Search

Managing LBP via clinical practice guidelines in healthcare settings is recommended, yet burgeoning evidence suggests adherence is suboptimal in emergency department settings. Whether adherence differs between public and private settings is unknown. A retrospective audit of two Australian emergency departments matched 86 private patients to 86 public patients by age ( ± 5 years), sex (male/female) and LBP duration (first time/history of LBP). Patient charts were reviewed according to the Australian clinical guidelines for the management of LBP. Guidelines were considered individually and via a collective guideline adherence score (GAS). Management GAS was lower in private patients compared to public patients (d [95 %CI]: -0.67 [-0.98, -0.36], P < 0.001). Public patients were more likely to have documentation of guideline-based advice (OR [95 %CI]: 4.4 [2.4, 8.4], P < 0.001) and less likely to be sent for imaging (OR [95 %CI]: 5.0 [2.6, 9.4], P < 0.001). Private patients were more likely to have documented screening for psychosocial risk factors (OR [95 %CI]: 21.8 [9.1, 52.1], P < 0.001) and more likely to receive guideline-based medication prescriptions at patient discharge (OR [95 %CI]: 2.2 [1.2, 4.2], P = 0.013). Differences exist in public and private hospital emergency department guideline adherence. Exploring barriers and facilitators underpinning these differences will assist in guiding future implementation science approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), once specific causes are excluded (fracture, infection, inflammatory arthritis, cancer, cauda equina and radiculopathy) many clinicians pose a diagnosis of non-specific LBP. Accordingly, current management of non-specific LBP is generic. There is a need for a classification of non-specific LBP that is both data- and evidence-based assessing multi-dimensional pain-related factors in a large sample size. The "PRedictive Evidence Driven Intelligent Classification Tool for Low Back Pain" (PREDICT-LBP) project is a prospective cross-sectional study which will compare 300 women and men with non-specific LBP (aged 18-55 years) with 100 matched referents without a history of LBP. Participants will be recruited from the general public and local medical facilities. Data will be collected on spinal tissue (intervertebral disc composition and morphology, vertebral fat fraction and paraspinal muscle size and composition via magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), central nervous system adaptation (pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, brain resting state functional connectivity, structural connectivity and regional volumes via MRI), psychosocial factors (e.g. depression, anxiety) and other musculoskeletal pain symptoms. Dimensionality reduction, cluster validation and fuzzy c-means clustering methods, classification models, and relevant sensitivity analyses, will classify non-specific LBP patients into sub-groups. This project represents a first personalised diagnostic approach to non-specific LBP, with potential for widespread uptake in clinical practice. This project will provide evidence to support clinical trials assessing specific treatments approaches for potential subgroups of patients with non-specific LBP. The classification tool may lead to better patient outcomes and reduction in economic costs., Competing Interests: DLB, ST, MT, LS, SeS, HJW, MA, GT, KE, BF, JVO, CTM, PJO, SB, RD, SK declare no conflicts of interest. BB: declares no conflicts of interest relevant to the current work, but has previously received research support, consultancy fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, GE/Lunar, Janssen, Galapagos, Gilead, Medimaps, MSD, Sanofi Genzyme, Theramex, UCB. TS: declares prior consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Kaia Health Software, SpineArt, Implantcast and speaking and travel arrangements from Johnson & Johnson, ICOTEC, Nuvasive, Ulrichmedical, Silony, Amgen, Kaia Health Software. EE-K has received fees from painCert GmbH, Casquar GmbH and Omega Pharma GmbH, outside the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Belavy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The classification of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) according to multidimensional data could guide clinical management; yet recent systematic reviews show this has not been attempted. This was a prospective cross-sectional study of participants with CLBP (n = 21) and age-, sex- and height-matched pain-free controls (n = 21). Nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors were collected. Dimensionality reduction was followed by fuzzy c-means clustering to determine sub-groups. Machine learning models (Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbour, Naïve Bayes and Random Forest) were used to determine the accuracy of classification to sub-groups. The primary analysis showed that four factors (cognitive function, depressive symptoms, general self-efficacy and anxiety symptoms) and two clusters (normal versus impaired psychosocial profiles) optimally classified participants. The error rates in classification models ranged from 4.2 to 14.2% when only CLBP patients were considered and increased to 24.2 to 37.5% when pain-free controls were added. This data-driven pilot study classified participants with CLBP into sub-groups, primarily based on psychosocial factors. This contributes to the literature as it was the first study to evaluate data-driven machine learning CLBP classification based on nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors. Future studies with larger sample sizes should validate these findings., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(5):1-5. Epub: 5 April 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11658 .

