Search

* OBJECTIVE: To identify the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) of exercise therapy for people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). * DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment * METHODS: The SWE was estimated as the lowest reduction in pain that participants would consider exercising worthwhile, compared to not exercising, ie, effects due to natural history and other components (eg, regression to the mean). We recruited English-speaking adults in Australia with nonspecific CLBP to our online survey via e-mail obtained from a registry of previous participants and advertisements on social media. We used discrete choice experiment to estimate the SWE of exercise compared to no exercise for pain intensity. We analyzed the discrete choice experiment using a mixed logit model and mitigated hypothetical bias through certainty calibration, with sensitivity analyses performed with different certainty calibration thresholds. * RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen participants completed the survey. The mean age (±standard deviation [SD]) was 50.7±16.5, median (interquartile range) pain duration 10 years (5-20), and mean pain intensity (±SD) was 5.8±2.3 on a 0-to-10 numerical rating scale. For people with CLBP, the SWE of exercise was a between-group reduction in pain of 20%, compared to no exercise. In the sensitivity analyses, the SWE varied with different levels of certainty calibration, from 0% without certainty calibration to 60% with more extreme certainty calibration. * CONCLUSION: This patient-informed threshold of clinical importance could guide the interpretation of findings from randomized trials and meta-analyses of exercise therapy compared to no exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigated the impact of Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) on individuals' physical activity (PA) behaviours, specifically, how they modify, cease, or continue PA when experiencing CLBP. The primary aim was to explore the relationship between CLBP and PA and how this is influenced in different contexts (e.g., necessity of a task). Methods: A mixed‐methods survey was administered to 220 participants, including self‐reported outcomes, and capturing responses to three distinct questions related to PA and CLBP. The data was analysed via a content analysis. Results: The findings revealed that individuals with CLBP are most likely to modify PA in work‐related contexts and least likely to cease it in the same setting. Housework emerged as the most common domain for cessation of PA, while work/study activities were predominantly continued. Reasons for these trends were typically task‐based rather than health or enjoyment based and influenced by the perceived necessity of the task in question. Conclusion: The study highlights the role of occupational and educational settings in individual responses to CLBP. The findings also highlight a gap in public awareness regarding effective CLBP management strategies, emphasising the need for increased education and awareness programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Practitioners' attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain (CLBP) influence their clinical decision making, but few studies have investigated decision making outside the context of patient vignettes for a range of first‐ and second‐line treatment options for CLBP, or in accredited exercise physiologists (AEPs). Methods: Using an online survey, Australian AEPs and physiotherapists rated their use of different treatments for CLBP (exercise, education, manual therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy) and their confidence in these treatments for reducing pain and disability. Their biomedical and biopsychosocial beliefs were also assessed using the Pain and Attitudes Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. Differences between disciplines in treatment use and confidence were analysed using Mann–Whitney U tests and independent t‐tests, respectively. Multiple linear regression was used to explore factors associated with treatment choices. Results: Two‐hundred thirty‐three practitioners (n = 143 physiotherapists, n = 90 AEPs) completed the survey. Most practitioners were confident in treating CLBP, had a moderate—high level of confidence in the different treatments, and regularly used them in practice. Practitioners with higher biomedical beliefs had greater use of, and confidence in, specific exercise, manual therapy, and combined exercise and manual therapy. Practitioners with higher biopsychosocial beliefs were more confident in general exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy, pain education and combined exercise and pain education. Conclusion: Practitioner beliefs influence their use of, and confidence in different treatments for CLBP. These findings suggest a need for strategies to enhance biopsychosocial beliefs/reduce biomedical beliefs in Australian exercise‐based practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aimed to estimate the proportion of exercise interventions tested in clinical trials of people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) that meet the World Health Organization's (WHO) physical activity guidelines. Methods A secondary analysis of the 2021 Cochrane review of exercise therapy for CLBP was performed. Data from each study were extracted by 1 reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Data extracted related to the frequency, duration and intensity of each exercise intervention, and the proportion of exercise interventions that met the WHO's physical activity guidelines (aerobic, muscle strengthening, or both) were determined. Results The 249 included trials comprised 426 exercise interventions. Few interventions reported an exercise type and dose consistent with the WHO guidelines (aerobic: 1.6%, muscle strengthening: 5.6%, both: 1.6%). Poor reporting of exercise intensity limited our ability to determine whether