Search

Background: Information on the course of neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) typically relies on data collected at few time intervals during a period of up to 1 year., Methods: In this prospective, multicentre practice-based cohort study, patients consulting a chiropractor responded weekly for 52 weeks to text messages on their cell phones. Data from 448 patients (153 NP, 295 LBP) who had returned at least one set of answers in the first 26 weeks were used. Outcome measures were pain intensity (VAS) and functional outcome, assessed using four different questions: pain intensity, limitation in activities of daily living (ADL), number of days with pain in the previous week and number of days limited in ADL. Distinct patterns of pain were analysed with quadratic latent class growth analysis., Results: The final model was a 4-class model for NP and LBP. The 'recovering from mild baseline pain' is most common (76.3% of NP patients/58.3% of LBP patients) followed by the 'recovering from severe baseline pain' class (16.3% NP/29.8% LBP). They follow similar trajectories when considered over a period of 6 months. Pain at baseline, duration of complaints, functional status, limitations in ADL and the score on psychosocial scales were the variables that most contributed to distinguish between groups., Conclusions: Most patients with NP or LBP presenting in chiropractic care show a trajectory of symptoms characterized by persistent or fluctuating pain of low or medium intensity. Only a minority either experience a rapid complete recovery or develop chronic severe pain., Significance: Ninety percentage of patients with neck pain or low back pain presenting to chiropractors have a 30% improvement within 6 weeks and then show a trajectory of symptoms characterized by persistent or fluctuating pain of low or medium intensity. Only a minority either experience a rapid complete recovery or develop chronic severe pain., (© 2017 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Background: The aims of the current study were to calibrate the item parameters of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank using a sample of Dutch patients with chronic pain and to evaluate cross-cultural validity between the Dutch-Flemish and the US PROMIS Pain Behavior item banks. Furthermore, reliability and construct validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank were evaluated., Methods: The 39 items in the bank were completed by 1042 Dutch patients with chronic pain. To evaluate unidimensionality, a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. A graded response model (GRM) was used to calibrate the items. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, Differential item functioning (DIF) for language (Dutch vs. English) was evaluated. Reliability of the item bank was also examined and construct validity was studied using several legacy instruments, e.g. the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire., Results: CFA supported the unidimensionality of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank (CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.958), the data also fit the GRM, and demonstrated good coverage across the pain behavior construct (threshold parameters range: -3.42 to 3.54). Analysis showed good cross-cultural validity (only six DIF items), reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and construct validity (all correlations ≥0.53)., Conclusions: The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank was found to have good cross-cultural validity, reliability and construct validity. The development of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank will serve as the basis for Dutch-Flemish PROMIS short forms and computer adaptive testing (CAT)., (© 2015 European Pain Federation - EFIC®)

Background: Balneotherapy (or spa therapy, mineral baths) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain and as a consequence to relieve patients' suffering and make them feel well. In this update we included one extra study., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of balneotherapy for patients with osteoarthritis (OA)., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to October 2006: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field database, PEDro, CENTRAL (Issue 3, 2006) and performed reference checking and communicated with authors to retrieve eligible studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing balneotherapy with any intervention or no intervention. At least 90% of the patient population had to be diagnosed with OA., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. In the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data we refrained from statistical pooling., Main Results: Seven trials (498 patients) were included in this review. Two studies compared spa-treatment with no treatment. One study evaluated baths as an add-on treatment to home exercises and another compared thermal water from Cserkeszölö with tap water (placebo). Three studies evaluated sulphur or Dead Sea baths with no treatment or mineral baths with tap water baths or no treatment. Only one of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and two studies provided data to perform an intention-to-treat analysis ourselves. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by one trial. We found: silver level evidence concerning the beneficial effects on pain, quality of life and analgesic intake of mineral baths compared to no treatment (SMD between 1.82 and 0.34). a statistically significant difference in pain and function of Dead Sea + sulphur versus no treatment, only at end of treatment (WMD 5.7, 95%CI 3.3 to 8.1), but not at 3 month follow-up (WMD 2.6, 95%CI -1.1 to 6.3). no statistically significant differences in pain or function at one or three months of Dead Sea baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.5, 95%CI -0.6 to 1.6) or at one or three months of sulphur baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.4, 95%CI -0.9 to 1.7). Adverse events were not measured in the included trials., Authors' Conclusions: We found silver level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) concerning the beneficial effects of mineral baths compared to no treatment. Of all other balneological treatments no clear effects were found. However, the scientific evidence is weak because of the poor methodological quality and the absence of an adequate statistical analysis and data presentation. Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder for which several surgical treatment options are available., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome., Search Strategy: We updated the searches in 2006. We conducted computer-aided searches of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (searched in June 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2006) and also tracked references in bibliographies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction independently of each other., Main Results: Thirty-three studies were included in the review of which 10 were newly identified in this update. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from fair to good; however, the use of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only seven trials. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release offered significantly better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. In three studies with a total of 294 participants, endoscopic carpal tunnel release resulted in earlier return to work or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release, with a weighted mean difference of -6 days (95% CI -9 to -3 days)., Authors' Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The decision to apply endoscopic carpal tunnel release instead of open carpal tunnel release seems to be guided by the surgeon's and patient's preferences.

