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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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 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]; I² = 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. [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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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 and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6-month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; n = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; n = 20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio-respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, p = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow-up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): −10.7 (−18.7, −2.8) mm; p = 0.008) and MCMT (−19.2 (−28.1, −10.3) mm; p < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between-group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; p = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; p = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; p = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; p = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (−5.7 (−11.2, −0.2) pts; p = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (−6.6 (−9.9, −3.2) pts; p < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6-month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC (p = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]