Low back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide and adults with chronic low back pain (≥12weeks) commonly experience sleep impairments (e.g., insomnia, sleep disturbance). This study examined the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on sleep in adults with chronic low back pain. Six databases (PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 2 June 2021 for randomised controlled trials. Pairwise random-effect meta-analysis estimated standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) at end-of-intervention follow-up. Nineteen studies (participants: 1348) were included. When compared to control, non-pharmacological interventions improved sleep (g [95%CI]: -0.33 [-0.56, -0.11], p = 0.004, small effect, I 2  = 59.3%; n = 879; studies: n = 13; GRADE: low). This small improvement in sleep was associated with a moderate reduction in pain intensity (-0.69 [-1.00, -0.38], p < 0.001, I 2  = 75.3%; n = 812; studies: n = 12; GRADE: very low) and no changes in back-related disability (-0.50 [-1.13, 0.14], p = 0.129, I 2  = 91.4%; n = 517; studies: n = 6; GRADE: low). Notably, all eligible studies reported interventions primarily aimed to reduce pain, although our search criteria were not limited to pain interventions. Key limitations were data paucity and high risk of bias. Future research should investigate sleep-based interventions (i.e., those purposely designed to improve sleep) using subjective and objective measures across a range of sleep domains (CRD42021275227)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declared they had no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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], I 2  = 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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Animal and human cross-sectional data suggest that bone marrow adipose tissue (MAT) may respond to mechanical loads and exercise. We conducted the first randomised controlled trial of exercise on MAT modulations in humans., Methods: Forty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSCLBP) were enrolled in a six-month single-blinded randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001270505). Twenty patients loaded their spines via progressive upright aerobic and resistance exercises targeting major muscle groups (Exercise). Twenty patients performed non-weightbearing motor control training and manual therapy (Control). Testing occurred at baseline, 3-months (3mo) and 6-months (6mo). Lumbar vertebral fat fraction (VFF) was measured using magnetic resonance imaging axial mDixon sequences., Results: When compared to baseline (percent change), lumbar vertebral fat fraction (VFF; measured using magnetic resonance imaging axial mDixon sequences) was lower in Exercise at 3mo at L2 (-3.7[6.8]%, p = 0.033) and L4 (-2.6[4.1]%, p = 0.015), but not in Control. There were no between-group effects. The effects of Exercise on VFF were sex-specific, with VFF lower in men at L2, L3, L4 at 3mo and at L1, L2, L3 and L4 at 6mo (p all ≤ 0.05), but not in women. Leg and trunk lean mass were increased at 3mo in Exercise. Changes in VFF correlated significantly with changes in total fat (ρ = 0.40) and lean (ρ = -0.41) masses, but not with lumbar BMD (ρ = -0.10) or visceral adipose tissue volume (ρ = 0.23)., Conclusions: This trial provided first prospective evidence in humans that a moderate exercise intervention may modulate lumbar VFF as a surrogate measure of MAT at 3mo, yet not 6mo. The effect of exercise on MAT may be more prominent in males than females., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals in low back pain., Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis., Literature Search: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 14, 2021, as well as Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews published in the last 10 years. We conducted forward and backward citation tracking., Study Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled or clinical trials in adults with low back pain to improve imaging referrals., Data Synthesis: Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach., Results: Of the 2719 identified records, 8 trials were included, with 6 studies eligible for meta-analysis (participants: N = 170 460). All trials incorporated clinician education; 4 included audit and/or feedback components. Comparators were no-intervention control and passive dissemination of guidelines. Five trials were rated as low risk of bias, and 2 trials were rated as having some concerns. There was low-certainty evidence that implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals had no effect (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.72, 1.05]; I 2 = 0%; studies: n = 6). The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: We found low-certainty evidence that interventions to reduce imaging referrals or use in low back pain had no effect. Education interventions are unlikely to be effective. Organizational- and policy-level interventions are more likely to be effective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):175-191. Epub 05 Feb 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10731 .