Background: Injection with anaesthetics and/or steroids is one of the treatment modalities used in patients with chronic low back pain which needs evaluation with respect to the effectiveness on short and long term pain relief., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of injection therapy in patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. We distinguished between three injection sites: facet joint, epidural or local injections., Search Strategy: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to 1996 and other search methods as advocated by the Back Review Group search strategy. Abstracts and unpublished studies were not included., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials of injection therapy for pain relief (although additional treatments were allowed) in patients with benign low back pain lasting longer than one month and not originating from cancer., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed the trials for methodological quality. Subgroup analyses were made between trials with different control groups (placebo and active injections), with different injection site (facet joint, epidural and local injection), and timing of outcome measurement (short and long term). Within the resulting 12 subcategories of studies (2*3*2), the overall relative risks and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated, using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). In the case of trials in which control groups were active injections, we refrained from pooling the results., Main Results: Twenty-one randomized trials were included in this review. All studies involved patients with low back pain lasting longer than one month. Only 11 studies compared injection therapy with placebo injections (explanatory trials). The methodologic quality of many studies was low: only 8 studies had a methodologic score of 50 or more points. There were only three well designed explanatory clinical trials: one on injections into the facet joints with a short-term RR of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65-1.21) and a long-term RR of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69-1.17); one on epidural injections with a short-term RR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.76-1.15) and a long-term RR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.71-1.41); and one on local injections with a long-term RR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65-0.96). Within the 6 subcategories of explanatory studies the pooled RRs with 95% confidence intervals were: facet joint, short-term: RR=0.89 (0.65-1.21); facet joint, long-term: RR=0.90 (0.69-1.17); epidural, short-term: RR=0.93 (0.79-1.09); epidural, long-term: RR=0.92 (0.76-1.11); local, short-term: RR=0.80 (0.40-1.59); local, long-term: RR=0.79 (0.65-0.96)., Authors' Conclusions: Convincing evidence is lacking on the effects of injection therapies for low back pain. There is a need for more, well designed explanatory trials in this field.

Background: Traction is used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often with other treatments., Objectives: To determine traction's effectiveness, compared to reference treatments, placebo, sham traction or no treatment for LBP., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to October 2006, references in relevant reviews and personal files., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two authors. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative analysis., Main Results: We included 25 RCTs (2206 patients; 1045 receiving traction). Five trials were considered high quality. For patients with mixed symptom patterns (acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica) there is: strong evidence of no statistically significant difference in outcomes between traction as a single treatment and placebo, sham or no treatment; moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; limited evidence of no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with or without continuous traction. For LBP patients with sciatica (with acute, sub-acute or chronic pain), there is conflicting evidence in several comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; different forms of traction. In other comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; the evidence is moderate for continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment, and limited for light versus normal force traction., Implications for Practice: The results of the available studies involving mixed groups of acute, sub-acute and chronic patients with LBP with and without sciatica were quite consistent, indicating that continuous or intermittent traction as a single treatment for LBP is not likely effective for this group. Traction for patients with sciatica cannot be judged effective at present either, due to inconsistent results and methodological problems in most studies. We conclude that traction as a single treatment for LBP is probably not effective., Implications for Research: Any future research on traction for patients with LBP should distinguish between symptom pattern and duration, and should be carried out according to the highest methodological standards.

