PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of eurspinejspringer.comThis journalThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
 
Eur Spine J. Jul 2008; 17(7): 889–904.
Published online Apr 18, 2008. doi:  10.1007/s00586-008-0664-3
PMCID: PMC2443262
Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature
L. A. C. Machado,corresponding author1,2 S. J. Kamper,1,2 R. D. Herbert,1,2 C. G. Maher,1,2 and J. H. McAuley1,2
1Back Pain Research Group, Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for International Health, Missenden Rd, P.O. Box M201, Camperdown, NSW 2050 Australia
2Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
L. A. C. Machado, Phone: +61-2-93519671, Fax: +61-2-93519681, lmachado/at/george.org.au.
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Received September 13, 2007; Revised February 17, 2008; Accepted March 16, 2008.
The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients’ expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0664-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Keywords: Systematic review, Low back pain, Trial methodology, Blinding, Expectation
Placebo-controlled trials are designed to control for incidental factors such as natural recovery, regression to mean and placebo effects. In theory, this permits the specific (non-incidental) effects of treatment to be determined. To control for placebo effects, participants must be kept unaware of their group assignment, that is, they must be blinded. If a placebo-controlled trial fails to achieve acceptable blinding, it is possible that the estimates of treatment effects will be biased due to imbalances in the magnitude of placebo effects between groups. Blinding also contributes to the prevention of other sources of bias in trials such as measurement bias, treatment non-compliance and loss to follow-up [79, 125].
Ideally, blinding is achieved by using placebos that are indistinguishable from the experimental intervention. While this is relatively easy to achieve in pharmaceutical trials, it is more difficult in trials of complex interventions such as exercise or psychological interventions [66, 113]. This is because in trials investigating complex interventions, indistinguishability is often achieved at the expense of having placebos that are not inert.
There is a controversy surrounding the use of term “inert” to describe non-pharmaceutical placebos [18, 34], but much of this debate seems to be merely semantic. For example, Rosenthal and Frank [119] have expanded the inert nature of placebos to psychotherapy by defining placebo as “an activity regarded as therapeutically inert from the standpoint of the theory of the therapy being studied” (p. 299). Semantics apart, trialists should avoid the use of non-inert placebos in trials because they may cause the underestimation of treatment effects. Rather than use placebos that are not inert, the alternative is to instead choose placebos that are clearly inert but distinguishable from the experimental intervention. An example is the use of sham electrotherapy in trials of spinal manipulation or exercise. Theoretically, this could be equally problematic because the dissimilar nature of the interventions may not generate placebo effects of similar magnitude in the experimental and control groups [80, 81].
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to ascertain the adequacy of placebo interventions implemented in clinical trials. We chose to review the trials investigating the efficacy of interventions for low back pain because low back pain represents a common and costly health condition for which a wide range of treatment options are currently available [91].
Search strategy
A systematic search was conducted from the earliest record to November 2006 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE using the strategy recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group [140]. Results were combined with the terms “placebo”, “sham”, “attention-control” and “minimal intervention”.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Eligible studies were randomised placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of conservative (non-surgical) interventions for non-specific low back pain or sciatica in which outcomes had been reported in terms of pain, disability, quality of life, sick leave, global perceived effect or recurrence. Non-English studies were included when a translation was available. Studies in which participants presented with cauda equina syndrome, infection, neoplasm, fracture, inflammatory disease, pregnancy or spinal surgery in the past 12 months were excluded, as were primary prevention studies.
Data extraction and analysis
Two independent reviewers used a standard form to extract data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. Trial quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, an 11-item checklist in which higher scores represent higher quality and 10 is the maximum possible score [100] (the full scale can be viewed at http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/scale_item.html). In this review, trials were included in the analysis regardless of the result of their quality ratings. The reviewers extracted information on the substances or procedures used in placebo groups, whether the assessment of blinding or the evaluation of patients’ expectations was reported, and the results of these assessments. Additionally, trials were coded according to the use of the following specific strategies, which have the potential to facilitate blinding in trials [9, 38].
Indistinguishable placebo
The most obvious way of blinding patients to allocation is to provide one group with a placebo intervention that is indistinguishable from the experimental intervention. We examined descriptions of placebo interventions in trial reports to judge whether patients would be able to differentiate them from the experimental intervention. Placebos that replicate side effects of pharmaceutical interventions are known as "active placebos". However, in this study a pharmaceutical placebo did not have to replicate side-effects to be considered indistinguishable. For those interventions delivered by procedures that break the skin, such as acupuncture and injections, the placebo was considered indistinguishable only when skin penetration was also involved. In accordance to Baskin and colleagues [9], placebos of psychological interventions were never considered indistinguishable.
Inert placebo
In this review, placebo interventions were coded as not inert if they involved a treatment used in current clinical practice. (Note that having inert placebos does not, on its own, secure blinding).
Structurally equivalent placebo
One strategy used to promote comparability of intervention and placebo groups is to ensure the structural equivalence of the experimental and placebo interventions. Structural equivalence is particularly important when indistinguishability is not feasible. The structural equivalence of each of the placebo interventions was evaluated by considering a list of criteria adapted from the psychotherapy literature [9]. To qualify as being structurally equivalent in this review, the placebo intervention had to match the experimental intervention in the following criteria: number of sessions, length of sessions, format (group or individual), level of therapist training, individualisation (the degree to which the intervention was tailored to the patient), and relevance of the intervention with regard to the condition (e.g. lying prone was not considered to be a relevant placebo for low back pain [61]).
