The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) that was developed in 1990 is a 17 item scale originally developed to measure the fear of movement related to chronic lower back pain.
To review the literature regarding TSK and neck pain, perceived disability and range of motion of the cervical spine.
Medline, MANTIS, Index to Chiropractic Literature and CINAHL were searched.
A total of 16 related articles were found and divided into four categories: TSK and Neck Pain; TSK, Neck Pain and Disability; TSK, Neck Pain, Disability and Strength; and TSK, Neck Pain and Surface Electromyography.
The fear avoidance model can be applied to neck pain sufferers and there is value from a psychometric perspective in using the TSK to assess kinesiophobia. Future research should investigate if, and to what extent, other measureable factors commonly associated with neck pain, such as decreased range of motion, correlate with kinesiophobia.
kinesiophobia; neck pain; cervical spine; kinésiophobie; douleur au cou; colonne cervicale
A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.
Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.
Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enrol into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).
This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritise larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.
Clinical trials NCT00565942
Objective To determine whether a short course of traditional acupuncture improves longer term outcomes for patients with persistent non-specific low back pain in primary care.
Design Pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial.
Setting Three private acupuncture clinics and 18 general practices in York, England.
Participants 241 adults aged 18-65 with non-specific low back pain of 4-52 weeks' duration.
Interventions 10 individualised acupuncture treatments from one of six qualified acupuncturists (160 patients) or usual care only (81 patients).
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was SF-36 bodily pain, measured at 12 and 24 months. Other outcomes included reported use of analgesics, scores on the Oswestry pain disability index, safety, and patient satisfaction.
Results 39 general practitioners referred 289 patients of whom 241 were randomised. At 12 months average SF-36 pain scores increased by 33.2 to 64.0 in the acupuncture group and by 27.9 to 58.3 in the control group. Adjusting for baseline score and for any clustering by acupuncturist, the estimated intervention effect was 5.6 points (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 11.4) at 12 months (n = 213) and 8.0 points (2.8 to 13.2) at 24 months (n = 182). The magnitude of the difference between the groups was about 10%-15% of the final pain score in the control group. Functional disability was not improved. No serious or life threatening events were reported.
Conclusions Weak evidence was found of an effect of acupuncture on persistent non-specific low back pain at 12 months, but stronger evidence of a small benefit at 24 months. Referral to a qualified traditional acupuncturist for a short course of treatment seems safe and acceptable to patients with low back pain.
Trial registration ISRCTN80764175.
The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Cervical Ranges of Motion (CROM) are measurement tools that are used for neck pain patients.
To review the literature to determine how the NDI is associated with neck pain and CROM outcomes.
Computer based searches of 5 databases were performed and supplemented by internet and hand searching of article references and “related citations.”
The search yielded 23 studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and these were summarized into four categories: NDI, NDI and other questionnaires, whiplash and NDI and cervical range of motion and NDI. The NDI was shown to be a well validated and reliable self-reported questionnaire, especially when compared to other questionnaires, in both neck pain and whiplash (WAD) patients. There are very few studies that discuss the NDI and cervical range of motion.
This review outlines the strength of the NDI as a self-reported neck disability questionnaire, but also demonstrates a need for further research to explore the association between the NDI, neck pain and cervical ranges of motion.
neck pain; neck disability index; range of motion; whiplash; douleur au couleur; indice d’invalidité du cou; portée du mouvement cervical; coup de fouet cervical
To evaluate effectiveness of an exercise programme in a community setting for patients with low back pain to encourage a return to normal activities.
Randomised controlled trial of progressive exercise programme compared with usual primary care management. Patients’ preferences for type of management were elicited independently of randomisation.
187 patients aged 18-60 years with mechanical low back pain of 4 weeks to 6 months’ duration.
Exercise classes led by a physiotherapist that included strengthening exercises for all main muscle groups, stretching exercises, relaxation session, and brief education on back care. A cognitive-behavioural approach was used.
Main outcome measures
Assessments of debilitating effects of back pain before and after intervention and at 6 months and 1 year later. Measures included Roland disability questionnaire, Aberdeen back pain scale, pain diaries, and use of healthcare services.