Background and Objectives: Nervous system, psychosocial and spinal tissue biomarkers are associated with non-specific low back pain (nsLBP), though relative contributions are unclear., Databases and Data Treatment: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus were searched up to 25 March 2020. Related reviews and reference lists were also screened. Observational studies examining structural and functional nervous system biomarkers (e.g. quantitative sensory tests, structural and functional brain measures), psychosocial factors (e.g. mental health, catastrophizing) and structural spinal imaging biomarkers (e.g. intervertebral disc degeneration, paraspinal muscle size) between nsLBP and pain-free controls were included. For multivariate meta-analysis, two of three domains were required in each study. Random-effects pairwise and multivariate meta-analyses were performed. GRADE approach assessed evidence certainty. Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessed risk of bias. Main outcomes were the effect size difference of domains between nsLBP and pain-free controls., Results: Of 4519 unique records identified, 33 studies (LBP = 1552, referents = 1322) were meta-analysed. Psychosocial state (Hedges' g [95%CI]: 0.90 [0.69-1.10], p < 0.001) in nsLBP showed larger effect sizes than nervous system (0.31 [0.13-0.49], p < 0.001; difference: 0.61 [0.36-0.86], p < 0.001) and spine imaging biomarkers (0.55 [0.37-0.73], p < 0.001; difference: 0.36 [0.04-0.67], p = 0.027). The relationship between domains changes depending on if pain duration is acute or chronic., Conclusions: Psychosocial effect sizes in nsLBP are greater than those for spinal imaging and nervous system biomarkers. Limitations include cross-sectional design of studies included and inference of causality. Future research should investigate the clinical relevance of these effect size differences in relation to pain intensity and disability., Study Registration: PROSPERO-CRD42020159188., Significance: Spinal structural lesions (e.g. intervertebral disc degeneration), psychosocial (e.g. depression) and nervous system factors (detected by e.g. quantitative sensory tests, structural and functional measures) contribute to non-specific low back pain. However, psychosocial factors may be more compromised than nervous system and spinal imaging biomarkers. This relationship depends on if the pain is acute or chronic. These findings underscore that the 'non-specific' label in back pain should be reconsidered, and more specific multidimensional categories evaluated to guide patient management., (© 2021 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

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.)

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. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761 .

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.)

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.

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.