Sample consisting of naïve subjects
Patients were considered “naïve” if the trial reported that they had not been exposed to the active form of the intervention employed in the placebo group. This strategy contributes to blinding because a non-naïve sample would be more likely to know the sensation of true treatment and therefore correctly guess their allocation. To code trials for this feature, their inclusion and exclusion criteria were examined. For example, in a trial in which the placebo consists of inactive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), patients were considered naïve if an exclusion criterion was previous treatment with TENS.
Electronic searches identified 1,002 studies. Of these, 126 were eligible and included in the analysis (Fig. 1). Because nine of the trials had a third group consisting of a different intervention, 135 comparisons against placebo were available. For simplicity, each comparison was treated as an individual trial. Trials reported on the following categories of interventions: acupuncture (10 trials) [25, 42, 73, 74, 85, 95, 99, 104, 106, 128], back school (2 trials) [11, 28], behavioural (7 trials) [10, 21, 62, 111, 130, 132, 133], electrotherapy (20 trials) [8, 15, 25, 27, 37, 4951, 54, 57, 63, 69, 76, 77, 89, 94, 107, 122, 137, 143], exercise (10 trials) [29, 37, 43, 48, 50, 59, 67, 116, 131, 136], heatwrap therapy (2 trials) [109, 110], insoles (1 trial) [127], magnets (1 trial) [33], massage (1 trial) [116], neuroreflexotherapy (1 trial) [93], pharmaceutical (65 trials) [17, 1214, 17, 19, 20, 2224, 26, 3032, 35, 36, 3941, 4547, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 64, 71, 72, 75, 8284, 8688, 90, 92, 97, 101103, 108, 112, 114, 115, 118, 120, 123, 124, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145], spinal manipulative therapy (12 trials) [11, 29, 48, 54, 61, 65, 68, 72, 78, 96, 121, 146] and traction (3 trials) [16, 117, 129]. Trial characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Search and selection of papers. *Non-English papers
Table 1
Table 1
Characteristics of included trials
The quality of the included trials was mostly moderate (range 1–10, median 7 points). Six trials scored 3 points or less on the PEDro scale [48, 50, 121, 131, 132, 136] and two pharmaceutical trials scored the maximum of 10 points [41, 108]. Over 25 different substances or procedures were used as placebo interventions. The placebo tablet/capsule was the most frequent (28%), followed by sham electrotherapy (20%). Pharmaceutical trials were highly consistent in their choices of placebo, whereas exercise and spinal manipulative therapy trials had the largest diversity of placebos.
Only 17 trials (13%) provided information on success of blinding. Of these, 2 failed to achieve acceptable blinding, represented by a significantly greater number of participants in the placebo group correctly guessing their group allocation. Patients’ expectations were assessed in 14 trials (10%), and in 8 of those higher expectations were observed in the experimental group. The methods used to assess expectations included single questions about expectations for pain relief or for treatment efficacy, modified expectation scales, structured credibility scales, and questions on preferences for future treatment. The latter was considered to be a measure of expectations because it is often one of the items included in credibility scales. The time at which expectation was measured differed greatly across trials, ranging from baseline [104] to 6 months after enrolment [85].
Provision of structural equivalence was the strategy most frequently used to facilitate blinding (87% of trials). Indistinguishable placebo interventions were used in 58% of trials. Placebos that were clearly inert were used in 79% of trials. Of the remaining trials (those whose placebo was not clearly inert) most, but not all, were trials with indistinguishable placebos; suggesting that indistinguishability was achieved at the expense of potentially causing specific treatment effects. Few trials (18%) explicitly included only naïve subjects. The proportion of trials with placebos that were indistinguishable, inert, structurally equivalent and used naïve subjects varied with the type of intervention. Figure 2 describes these proportions among groups of interventions tested in ten or more trials. A post hoc analysis excluding low-quality trials (trials scoring 3 points or lower on the PEDro scale) provided results almost identical to those described in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of trials with (a) indistinguishable placebo, (b) inert placebo, (c) structurally equivalent placebo, (d) naïve subjects, (e) blinding assessment, (f) successful blinding (successful = both assessed and found to be successful; (more ...)
This review reveals that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials, a finding that has implications for the design of future trials and also for the interpretation of published trials evaluating treatment of low back pain. Two common problems were identified in the design of trials: the use of placebos that are potentially not inert (as indicated by contemporary treatment) and the uncertain success of blinding.
It may be argued that our search strategy may have inflated the proportion of trials with non-inert placebos, because we used the term “minimal intervention” in our search strategy. However, we only included trials in the review if the authors categorised the control intervention as a placebo intervention, or if they have stated in the manuscript that the intervention was designed to control for non-specific effects of treatment [29]. The use of non-inert placebos in trials is usually a consequence of an uncritical attempt to design placebos that are indistinguishable from real interventions. For example, among non-pharmaceutical trials, we found that indistinguishability was more frequent for trials of acupuncture but all these indistinguishable placebos consisted of potentially genuine treatments. In acupuncture trials, the use of invasive sham acupuncture techniques has been criticised because the mechanism behind the effects of acupuncture may not depend on the depth or location of needling, but on needling itself [98, 144]. Accordingly, the lack of a clear understanding on the mechanisms underlying specific therapeutic effects is also a challenge to the design of indistinguishable placebos in other complex interventions [66].
In pharmaceutical trials, “active placebos” are sometimes used to create intervention groups that are more closely matched. These placebos aim to mimic the side effects of drugs (e.g. dry mouth) while maintaining the same characteristics of other placebo types [115, 125]. However, pharmaceutical trials with improper choices of “active placebos” can also be at risk of spoiling their placebo comparisons. Two trials included in this review had a choice of “active placebo” (diphenhydramine) that might have acted as a genuine treatment because of its sedative properties. Thus, the results of these trials no longer reflect a placebo-controlled comparison but instead reflect a comparison of two genuine treatments. The decision on whether to use “active placebos” in pharmaceutical trials should be balanced with its risks. In antidepressant trials for example, their use may not be justifiable given that the incidence of side effects in experimental and placebo groups seems to be similar regardless of the use of an “active placebo” [4, 5].