At 6 weeks after randomisation, the intervention group improved marginally more than the control group on the disability questionnaire and reported less distressing pain. At 6 months and 1 year, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in the disability questionnaire score (mean difference in changes 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 2.57). At 1 year, the intervention group also showed significantly greater improvement in the Aberdeen back pain scale (4.44, 1.01 to 7.87) and reported only 378 days off work compared with 607 in the control group. The intervention group used fewer healthcare resources. Outcome was not influenced by patients’ preferences.
The exercise class was more clinically effective than traditional general practitioner management, regardless of patient preference, and was cost effective.
Key messagesPatients with back pain need to return to normal activities as soon as possible but are often afraid that movement or activity may be harmfulAn exercise programme led by a physiotherapist in the community and based on cognitive-behavioural principles helped patients to cope better with their pain and function better even one year laterPatients’ preferences for type of management did not affect outcomePatients in the intervention group tended to use fewer healthcare resources and took fewer days off workThis type of exercise programme should be more widely available
Objectives Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with “usual” physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome.
Design Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation.
Setting Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire.
Participants 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned.
Main outcome measures The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement.
Results At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P = 0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy.
Conclusions Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.
Low-back pain is responsible for significant disability and costs in industrialized countries. Only a minority of subjects suffering from low-back pain will develop persistent disability. However, this minority is responsible for the majority of costs and has the poorest health outcomes. The objective of the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) project was to develop a primary care interdisciplinary practice model for the clinical management of low-back pain and the prevention of persistent disability.
Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a clinical management model for low-back pain was developed by the project team. A structured process facilitating discussions on this model among researchers, stakeholders and clinicians was created. The model was revised following these exchanges, without deviating from the evidence.
A model consisting of nine elements on clinical management of low-back pain and prevention of persistent disability was developed. The model's two core elements for the prevention of persistent disability are the following: 1) the evaluation of the prognosis at the fourth week of disability, and of key modifiable barriers to return to usual activities if the prognosis is unfavourable; 2) the evaluation of the patient's perceived disability every four weeks, with the evaluation and management of barriers to return to usual activities if perceived disability has not sufficiently improved.
A primary care interdisciplinary model aimed at improving quality and continuity of care for patients with low-back pain was developed. The effectiveness, efficiency and applicability of the CLIP model in preventing persistent disability in patients suffering from low-back pain should be assessed.
Observational studies have previously shown that adverse events following manipulation to the neck and/or back are relatively common, although these reactions tend to be mild in intensity and self-limiting. However, no prospective study has examined the incidence of adverse reactions following spinal adjustments using upper cervical techniques, and the impact of this care on clinical outcomes.
Consecutive new patients from the offices of 83 chiropractors were recruited for this practice-based study. Clinical outcome measures included 1) Neck pain disability index (100-point scale), 2) Oswestry back pain index (100-point scale), 3) 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) for neck, headache, midback, and low back pain, 4) treatment satisfaction, and 5) Symptomatic Reactions (SR). Data were collected at baseline, and after approximately 2 weeks of care. A patient reaching sub-clinical status for pain and disability was defined as a follow-up score <3 NRS and <10%, respectively. A SR is defined as a new complaint not present at baseline or a worsening of the presenting complaint by >30% based on an 11-point numeric rating scale occurring <24 hours after any upper cervical procedure.
A total of 1,090 patients completed the study having 4,920 (4.5 per patient) office visits requiring 2,653 (2.4 per patient) upper cervical adjustments over 17 days. Three hundred thirty- eight (31.0%) patients had SRs meeting the accepted definition. Intense SR (NRS ≥8) occurred in 56 patients (5.1%). Outcome assessments were significantly improved for neck pain and disability, headache, mid-back pain, as well as lower back pain and disability (p <0.001) following care with a high level (mean = 9.1/10) of patient satisfaction. The 83 chiropractors administered >5 million career upper cervical adjustments without a reported incidence of serious adverse event.
Upper cervical chiropractic care may have a fairly common occurrence of mild intensity SRs short in duration (<24 hours), and rarely severe in intensity; however, outcome assessments were significantly improved with less than 3 weeks of care with a high level of patient satisfaction. Although our findings need to be confirmed in subsequent randomized studies for definitive risk-benefit assessment, the preliminary data shows that the benefits of upper cervical chiropractic care may outweigh the potential risks.
Chiropractic; Adverse Effects; Symptomatic Reactions; Manipulation; Upper Cervical
To study changes in pain of the back and neck in adolescents between 1985 and 2001 and pain of the neck, shoulder, and lower back between 1991 and 2001.