interventions met the guidelines. Conclusion Few interventions tested in clinical trials for people with CLBP prescribe an exercise type and dose consistent with the WHO guidelines. Therefore, they do not appear sufficiently dosed to achieve broader health outcomes. Future trials should investigate the effect of WHO guideline-recommended exercise interventions on patient-reported outcomes (pain and disability) as well as health-related outcomes in people with CLBP. Impact This exploratory analysis showed the lack of exercise interventions in the CLBP literature that meet the WHO's physical activity guidelines. With people in chronic pain groups, such as people with CLBP, being at higher risk for noncommunicable disease, it appears this is a key consideration for exercise practitioners when designing interventions for people with CLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the smallest worthwhile effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for people with acute and chronic low back pain (LBP)? What is the smallest worthwhile effect of individualised exercise for people with chronic LBP compared with no intervention? Benefit-harm trade-off study. Participants were recruited by advertisement on social media and included if they were English-speaking adults in Australia who had non-specific LBP. Pain intensity. A total of 116 people with acute LBP and 230 people with chronic LBP were recruited. For acute LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs additional to no intervention was a 30% (IQR 10 to 40%) reduction in pain intensity. For chronic LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs additional to no intervention was a 27.5% (IQR 10 to 50%) reduction in pain intensity. For chronic LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of exercise additional to no intervention was a 20% (IQR 10 to 40%) reduction in pain intensity. There were small associations between baseline pain, duration of pain and level of exercise and the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs for acute LBP. There were no other clear associations. For people with LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of exercise and NSAIDs additional to no intervention is approximately a 20 to 30% reduction in pain. These results can inform the interpretation of the effects of NSAIDs and exercise in randomised trials and meta-analyses, incorporating consumers' perspectives. Further research on comparisons between different interventions and on other core LBP outcomes may inform decision-making. OSF osf.io/3erjx/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intensity is an important determinant of physiological adaptations and health benefits of exercise, but the role of exercise intensity on improving outcomes in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is unclear. This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of higher versus lower intensity exercise intensity on pain, disability, quality of life and adverse events in people with CLBP. Methods: Six databases and four clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 December 2022, for randomised controlled trials that compared two or more exercise intensities in adults with CLBP. Data were analysed using random‐effects meta‐analysis for disability and synthesised narratively for pain, quality of life and adverse events due to limited studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. Results: Four trials (n = 214 participants, 84% male) reported across five studies were included. Higher intensity exercise reduced disability more than lower intensity exercise at end‐treatment (SMD [95% CI] = −0.39 [−0.56 to −0.22]; very low certainty) but not at 6‐month follow‐up (SMD [95% CI] = −0.20 [−0.53 to 0.13]; very low certainty). Higher intensity exercise did not reliably improve pain and quality of life more than lower intensity exercise. Adverse events did not differ between exercise intensities. All studies were at high risk of bias. Conclusion: Based on very low certainty evidence from a limited number of studies, exercise intensity does not appear to meaningfully influence clinical outcomes in people with CLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of exercise on pain self-efficacy in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from October 20, 2018, to March 23, 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of exercise on pain self-efficacy to control, in adults with NSCLBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: Seventeen trials were included, of which eight (n = 1121 participants; 60.6% female; mean age: 49.6 years) were included in the meta-analysis. Exercise increased pain self-efficacy by 3.02 points (95% confidence interval: 1.72, 4.32) on the 60-point Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The certainty of evidence was moderate; all trials were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise increased pain self-efficacy in adults with NSCLBP. Future research should investigate if this effect is meaningful, whether it increases with more targeted treatments to enhance pain self-efficacy, and the effects on outcomes for adults with NSCLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is an effective treatment for adults with chronic low back pain (LBP). * DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. * LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched 4 electronic databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase) and 2 clinical trial registers (ClinicalTrials. gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register) from inception up to March 2022. * STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating CFT for adults with LBP. * DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were psychological status, patient satisfaction, global improvement, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Random-effects meta-analysis with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was used