The inclusion of naïve subjects in trials is one of the alternatives to enhance blinding when true indistinguishability is difficult to achieve. This is illustrated in a trial where TENS therapy is provided by a functioning device and the placebo via a non-functioning device (sham TENS group). Although both interventions will look the same, the electrical stimulation will only be detected by patients treated with the functioning device. In order to keep patients blinded in trials like this, researchers often tell them that they might or might not feel the stimulation regardless of whether the treatment provided was a placebo [27]. However, it is unlikely that such information will prevent patients who have previously received a course of TENS therapy from knowing the sensation of true treatment and consequently from becoming unblinded. For the same reason, the use of a crossover design in these trials might not be appropriate [50]. Deyo and colleagues [37] have argued for the inclusion of naïve subjects in electrotherapy trials and, consistent with this recommendation, our results showed that naïve subjects were used more frequently in electrotherapy trials than in trials of other interventions.
From the different strategies with the potential to facilitate blinding in placebo-controlled trials, we found that structural equivalence was the most frequently used. When experimental and placebo interventions are structurally equivalent, they might not look the same, but they involve similar degrees of therapeutic contact. Provision of structurally equivalent placebo interventions may control for placebo effects without the risk of having a placebo that is not inert. A meta-analysis of psychotherapy trials has provided some evidence that structural equivalence reduces bias in treatment estimates [9]. The meta-analysis showed that trials with structurally equivalent groups reported smaller effects of interventions than trials with groups that were not structurally equivalent. The “larger treatment effects” observed in the latter would reflect larger placebo effects in the experimental group due to the differential amount or quality of therapeutic contact. Nevertheless, because potentially many factors influence the magnitude of placebo effects, it would seem unlikely that structural equivalence alone can control for all the factors that generate unbalanced placebo effects in trials.
The use of any strategy to facilitate blinding will be worthless if, ultimately, an acceptable level of blinding is not achieved. As noted by Schulz and colleagues [126], “blinding must succeed to reap its benefits”. Accordingly, the CONSORT statement recommends that the success of blinding be reported [105]. Blinding success was poorly documented in a sample of general medicine and psychiatry trials [44]. Likewise, our results show that disappointingly few trials of low back pain report on blinding success. However, this fact is not sufficient to rule out successful blinding. Hill and colleagues [70] contacted the investigators of 40 rheumatology trials and found that the lack of reporting of randomisation, concealed allocation and blinding does not necessarily mean that these research methods have not been properly conducted. Nevertheless, although successful blinding might have been achieved in some trials where this was not reported, it would be clearer if future trials included the results of their blinding assessments in their reports.
One way of checking if blinding is successful is to measure how often the group assignment is guessed correctly. In a two-arm trial in which blinding is successful, guesses would be accurate 50% of the time. Nevertheless, in placebo-controlled trials, the success of blinding is better understood by the differences in the proportions of patients in each group who believed a “real” treatment was provided. That is, if patients in the placebo group are more likely to believe that the intervention received was a placebo, blinding was unsuccessful. The timing of blinding assessments also deserves special consideration. For instance, if the experimental intervention consists of a highly effective treatment, the difference in the proportion of patients believing in the provision of a “real” treatment will tend to be higher regardless of the use of adequate strategies to secure blinding. For this reason, it is preferable that blinding success is assessed earlier rather than latter in a course of treatment.
Some investigators supplement assessments of blinding success with measurements of expectations with treatment. While important imbalances in patients’ expectations were reported in eight trials (out of 14), it is likely such imbalances are common across trials of this type because of the small number of trials in which assessments of expectations were performed. Health care providers may also transfer to patients their own expectations [125]. As noted by Critelli and Neumann [34], “there appears to be a tendency for experimental placebos to be in some sense weaker, less credible, or applied in a less enthusiastic manner than treatments that have been offered as actual therapies”. However, in this review we have focused exclusively on investigating this concept from a patient’s perspective.
Despite the contribution of expectation measurements to the interpretability of the results in clinical trials, these measurements have important limitations. Firstly, there is no consensus on how expectations should be assessed in clinical trials, represented by the lack of standardisation in these assessments. In addition, deciding the best timing for these assessments is difficult and may explain the large variation encountered among the trials included in this review. As with assessment of blinding, treatment effects may confound ratings of patients’ expectations obtained at follow-up. Thus, it is questionable whether assessments of expectations as late as 6 months after enrolment measure the same construct as assessments of expectations at baseline. If researchers choose to assess expectations at baseline, patients might find it difficult to describe their expectations associated with interventions to which they are unfamiliar. Optimal ways to assess expectations in trials and the standardisation of such measurements are a priority and should be addressed by future studies.
Conclusion
Our results illustrate the complexity inherent in design of suitable placebo interventions. Unfortunately many placebo-controlled trials evaluating treatment of low back pain are imperfect and so the trials potentially provide biased estimates of the efficacy of treatment. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials in this area.
