review provides evidence‐based practical guidance to health professionals who prescribe exercise for people with non‐specific CLBP. [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., Author(s): Adrian C. Traeger 1,2,*, Nicholas Henschke 3, Markus Hübscher 1,2,*, Christopher M. Williams 4, Steven J. Kamper 5, Christopher G. Maher 5, G. Lorimer Moseley 2,6, James H. McAuley [...]

The present study should reveal differences in gait performance, quadriceps strength, and physical activity (PA) between fallers and nonfallers in women with osteoporosis. Forty-one women with osteoporosis (17 fallers, 24 nonfallers) participated. Gait analysis shows that fallers were walking with a slower walking speed (−9%, p = .033) and had a shorter stride length (−7%, p = .039). Moreover, fallers showed a decreased ankle power generation (−18%, p = .045). The quadriceps strength was decreased by 24% for fallers (p = .005) while PA showed no significant differences. Although a decrease in ankle power generation could have an effect on floor clearance for limb advancement in the swing phase, the causal relationship between spatiotemporal parameters (walking speed, stride length) and walking ankle joint power generation remains unknown and warrants further investigation. In conclusion, walking speed, stride length, ankle power generation, and quadriceps strength can be used to differentiate between fallers and nonfallers in women with osteoporosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]