Background: Conservative interventions such as physiotherapy and ergonomic adjustments (such as keyboard adjustments or ergonomic advice) play a major role in the treatment of most work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS)., Objectives: This systematic review aims to determine whether conservative interventions have a significant impact on outcomes for work-related CANS in adults., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2005) and Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field Specialised Register (March 2005), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was March 2005. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials studying conservative interventions (e.g. exercises, relaxation, physical applications, biofeedback, myofeedback and work-place adjustments) for adults suffering CANS., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently selected trials from the search yield, assessed the methodological quality using the Delphi list, and extracted relevant data. We pooled data or, in the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data, we used a rating system to assess levels of evidence., Main Results: For this update we included six additional studies; 21 trials in total. Seventeen trials included people with chronic non-specific neck or shoulder complaints, or non-specific upper extremity disorders. Over 25 interventions were evaluated; five main subgroups of interventions could be determined: exercises, manual therapy, massage, ergonomics, and energised splint. Overall, the quality of the studies was poor. In 14 studies a form of exercise was evaluated, and contrary to the previous review we now found limited evidence about the effectiveness of exercises when compared to massage and conflicting evidence when exercises are compared to no treatment. In this update there is limited evidence for adding breaks during computer work; massage as add-on treatment on manual therapy, manual therapy as add-on treatment on exercises; and some keyboard designs when compared to other keyboards or placebo in participants with carpal tunnel syndrome., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of keyboards with an alternative force-displacement of the keys or an alternative geometry, and limited evidence for the effectiveness of exercises compared to massage; breaks during computer work compared to no breaks; massage as an add-on treatment to manual therapy; and manual therapy as an add-on treatment to exercises.

Background: Various types of traction are used in the treatment of low-back pain (LBP), often in conjunction with other treatments., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of traction in the management of LBP., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 4, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, references in relevant reviews, and our personal files., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by sets of two reviewers. As available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, a qualitative analysis was performed., Main Results: Twenty-four RCTs, involving 2177 patients (1016 receiving traction) were included in the review. Five trials were considered high quality. There is strong evidence that there is no significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between either continuous or intermittent traction and placebo, sham, or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. There is moderate evidence that: autotraction is more effective other forms of traction are no more effective than placebo, sham or no treatment for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is limited evidence that: there is no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with continuous traction and the same program without traction, for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica autotraction on its own is more effective than a physical therapy program that includes Tru-Trac traction for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is conflicting evidence regarding the short-term effectiveness of either continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or other treatments, in the management of patients who have either chronic LBP or a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence suggests that traction is probably not effective. Neither continuous nor intermittent traction by itself was more effective in improving pain, disability or work absence than placebo, sham or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. Although trials studying patients with sciatica had methodological limitations and inconsistent results, there was moderate evidence that autotraction was more effective than mechanical traction for global improvement in this population.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder, for which several surgical treatment options are available., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work and/or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications, in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome., Search Strategy: We updated the searches in 2003. We conducted computer-aided searches of the trials register of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group (searched in July 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2003) and tracked references in bibliographies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction independently of each other., Main Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was fair to good. However, the application of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only one trial. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release seem to offer better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. There was conflicting evidence about whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release resulted in earlier return to work and/or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release., Reviewers' Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Background: Conservative interventions such as physiotherapy and ergonomic adjustments play a major part in the treatment of most work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMD)., Objectives: The objective of this systematic review is to determine whether conservative interventions have a significant impact on short and long-term outcomes for upper extremity WRMD in adults., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (January 2002) and Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field specialised register (January 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), PubMed (1966 to November 2001), EMBASE (1988 to November 2001), and CINAHL (1982 to November 2001). We also searched the Physiotherapy Index (1988 to November 2001) and reference lists of articles. No language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: Only randomised controlled trials and concurrent controlled trials studying conservative interventions for adults suffering from upper extremity WRMD were included. Conservative interventions may include exercises, relaxation, physical applications, biofeedback, myofeedback and work place adjustments., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected the trials from the search yield and assessed the clinical relevance and methodological quality using the Delphi list. In the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data we used a rating system to assess levels of evidence., Main Results: We included 15 trials involving 925 people. Twelve trials included people with chronic non-specific neck or shoulder complaints, or non-specific upper extremity disorders. Over 20 interventions were evaluated; seven main subgroups of interventions could be determined: exercises, manual therapy, massage, ergonomics, multidisciplinary treatment, energised splint and individual treatment versus group therapy. Overall, the quality of the studies appeared to be poor. In 10 studies a form of exercise was evaluated, and there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of exercises only when compared to no treatment. Concerning manual therapy (1 study), massage (4 studies), multidisciplinary treatment (1 study) and energised splint (1 study) no conclusions can be drawn. Limited evidence is found concerning the effectiveness of specific keyboards for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome., Reviewer's Conclusions: This review shows limited evidence for the effectiveness of keyboards with an alternative force-displacement of the keys or an alternative geometry, and limited evidence for the effectiveness of individual exercises. The benefit of expensive ergonomic interventions (such as new chairs, new desks etc) in the workplace is not clearly demonstrated.