 
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
1. Alcoff J, Jones E, Rust P, Newman R. Controlled trial of imipramine for chronic low back pain. J Fam Pract. 1982;14:841–846. [PubMed]
2. Amlie E, Weber H, Holme I. Treatment of acute low-back pain with piroxicam: results of a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Spine. 1987;12:473–476. [PubMed]
3. Arden N, Price C, Reading I, Stubbing J, Hazelgrove J, Dunne C, Michel M, Rogers P, Cooper C. A multicentre randomized controlled trial of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica: the WEST study. Rheumatology. 2005;44:1399–1406. [PubMed]
4. Atkinson J, Slater M, Wahlgren D, Williams R, Zisook S, Pruitt S, Epping-Jordan J, Patterson T, Grant I, Abramson I, Garfin S. Effects of noradrenergic and serotonergic antidepressants on chronic low back pain intensity. Pain. 1999;83:137–145. [PubMed]
5. Atkinson J, Slater M, Williams R, Zisook S, Patterson T, Grant I, Wahlgren D, Abramson I, Garfin S. A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of nortriptyline for chronic low back pain. Pain. 1998;76:287–296. [PubMed]
6. Babej-Dolle R, Freytag S, Eckmeyer J, Zerle G, Schinzel S, Schmeider G, Stankov G. Parenteral dipyrone versus diclofenac and placebo in patients with acute lumbago or sciatic pain: randomized observer-blind multicenter study. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1994;32:204–209. [PubMed]
7. Bannwarth B, Allaert F, Avouac B, Rossignol M, Rozenberg S, Valat J. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study of oral adenosine triphosphate in subacute low back pain. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1114–1117. [PubMed]
8. Basford J, Sheffield C, Harmsen W. Laser therapy: a randomized, controlled trial of the effects of low-intensity Nd:YAG laser irradiation on musculoskeletal back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:647–652. [PubMed]
9. Baskin T, Tierney C, Minami T, Wampold B. Establishing specificity in psychotherapy: a meta-analysis of structural equivalence of placebo controls. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:973–979. [PubMed]
10. Basler H, Bertalanffy H, Quint S, Wilke A, Wolf U. TTM-based counselling in physiotherapy does not contribute to an increase of adherence to activity recommendations in older adults with chronic low back pain. A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Pain. 2007;11:31–37. [PubMed]
11. Bergquist-Ullman M, Larsson U. Acute low back pain in industry. A controlled prospective study with special reference to therapy and confounding factors. Acta Orthop Scand. 1977;170:1–117. [PubMed]
12. Berry H, Bloom B, Hamilton E, Swinson D. Naproxen sodium, diflunisal, and placebo in the treatment of chronic back pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982;41:129–132. doi: 10.1136/ard.41.2.129. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Berry H, Hutchinson D. A multicentre placebo-controlled study in general practice to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tizanidine in acute low-back pain. J Int Med Res. 1988;16:75–82. [PubMed]
14. Berry H, Hutchinson D. Tizanidine and ibuprofen in acute low-back pain: results of a double-blind multicentre study in general practice. J Int Med Res. 1988;16:83–91. [PubMed]
15. Bertalanffy A, Kober A, Bertalanffy P, Gustorff B, Gore O, Adel S, Hoerauf K. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduces acute low back pain during emergency transport. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12:607–611. [PubMed]
16. Beurskens AJ, Heijden GJ, Vet HC, Koke AJ, Lindeman E, Regtop W, Knipschild PG. The efficacy of traction for lumbar back pain: design of a randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995;18:141–147. [PubMed]
17. Birbara C, Puopolo A, Munoz D, Sheldon E, Mangione A, Bohidar N, Geba G. Treatment of chronic low back pain with etoricoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor: improvement in pain and disability. A randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-month trial. J Pain. 2003;4:307–315. [PubMed]
18. Borkovec T, Sibrava N. Problems with the use of placebo conditions in psychotherapy research, suggested alternatives, and some strategies for the pursuit of the placebo phenomenon. J Clin Psychol. 2005;61:805–818. [PubMed]
19. Brena S, Wolf S, Chapman S, Hammonds W. Chronic back pain: electromyographic, motion and behavioral assessments following sympathetic nerve blocks and placebos. Pain. 1980;8:1–10. [PubMed]
20. Brizzi A, Giusti A, Giacchetti P, Stefanelli S, Provinciali L, Ceravolo M. A randomised controlled trial on the efficacy of hydroelectrophoresis in acute recurrences in chronic low back pain patients. Eura Medicophys. 2004;40:303–309. [PubMed]
21. Bush C, Ditto B, Feuerstein M. A controlled evaluation of paraspinal EMG biofeedback in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Health Psychol. 1985;4:307–321. [PubMed]
22. Bush K, Hillier S. A controlled study of caudal epidural injections of triamcinolone plus procaine for the management of intractable sciatica. Spine. 1991;16:572–575. [PubMed]
23. Carette S, Leclaire R, Marcoux S, Morin F, Blaise G, St-Pierre A, Truchon R, Parent F, Levesque J, Bergeron V, Montminy P, Blanchette C. Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1634–1640. [PubMed]
24. Carette S, Marcoux S, Truchon R, Grondin C, Gagnon J, Allard Y, Latulippe M. A controlled trial of corticosteroid injections into facet joints for chronic low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1002–1007. [PubMed]
25. Carlsson C, Sjolund B. Acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled study with long-term follow-up. Clin J Pain. 2001;17:296–305. [PubMed]
26. Chapman S, Brena S. Learned helplessness and responses to nerve blocks in chronic low back pain patients. Pain. 1982;14:355–364. [PubMed]
27. Cheing G, Hui-Chan C. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: nonparallel antinociceptive effects on chronic clinical pain and acute experimental pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:305–312. [PubMed]
28. Chenard J, Marchand S, Charest J, Li J, Lavignolle B. Évaluation d’un traitement comportemental de la lombalgie chronique: l’ “école interactionnelle du dos” Science et Comportement. 1991;21:225–239.