Objective: Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP)., Design: Network meta-analysis (NMA)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL., Eligibility Criteria: Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP., Results: Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): -1.86 (-2.54 to -1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; -1.14 (-1.71 to -0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; -1.13 (-1.53 to -0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; -1.26 (-2.10 to -0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; -1.18 (-2.20 to -0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (-0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; -0.31 (-0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; -0.31 (-1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA<40%). NMA was not possible for trunk muscle endurance or analgesic medication. The quality of the synthesised evidence was low according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria., Summary/conclusion: There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background Context: Muscle, bone and tendon respond anabolically to mechanical forces. Whether the intervertebral disc (IVD) can benefit from exercise is unclear., Purpose: To examine whether exercise can beneficially affect IVD characteristics., Study Design/setting: This is a single-blinded 6-month randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001270505) in an exercise and physiotherapy clinic., Patient Sample: Forty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSCLBP) are included in this study., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was lumbar IVD T2 time (MRI). Secondary outcomes included IVD diffusion coefficient and IVD expansion with short-duration lying., Methods: Twenty patients progressively loaded their lumbar IVDs (exercise) via an exercise programme involving progressive upright aerobic and resistance exercises targeting the trunk and major muscle groups and were compared to twenty patients who performed motor control training and manual therapy (control). Testing occurred at baseline, 3 months and 6 months., Results: Seventeen exercise and fifteen control patients completed the interventions. There were no group-by-time differences in T2 time of the entire IVD (exercise 94.1 ± 10.0 ms vs. control 96.5 ± 9.3 ms, p = 0.549). Exercise patients had shorter T2 time in the posterior annulus at 6 months (82.7 ± 6.8 ms vs. 85.1 ± 8.0 ms, p = 0.028). Exercise patients showed higher L5/S1 apparent diffusion coefficients and decreased IVD height at 3 months (both p ≤ 0.050). After adjustments for multiple comparisons, differences lost statistical significance. Per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses yielded similar findings., Conclusions: This trial found that 6 months of exercise did not benefit the IVD of people with NSCLBP. Based on this index study, future studies could investigate the effect of exercise on IVD in different populations, with different types, durations and/or intensities of exercise, and using different IVD markers. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Specific spinal postures and physical activities have been linked to low back pain (LBP) but previous reviews have produced contrasting outcomes. This umbrella review examined (1) what relationship, if any, is evident between specific spinal postures or physical activities and LBP; (2) the quality of existing systematic reviews in this area; and (3) the extent to which previous systematic reviews demonstrate causality. Five electronic databases and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from January 1990 to June 2018. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on spine posture or physical exposure and LBP symptoms (self-report) or outcomes (e.g. work absence, medical consultation) were included. The AMSTAR and the Bradford Hill Criteria were utilised to critically appraise the quality of included systematic reviews and to determine the extent to which these reviews demonstrated causality. Two independent reviewers screened 4285 publications with 41 reviews included in the final review. Both positive and null associations between spine posture, prolonged standing, sitting, bending and twisting, awkward postures, whole body vibration, and components of heavy physical work were reported. Results from meta-analyses were more consistently in favour of an association, whereas systematic reviews that included only prospective studies were less able to provide consistent conclusions. Evidence that these factors precede first time LBP or have a dose response relationship with LBP outcomes was mixed. Despite the availability of many reviews, there is no consensus regarding causality of physical exposure to LBP. Association has been documented but does not provide a causal explanation for LBP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This study assessed the deconditioning hypothesis of low back pain (LBP) by examining physical function in relation to LBP and self-reported physical activity in women. This cross-sectional study recruited a representative population-based sample of females aged greater than 60 years. In total, 1182 women were included in the study and completed questionnaires (physical activity and LBP intensity) and functional testing (countermovement jump, chair rise, gait speed and grip strength). Individuals were stratified into four groups based on physical activity and LBP status and analysed via a two-way ANOVA. Most participants (87%) reported current LBP and 25% were physically active. Countermovement jump height, chair rise and grip strength were lower in physically inactive women ( p  ≤ 0.005), but not women with LBP ( p  ≥ 0.21). Gait speed was not associated with physical activity or LBP status. There was no association between LBP and physical activity status. Whilst LBP was associated with lower physical activity, contrary to the deconditioning hypothesis, LBP status itself was not associated with reduced physical function in community-dwelling women 60 years and older. This implies that LBP may not be related to physical function in this population group, but rather to their physical activity levels.

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., (© 2019 World Institute of Pain.)

Purpose: Cycling is widely practiced as a mode of transportation, a leisurely pursuit, and a competitive sport. Approximately half of cyclists experience low back pain. Yet, there has been limited study of spine tissue adaptations due to cycling., Methods: To investigate potential risk factors for spinal pain, we compared 18 high-volume cyclists (>150 km·wk for ≥5 yr) to 18 height-matched nonsporting referents. Participants had no history of spinal pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to quantify intervertebral disc (IVD) morphology and hydration, and psoas, erector spinae, quadratus lumborum, and multifidus muscle size and fat content. Endurance of trunk muscles (flexors and extensors) was measured, and physical activity levels were assessed objectively using accelerometry., Results: Cyclists' IVD showed prolonged T2 time (+10.0% ± 17.3%; P = 0.021), implying better IVD hydration and glycosaminoglycan content, compared with referents. Lower thoracic and upper lumbar IVD T2 time were longer in cyclists (P ≤ 0.029) but not at the lower lumbar spine. T2 time differences were larger in the nucleus pulposus compared with the annulus fibrosus. Cyclists showed larger psoas muscles with less fat content compared with referents. Cyclists also exhibited longer isometric trunk endurance times (P ≤ 0.036) and higher physical activity levels (osteogenic index, P = 0.038)., Conclusion: Despite previous studies reporting higher than average prevalence of back pain in cyclists, the high-volume road cyclists in our cohort showed no anatomical or functional deficiency in spinal structures. By contrast, we found evidence for beneficial adaptations to the IVD and psoas muscles in high-volume cyclists compared with referents. These data support the notion that cycling is not detrimental to the spine, rather, by contrast, may be associated with beneficial changes at the spine.

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.