Background: Balneotherapy (spa therapy) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain, improve joint motion and as a consequence to relieve people' suffering and make them feel well., Objectives: To perform a systematic review on the effectiveness of balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: Using the Cochrane search strategy, studies were found by screening: 1) The MEDLINE CD-ROM database from 1966 to June 2002 and 2) the database from the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field, the Pedro database up to June 2002. Also, 3) reference checking and 4) personal communications with authors was carried out to retrieve eligible studies. Date of the most recent literature search: June, 2002, Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing balneotherapy with any other intervention or with no intervention. Included participants all suffered from definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by the American Rheumatism Association Criteria (ARA) or by the criteria of Steinbrocker. At least one of the WHO/ILAR core set of endpoints for RA clinical trials had to be among the main outcome measures., Data Collection and Analysis: The Delphi list was the criteria list used to assess the components of methodological quality. Two reviewers carried out quality assessment and data extraction of the studies. Disagreements were solved by consensus., Main Results: Six trials, representing 355 people, were included in this review. Most trials reported positive findings (the absolute improvement in measured outcomes ranged from 0 to 44%), but were methodologically flawed to some extent. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by two trials. None of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and only two performed a comparison of effects between groups. Pooling of the data was not performed; because of heterogeneity of the studies, multiple outcome measurements, and the overall data presentation was too scarce., Reviewer's Conclusions: One cannot ignore the positive findings reported in most trials. However the scientific evidence is insufficient because of the poor methodological quality, the absence of an adequate statistical analysis, and the absence, for the patient, of most essential outcome measures (pain, self assessed function, quality of life). Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution. Because of the methodological flaws an answer about the apparent effectiveness of balneotherapy cannot be provided at this moment. A large, methodological sound trial is needed.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder, for which several surgical treatment options are available. However, there is no consensus on the most effective method of treatment., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work and/or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome., Search Strategy: We conducted computer-aided searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2000), MEDLINE(searched January 1966-March 2000) and EMBASE (searched January 1988-February 2000), and tracked references in bibliographies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome., Data Collection and Analysis: Study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction were performed by two reviewers independently of each other., Main Results: Sixteen studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was fair to good. However, the application of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only two trials. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release seem to offer better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. There is conflicting evidence about whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release results in earlier return to work and/or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release., Reviewer's Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.