29. Cherkin D, Deyo R, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1021–1029. [PubMed]
30. Chrubasik S, Eisenberg E, Balan E, Weinberger T, Luzzati R, Conradt C. Treatment of low back pain exacerbations with willow bark extract: a randomized double-blind study. Am J Med. 2000;109:9–14. [PubMed]
31. Chrubasik S, Junck H, Breitschwerdt H, Conradt C, Zappe H. Effectiveness of Harpagophytum extract WS 1531 in the treatment of exacerbation of low back pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1999;16:118–129. [PubMed]
32. Coats T, Borenstein D, Nangia N, Brown M. Effects of valdecoxib in the treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Ther. 2004;26:1249–1260. [PubMed]
33. Collacott E, Zimmerman J, White D, Rindone J. Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a pilot study. JAMA. 2000;283:1322–1325. [PubMed]
34. Critelli J, Neumann K. The placebo: conceptual analysis of a construct in transition. Am Psychol. 1984;39:32–39. [PubMed]
35. Dapas F, Hartman S, Martinez L, Northrup B, Nussdorf R, Silberman H, Gross H. Baclofen for the treatment of acute low-back syndrome. A double-blind comparison with placebo. Spine. 1985;10:345–349. [PubMed]
36. Dechow E, Davies R, Carr A, Thompson P. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sclerosing injections in patients with chronic low back pain. Rheumatology. 1999;38:1255–1259. [PubMed]
37. Deyo R, Walsh N, Martin D, Schoenfeld L, Ramamurthy S. A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1627–1634. [PubMed]
38. Deyo R, Walsh N, Schoenfeld L, Ramamurthy S. Can trials of physical treatments be blinded? The example of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;69:6–10. [PubMed]
39. Dickens C, Jayson M, Sutton C, Creed F. The relationship between pain and depression in a trial using paroxetine in sufferers of chronic low back pain. Psychosomatics. 2000;41:490–499. [PubMed]
40. Dreiser R, Le Parc J, Velicitat P, Lleu P. Oral meloxicam is effective in acute sciatica: two randomised, double-blind trials versus placebo or diclofenac. Inflamm Res. 2001;50:S17–S23. [PubMed]
41. Dreiser R, Marty M, Ionescu E, Gold M, Liu J. Relief of acute low back pain with diclofenac-K 12.5 mg tablets: a flexible dose, ibuprofen 200 mg and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;41:375–385. [PubMed]
42. Duplan B, Cabanel G, Piton J, Grauer J, Phelip X. Acupuncture et lombosciatique à la phase aiguë. Etude en double aveugle de trente cas. Sem Hop Paris. 1983;59:3109–3114. [PubMed]
43. Faas A, Chavannes A, Eijk J, Gubbels J. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. Spine. 1993;18:1388–1395. [PubMed]
44. Fergusson D, Glass K, Waring D, Shapiro S. Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials. BMJ. 2004;328(7437):432. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Finckh A, Zufferey P, Schurch M, Balague F, Waldburger M, So A. Short-term efficacy of intravenous pulse glucocorticoids in acute discogenic sciatica. A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2006;31:377–381. [PubMed]
46. Fine P, Roberts W, Gillette R, Child T. Slowly developing placebo responses confound tests of intravenous phentolamine to determine mechanisms underlying idiopathic chronic low back pain. Pain. 1994;56:235–242. [PubMed]
47. Frerick H, Keitel W, Kuhn U, Schmidt S, Bredehorst A, Kuhlmann M. Topical treatment of chronic low back pain with a capsicum plaster. Pain. 2003;106:59–64. [PubMed]
48. Geisser M, Wiggert E, Haig A, Colwell M. A randomized, controlled trial of manual therapy and specific adjuvant exercise for chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2005;21:463–470. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Ghoname E, Craig W, White P, Ahmed H, Hamza M, Gajraj N, Vakharia A, Noe C. The effect of stimulus frequency on the analgesic response to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:841–846. [PubMed]
50. Ghoname E, Craig W, White P, Ahmed H, Hamza M, Henderson B, Gajraj N, Huber P, Gatchel R. Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for low back pain: a randomized crossover study. JAMA. 1999;281:818–823. [PubMed]
51. Ghoname E, White P, Ahmed H, Hamza M, Craig W, Noe C. Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: an alternative to TENS in the management of sciatica. Pain. 1999;83:193–199. [PubMed]
52. Ghosh P, Taylor T, Meachin D. A double blind crossover trial of indomethacin, flurbiprofen and placebo in the management of lumbar spondylosis. Curr Therapeutic Res. 1981;30:318–326.
53. Ghozlan R, Dropsy R. Study of analgesic activity (single dose) of etodolac p.o., tenoxicam i.m. and placebo in acute sciatica. Rhumatologie. 1996;48:83–90.
54. Gibson T, Grahame R, Harkness J, Woo P, Blagrave P, Hills R. Controlled comparison of short-wave diathermy treatment with osteopathic treatment in non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 1985;1:1258–1261. [PubMed]
55. Ginsberg F, Famaey J. A double-blind study of topical massage with Rado-Salil ointment in mechanical low-back pain. J Int Med Res. 1987;15:148–153. [PubMed]
56. Ginsberg F, Mingard P, Weber T. Double-blind study on antitissue immunoglobulin injections versus placebo in the treatment of acute lumbar pain with muscular spasms. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1987;7:401–405. [PubMed]
57. Glaser J, Baltz M, Nietert P, Bensen C. Electrical muscle stimulation as an adjunct to exercise therapy in the treatment of nonacute low back pain: a randomized trial. J Pain. 2001;2:295–300. [PubMed]