to estimate pooled effects. * RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included (9 ongoing and 1 terminated), of which 5 provided data (n = 507; n = 262 CFT, and n = 245 control). There was very low certainty for the effectiveness of CFT compared to manual therapy plus core exercises (2 studies, n = 265) for reducing pain intensity (mean difference: -1.02/10, 95% confidence interval: -14.75, 12.70) and disability (mean difference: -6.95/100, 95% confidence interval: -58.58, 44.68). Narrative synthesis showed mixed results for pain intensity, disability, and secondary outcomes. No adverse events were reported. All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. * CONCLUSION: Cognitive functional therapy may not be more effective than other common interventions for reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic LBP. The effectiveness of CFT is very uncertain and will remain so until higher-quality studies are available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the effectiveness of a modified fear hierarchy on measuring improvements in movement‐associated fear in chronic low back pain. Methods: A modified 3‐item fear hierarchy was created and implemented based on principles of graded exposure. This study was an exploratory analysis of the modified 3‐item fear hierarchy from a larger clinical trial data set. Both groups received pain education and exercise, either bodyweight or strength training. Both groups performed item one on the hierarchy, the squat. Only the strength training group performed item 2, the deadlift. Neither group performed item 3, the overhead press. Analysis of Covariance and stepwise linear regression were used to explore results. Results: Improvement in movement‐associated fear was conditional upon graded exposure. Both groups improved in the squat movement (p ≤ 0.05), which both performed. Only the strength training group improved in the deadlift (p ≤ 0.01), and neither improved in the overhead press (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Reductions in movement‐associated fear are conditional upon graded exposure, based on the use of a novel modified 3‐item fear hierarchy. Further research is needed to understand the utility of this tool in a patient‐led approach to co‐designing a graded exposure‐based intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contemporary management of chronic low back pain involves combined exercise and pain education. Currently, there is a gap in the literature for whether any exercise mode better pairs with pain education. The purpose of this study was to compare general callisthenic exercise with a powerlifting style programme, both paired with consistent pain education, for chronic low back pain. We hypothesised powerlifting style training may better compliment the messages of pain education. Methods: An 8-week single-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted comparing bodyweight exercise (n = 32) with powerlifting (n = 32) paired with the same education, for people with chronic low back pain. Exercise sessions were one-on-one and lasted 60-min, with the last 5–15 min comprising pain education. Pain, disability, fear, catastrophizing, self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression were measured at baseline, 8-weeks, 3-months, and 6-months. Results: No significant between-group differences were observed for pain (p ≥0.40), or disability (p ≥0.45) at any time-point. Within-group differences were significantly improved for pain (p ≤ 0.04) and disability (p ≤ 0.04) at all time-points for both groups, except 6-month disability in the bodyweight group (p = 0.1). Behavioural measures explained 39–60% of the variance in changes in pain and disability at each time-point, with fear and self-efficacy emerging as significant in these models (p ≤ 0.001) Conclusions: Both powerlifting and bodyweight exercise were safe and beneficial when paired with pain education for chronic low back pain, with reductions in pain and disability associated with improved fear and self-efficacy. This study provides opportunity for practitioners to no longer be constrained by systematic approaches to chronic low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objectives This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. Methods We searched published and trial registry reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. Results Nine studies (3370 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) may reduce pain at 4 weeks (mean difference [MD] −6.75, 95% CI: −8.61, −4.90) and 12 weeks (MD −6.16, 95% CI: −8.38, −3.94), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at 4 weeks (MD −1.40, 95% CI: −8.26, 5.46), at 12 weeks (MD −2.91, 95% CI: −13.69, 7.67) and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.78, 6.00). Conclusion Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects compared to those observed in commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0–100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason. Results: We included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33 points (95% CI − 6.15 to − 2.50) on a 0–100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo. Conclusions: Treatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP. Trial registration: We prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO (CRD42020149275). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain. Methods: We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology. Discussion: This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019145257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). It mentions QBPDS was originally developed in English and French and has been translated and cross-culturally adapted into several languages, including Dutch, Persian and Turkish; There are licensing fees to use the QBPDS for funded academic users, healthcare organizations and commercial users, but students, clinicians and non-funded academics may use the tool for free.