Search

Chronic low back disorders are the leading cause of direct and indirect healthcare burden globally. Exercise training improves pain intensity, mental health and physical function. However, the optimal prescription variables are unknown. We aim to compare the efficacy of various exercise dosages for chronic low back disorders to identify the optimal prescription variables. Six databases (Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CENTRAL), trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and reference lists of prior systematic reviews will be searched, and we will conduct forward and backward citation tracking. We will include peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (individual, cluster or cross-over trials) published in English or German language comparing exercise training to other exercise training or non-exercise training interventions (conservative, non-surgical, non-pharmacological, non-invasive treatments, placebo, sham, usual/standard care, no-treatment control, waitlist control) in adults with chronic low back disorders. Outcomes will include pain intensity, disability, mental health, adverse events, adherence rate, dropout rate and work capacity. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool will be employed. The dose will be categorised as cumulative dose (total and weekly minutes of exercise training) and individual dose prescription variables (intervention duration, session duration, frequency and intensity). Dose-response model-based network meta-analysis will be used to assess the comparative efficacy of different exercise doses to determine a dose-response relationship. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Information about optimal exercise training dosage will help in enhancing treatment outcomes., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The relationship between exercise training variables and clinical outcomes in low back pain (LBP) is unclear. The current study aimed to explore the relationship between exercise training parameters and pain intensity in individuals with chronic LBP., Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a previously reported randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of general strength and conditioning to motor control exercises and manual therapy. This secondary analysis includes adults with chronic LBP (n=20) randomised to the general strength and conditioning programme only. Primary outcomes of this analysis were exercise training parameters (time under tension, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), session duration, session-RPE and training frequency) and pain intensity (0-100 mm visual analogue acale) measured every 2 weeks from baseline to 6 months follow-up. Linear mixed models with random effects (participants) and allowance for heterogeneity of variance (study date) were used to determine the association between pain intensity and training parameters over time., Results: Mean (95% CI) pain intensity decreased over time from baseline to 6 months follow-up by 10.7 (2.8 to 18.7) points (p=0.008). Over the 6-month intervention, lower pain intensity was associated with higher RPE (β (95% CI) -27.168 (-44.265 to -10.071), p=0.002), greater time under tension (-0.029 (-0.056 to -0.001), p=0.040) and shorter session duration (1.938 (0.011 to 3.865), p=0.049)., Conclusion: During 6 months of general strength and conditioning, lower pain intensity was associated with higher participant-reported training intensity, greater volume and shorter session duration. To ensure positive outcomes to exercise training, these variables should be monitored on a short-term basis., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615001270505., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Poor intervertebral disc (IVD) health is associated with low back pain (LBP). This 12-week parallel randomised controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of a progressive interval running programme on IVD health and other clinical outcomes in adults with chronic LBP. Participants will be randomised to either a digitally delivered progressive interval running programme or waitlist control. Participants randomised to the running programme will receive three individually tailored 30 min community-based sessions per week over 12 weeks. The waitlist control will undergo no formal intervention. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Primary outcomes are IVD health (lumbar IVD T2 via MRI), average LBP intensity over the prior week (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes include a range of clinical measures. All outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models. This study has received ethical approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 2022-162). All participants will provide informed written consent before participation. Regardless of the results, the findings of this study will be disseminated, and anonymised data will be shared via an online repository. This will be the first study to evaluate whether a progressive interval running programme can improve IVD health in adults with chronic LBP. Identifying conservative options to improve IVD health in this susceptible population group has the potential to markedly reduce the burden of disease. This study was registered via the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 29 September 2022 (ACTRN12622001276741)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To explore a protection motivation theory screening tool for predicting rehabilitation adherence., Design: Analysis of a randomised controlled trial., Setting: An exercise physiology and physiotherapist clinic., Participants: Patients with chronic low back pain (n=40)., Interventions: General strength and conditioning (GSC) compared with motor control and manual therapy. Primary and secondary outcome measures: predicting patient adherence to supervised sessions and dropout using the Sports Injury Rehabilitation Beliefs Scale, seven-item barriers checklist and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale., Results: Average attendance was 77% (motor control and manual therapy) and 60% (GSC) with eight dropouts. No Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale values other than 5 across all three components were recorded. Treatment efficacy (p=0.019), self-efficacy (p=0.001), rehabilitation value (p=0.028) and injury severity (p=0.002) positively correlated with susceptibility (the extent of vulnerability to having health problems from not taking action). Rehabilitation value positively correlated with self-efficacy (p=0.005). Injury severity positively correlated with rehabilitation value (p=0.011). The final model for number of cancellations included rehabilitation value only and accounted for approximately 12% of variance (p=0.033)., Conclusions: Perceived value of rehabilitation should be considered by clinicians in the rehabilitation setting to improve treatment adherence in patients with chronic low back pain., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615001270505., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Chronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs., Methods and Analysis: Six electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication., Prospero Registration Number: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)