58. Gold R. Orphenadrine citrate: sedative or muscle relaxant? Clin Ther. 1978;1:451–453.
59. Goldby L, Moore A, Doust J, Trew M. A randomized controlled trial investigating the efficiency of musculoskeletal physiotherapy on chronic low back disorder. Spine. 2006;31:1083–1093. [PubMed]
60. Goodkin K, Gullion C, Agras W. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of trazodone hydrochloride in chronic low back pain syndrome. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1990;10:269–278. [PubMed]
61. Goodsell M, Lee M, Latimer J. Short-term effects of lumbar posteroanterior mobilization in individuals with low-back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:332–342. [PubMed]
62. Goossens M, Rutten-Van Molken M, Kole-Snijders A, Vlaeyen J, Breukelen G, Leidl R. Health economic assessment of behavioural rehabilitation in chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial. Health Econ. 1998;7:39–51. [PubMed]
63. Hackenberg L, Schafer U, Micke O, Liljenqvist U. Radiotherapy for pain in chronic, degenerative low back pain syndrome: results of a prospective randomized study. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2001;139:294–297. [PubMed]
64. Haimovic I, Beresford H. Dexamethasone is not superior to placebo for treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Neurology. 1986;36:1593–1594. [PubMed]
65. Hall T, Hardt S, Schafer A, Wallin L. Mulligan bent leg raise technique: a preliminary randomized trial of immediate effects after a single intervention. Man Ther. 2006;11:130–135. [PubMed]
66. Hancock M, Maher C, Latimer J, McAuley J. Selecting an appropriate placebo for a trial of spinal manipulative therapy. Aust J Physiother. 2006;52:135–138. [PubMed]
67. Hansen F, Bendix T, Skov P, Jensen C, Kristensen J, Krohn L, Schioeler H. Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain. A randomized, observer-blind trial. Spine. 1993;18:98–108. [PubMed]
68. Hawk C, Long C, Rowell R, Gudavalli M, Jedlicka J. A randomized trial investigating a chiropractic manual placebo: a novel design using standardized forces in the delivery of active and control treatments. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11:109–117. [PubMed]
69. Herman E, Williams R, Stratford P, Fargas-Babjak A, Trott M. A randomized controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (CODETRON) to determine its benefits in a rehabilitation program for acute occupational low back pain. Spine. 1994;19:561–568. [PubMed]
70. Hill C, LaValley M, Felson D. Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:783–786. [PubMed]
71. Hofferberth B, Gottschaldt M, Grass H, Buttner K. The usefulness of dexamethasonephosphate in the conservative treatment of lumbar pain: a double-blind study. Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr. 1982;231:359–367. [PubMed]
72. Hoiriis K, Pfleger B, McDuffie F, Cotsonis G, Elsangak O, Hinson R, Verzosa G. A randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic adjustments to muscle relaxants for subacute low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004;27:388–398. [PubMed]
73. Inoue M, Kitakoji H, Ishizaki N, Tawa M, Yano T, Katsumi Y, Kawakita K. Relief of low back pain immediately after acupuncture treatment: a randomised, placebo controlled trial. Acupunct Med. 2006;24:103–108. [PubMed]
74. Itoh K, Katsumi Y, Hirota S, Kitakoji H. Effects of trigger point acupuncture on chronic low back pain in elderly patients: a sham-controlled randomised trial. Acupunct Med. 2006;24:5–12. [PubMed]
75. Jagemann V. Treatment of acute lumbago with diflunisal. Controlled double-blind study with placebos. Munch Med Wschr. 1983;125:29–31.
76. Jarzem P, Harvey E, Arcaro N, Kaczorowski J. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS] for chronic low back pain. J Musculoskelet Pain. 2005;13:3–9.
77. Jarzem P, Harvey E, Arcaro N, Kaczorowski J. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS] for short-term treatment of low back pain: randomized double blind crossover study of sham versus conventional TENS. J Musculoskelet Pain. 2005;13:11–17.
78. Jayson M, Sims-Williams H, Young S, Baddeley H, Collins E. Mobilization and manipulation for low-back pain. Spine. 1981;6:409–416. [PubMed]
79. Jüni P, Altman G, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Kaptchuk T, Goldman P, Stone D, Stason W. Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:786–792. [PubMed]
81. Kaptchuk T, Stason W, Davis R, Legedza A, Schnyer R, Kerr C, Stone D, Nam B, Kirsch I, Goldman R. Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):391–397. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
82. Katz J, Pennella-Vaughan J, Hetzel R, Kanazi G, Dworkin R. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of bupropion sustained release in chronic low back pain. J Pain. 2005;6:656–661. [PubMed]
83. Katz N, Ju W, Krupa D, Sperling R, Bozalis R, Gertz B, Gimbel J, Coleman S, Fisher C, Nabizadeh S, Borenstein D., Vioxx Chronic Low Back Pain Study Group Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib in patients with chronic low back pain: results from two 4-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind trials. Spine. 2003;28:851–858. [PubMed]
84. Keitel W, Frerick H, Kuhn U, Schmidt U, Kuhlmann M, Bredehorst A. Capsicum pain plaster in chronic non-specific low back pain. Arzneimittelforschung/Drug Res. 2001;51:896–903. [PubMed]
85. Kerr D, Walsh D, Baxter D. Acupuncture in the management of chronic low back pain: a blinded randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2003;19:364–370. [PubMed]
86. Ketenci A, Ozcan E, Karamursel S. Assessment of efficacy and psychomotor performances of thiocolchicoside and tizanidine in patients with acute low back pain. Int J Clin Pract. 2005;59:764–770. [PubMed]
87. Khoromi S, Patsalides A, Parada S, Salehi V, Meegan J, Max M. Topiramate in chronic lumbar radicular pain. J Pain. 2005;6:829–836. [PubMed]
88. Khot A, Bowditch M, Powell J, Sharp D. The use of intradiscal steroid therapy for lumbar spinal discogenic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2004;29:833–836. [PubMed]
89. Klein R, Eek B. Low-energy laser treatment and exercise for chronic low back pain: double-blind controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;71:34–37. [PubMed]
90. Klenerman L, Greenwood R, Davenport H, White D, Peskett S. Lumbar epidural injections in the treatment of sciatica. Br J Rheumatol. 1984;23:35–38. [PubMed]
91. Koes B, Tulder M, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ. 2006;332:1430–1434. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
92. Korhonen T, Karppinen J, Paimela L, Malmivaara A, Lindgren K, Jarvinen S, Niinimaki J, Veeger N, Seitsalo S, Hurri H. The treatment of disc herniation-induced sciatica with infliximab: results of a randomized controlled, 3-month follow-up study. Spine. 2005;30:2724–2728. [PubMed]
93. Kovacs F, Abraira V, Pozo F, Kleinbaum D, Beltran J, Mateo I, Ayala C, Pena A, Zea A, Gonzalez-Lanza M, Morillas L. Local and remote sustained trigger point therapy for exacerbations of chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial. Spine. 1997;22:786–797. [PubMed]
94. Lee P, Kim Y, Lim Y, Lee C, Choi S, Park S, Lee J, Lee S. Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic therapy for chronic lower back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Int Med Res. 2006;34:160–167. [PubMed]
95. Leibing E, Leonhardt U, Koster G, Goerlitz A, Rosenfeldt J, Hilgers R, Ramadori G. Acupuncture treatment of chronic low-back pain—a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 9-month follow-up. Pain. 2002;96:189–196. [PubMed]
96. Licciardone J, Stoll S, Fulda K, Russo D, Siu J, Winn W, Swift J., Jr Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2003;28:1355–1362. [PubMed]
97. Lilius G, Laasonen E, Myllynen P, Harilainen A, Salo L. Lumbar facet joint syndrome. Significance of non-organic signs. A randomized placebo-controlled clinical study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1989;75:493–500. [PubMed]
98. Lund I, Lundeberg T. Are minimal, superficial or sham acupuncture procedures acceptable as inert placebo controls? Acupunct Med. 2006;24:13–15. [PubMed]
99. Macdonald A, Macrae K, Master B, Rubin A. Superficial acupuncture in the relief of chronic low back pain. Ann R Coll Surg Eng. 1983;65:44–46.
100. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert R, Moseley A, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83:713–721. [PubMed]
101. Marcel C, Rezvani Y, Revel M. Evaluation of thiocolchicoside as monotherapy in low back pain. Results of a randomized study versus placebo. Presse Med. 1990;19:1133–1136. [PubMed]
102. Mauro G, Martorana U, Cataldo P, Brancato G. Vitamin B12 in low back pain: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2000;4:53–58. [PubMed]
103. Medrik-Goldberg T, Lifschitz D, Pud D, Adler R, Eisenberg E. Intravenous lidocaine, amantadine, and placebo in the treatment of sciatica: a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999;24:534–540. [PubMed]
104. Mendelson G, Selwood T, Kranz H, Loh T, Kidson M, Scott D. Acupuncture treatment of chronic back pain. A double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Am J Med. 1983;74:49–55. [PubMed]
105. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D, for the CONSORT Group (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194.
106. Molsberger A, Mau J, Pawelec D, Winkler J. Does acupuncture improve the orthopedic management of chronic low back pain: a randomized, blinded, controlled trial with 3 months follow up. Pain. 2002;99:579–587. [PubMed]
107. Moore S, Shurman J. Combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for treatment of chronic back pain: a double-blind, repeated measures comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:55–60. [PubMed]
108. Muehlbacher M, Nickel M, Kettler C, Tritt K, Lahmann C, Leiberich P, Nickel C, Krawczyk J, Mitterlehner F, Rother W, Loew T, Kaplan P. Topiramate in treatment of patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Clin J Pain. 2006;22:526–531. [PubMed]
109. Nadler S, Steiner D, Erasala G, Hengehold D, Abeln S, Weingand K. Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for treating acute nonspecific low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:329–334. [PubMed]
110. Nadler S, Steiner D, Petty S, Erasala G, Hengehold D, Weingand K. Overnight use of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for relief of low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:335–342. [PubMed]
111. Nicholas M, Wilson P, Goyen J. Comparison of cognitive-behavioral group treatment and an alternative non-psychological treatment for chronic low back pain. Pain. 1992;48:339–347. [PubMed]
112. Pallay R, Seger W, Adler J, Ettlinger R, Quaidoo E, Lipetz R, O’Brien K, Mucciola L, Skalky C, Petruschke R, Bohidar N, Geba G. Etoricoxib reduced pain and disability and improved quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: a 3 month, randomized, controlled trial. Scad J Rheumatol. 2004;33:257–266.
113. Paterson C, Dieppe P. Characteristic and incidental (placebo) effects in complex interventions such as acupuncture. BMJ. 2005;330:1202–1205. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
114. Peloso P, Fortin L, Beaulieu A, Kamin M, Rosenthal N. Analgesic efficacy and safety of tramadol/ acetaminophen combination tablets (Ultracet) in treatment of chronic low back pain: a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial. J Rheumatol. 2004;31:2454–2463. [PubMed]
115. Pheasant H, Bursk A, Goldfarb J, Azen S, Weiss J, Borelli L. Amitriptyline and chronic low-back pain. A randomized double-blind crossover study. Spine. 1983;8:552–557. [PubMed]
116. Preyde M. Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2000;162:1815–1820. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Reust P, Chantraine A, Vischer T. Treatment of lumbar sciatica with or without neurological deficit using mechanical traction. A double-blind study. Schweiz Med Wschr. 1988;118:271–274. [PubMed]
118. Revel M, Poiraudeau S, Auleley G, Payan C, Denke A, Nguyen M, Chevrot A, Fermanian J. Capacity of the clinical picture to characterize low back pain relieved by facet joint anesthesia. Proposed criteria to identify patients with painful facet joints. Spine. 1998;23:1972–1976. [PubMed]
119. Rosenthal D, Frank J. Psychotherapy and the placebo effect. Psychol Bull. 1956;53:294–302. [PubMed]
120. Ruoff G, Rosenthal N, Jordan D, Karim R, Kamin M. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of chronic lower back pain: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient study. Clin Ther. 2003;25:1123–1141. [PubMed]
121. Sanders G, Reinert O, Tepe R, Maloney P. Chiropractic adjustive manipulation on subjects with acute low back pain: visual analog pain scores and plasma beta-endorphin levels. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1990;13:391–395. [PubMed]
122. Sator-Katzenschlager S, Scharbert G, Kozek-Langenecker S, Szeles J, Finster G, Schiesser A, Heinze G, Kress H. The short- and long-term benefit in chronic low back pain through adjuvant electrical versus manual auricular acupuncture. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1359–1364. [PubMed]
123. Schnebel B, Simmons J. The use of oral colchicine for low-back pain. A double-blind study. Spine. 1988;13:354–357. [PubMed]
124. Schnitzer T, Gray W, Paster R, Kamin M. Efficacy of tramadol in treatment of chronic low back pain. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:772–778. [PubMed]
125. Schulz K, Chalmers I, Altman D. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:254–259. [PubMed]
126. Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412. [PubMed]
127. Shabat S, Gefen T, Nyska M, Folman Y, Gepstein R. The effect of insoles on the incidence and severity of low back pain among workers whose job involves long-distance walking. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:546–550. [PubMed]
128. Sherman K, Hogeboom C, Cherkin D, Deyo R. Description and validation of a noninvasiive placebo acupuncture procedure. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8:11–19. [PubMed]
129. Sherry E, Kitchener P, Smart R. A prospective randomized controlled study of VAX-D and TENS for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Neurol Res. 2001;23:780–784. [PubMed]
130. Snook S, Webster B, McGorry R, Fogleman M, McCann K. The reduction of chronic nonspecific low back pain through the control of early morning lumbar flexion. A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 1998;23:2601–2607. [PubMed]
131. Spratt K, Weinstein J, Lehmann T, Woody J, Sayre H. Efficacy of flexion and extension treatments incorporating braces for low-back pain patients with retrodisplacement, spondylolisthesis, or normal sagittal translation. Spine. 1993;18:1839–1849. [PubMed]
132. Strong J. Incorporating cognitive-behavioral therapy with occupational therapy: a comparative study with patients with low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 1998;8:61–71.
133. Stuckey S, Jacobs A, Goldfarb J. EMG biofeedback training, relaxation training, and placebo for the relief of chronic back pain. Percept Mot Skills. 1986;63:1023–1036. [PubMed]
134. Szpalski M, Hayez J. Objective functional assessment of the efficacy of tenoxicam in the treatment of acute low back pain. A double-blind placebo-controlled study. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33:74–78. [PubMed]
135. Tajiri K, Takahashi K, Ikeda K, Tomita K. Common peroneal nerve block for sciatica. Clin Orthop. 1998;347:203–207. [PubMed]
136. Tasleem R, Buth B, Koul P, Kadri S. Chronic low back pain - comparative analysis of treatment response to drugs and different physical modalities. JK Pract. 2003;10:201–204.
137. Topuz O, Ozfidan E, Ozgen M, Ardic F. Efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and percutaneous neuromodulation therapy in chronic low back pain. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil. 2004;17:127–133.
138. Treves R, Montaine la Roque P, Dumond J, Bertin P, Arnaud M, Desproges-Gotteron R. Prospective study of the analgesic action of clomipramine versus placebo in refractory lumbosciatica (68 cases) Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic. 1991;58:549–552. [PubMed]
139. Tuzun F, Unalan H, Oner N, Ozguzel H, Kirazli Y, Icagasioglu A, Kuran B, Tuzun S, Basar G. Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of thiocolchicoside in acute low back pain. Joint Bone Spine. 2003;70:356–361. [PubMed]
140. Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Uptaded method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine. 2003;28:1290–1299. [PubMed]
141. Wasan A, Davar G, Jamison R. The association between negative affect and opioid analgesia in patients with discogenic low back pain. Pain. 2005;117:450–461. [PubMed]
142. Weber H, Holme I, Amlie E. The natural course of acute sciatica with nerve root symptoms in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effect of piroxicam. Spine. 1993;18:1433–1438. [PubMed]
143. Weiner D, Rudy T, Glick R, Boston J, Lieber S, Morrow L, Taylor S. Efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic low back pain in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:599–608. [PubMed]
144. White A, Filshie J, Cummings T., International Acupuncture Research Forum (IARF) Clinical trials of acupuncture: consensus recommendations for optimal treatment, sham controls and blinding. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9:237–245. [PubMed]
145. Worz R, Bolten W, Heller B, Krainick J, Pergande G. Flupirtine in comparison with chlormezanone in chronic musculoskeletal back pain. Results of a multicenter randomized double-blind study. MMW Fortschr Med. 1996;114:500–504.
146. Wreje U, Nordgren B, Aberg H. Treatment of pelvic joint dysfunction in primary care - a controlled study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1992;10:310–315. [PubMed]
Articles from European Spine Journal are provided here courtesy of
Springer-Verlag