Biennial nationwide postal surveys, 1985-2001, and annual classroom surveys, 1996-2001.
62 677 12, 14, 16, and 18 year olds and 127 217 14-16 year olds.
Main outcome measures
Pain in the back and neck, neck and shoulder, or lower back, at least weekly.
Prevalence of pain in the back and neck was greater in the 1990s than in the 1980s and increased steadily from 1993 to 1997. Pain of the neck and shoulder and pain of the lower back was much more common in 1999 than in 1991 and in 2001 than in 1999. Pain was more common among girls and older groups: pain of the neck and shoulder affected 24% of girls and 12% of boys in 14 year olds, 38% of girls and 16% of boys in 16 year olds, and 45% of girls and 19% of boys in 18 year olds; pain in the lower back affected 8% of girls and 7% of boys in 14 year olds, 14% of girls and 11% of boys in 16 year olds, and 17% of boys and 13% of girls in 18 year olds.
Pain in the neck, shoulder, and lower back is becoming more common in Finnish adolescents. This pain suggests a new disease burden of degenerative musculoskeletal disorders in future adults.
What is already known on this topicBack pain, particularly of the lower back, is common in children and adolescents, and the lifetime prevalence of back pain is in the range 30-51%Neck-shoulder pain has been little studied in children and adolescentsDegeneration of lower lumbar discs has been observed at the age of 15 and is a significant risk factor for chronic lower back pain in early adulthoodWhat this study addsIn two independent data sets—one for the lower back and another for neck-shoulder—the prevalence of pain increased in adolescents through the 1990s, particularly in the latter half of the decadeNeck-shoulder pain is common in 12-18 year olds
To evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation of low back pain patients in a multidisciplinary setting.
A retrospective study profiled and analysed objective data from patients seen through a rehabilitation program in a private multidisciplinary facility.
147 patients with low back pain were analysed.
The sample consisted mainly of patients with motor vehicle accident-related or work-related injuries to the lower back. They ranged from acute to chronic in nature.
Main outcome measures:
The primary measures were the Oswestry Pain Disability Index (ODI) and the Pain Visual Analogue Scale. Secondary measures included SLR, sit and reach test, grip strength, leg lift strength and ranges of motion.
The outcome measures used in the study showed statistical significance (p < 0.05). Positive clinical trends were shown in pain VAS, ODI, leg lift and sit and reach tests. Ninety percent of patients were cleared to return to work upon discharge from the program.
Further studies of active physical rehabilitation should employ a prospective randomized controlled trial design. The study should also follow up patients to confirm that they have continued to work following discharge from the program. As indicated by the statistical analysis provided by this study, a minimum sample size of 53 subjects per intervention group would be required.
multidisciplinary; rehabilitation; outcomes; low back pain
Prospective cohort study
to establish outcome measures for recovery and chronic pain for studies with patients that present with recent-onset acute low back pain in primary care
Summary of Background Data
Among back pain researchers, no consensus exists about outcome definitions or how to identify primary-care patients as not-recovered from an episode of low back pain. Cut points for outcome scales have mostly been arbitrarily chosen. Theoretical models for establishing minimal important change (MIC) values in studies of patients with low back pain have been proposed and need to be applied to real data.
In a sample of 521 patients which presented with acute low back pain (<4 weeks) in primary care clinics and were followed for 6 months, scores for pain and disability were compared with ratings on a global perceived effect scale. Using multiple potential “gold standards” as anchors (reference standards), the receiver operating characteristics method was used to determine optimal cut points for different ways of defining non-recovery from acute low back pain.
MIC values and upper limits for pain and disability scores as well as minimal important percent changes are presented for five different definitions of recovery. A previously suggested 30% change from baseline scores does not accurately discriminate between recovered and not recovered patients in patients presenting with acute low back pain in primary care.
Outcome definitions that combine ratings from perceived recovery scales with pain and disability measures provide the highest accuracy in discriminating recovered from non-recovered patients.
Acute low back pain; primary care; outcome definitions; minimal important change; receiver operating characteristics
Chronic low back pain represents a substantial cost to employers through benefits coverage and days missed due to incapacity. We sought to explore the effectiveness of Naturopathic care on chronic low back pain.
This study was a randomized clinical trial. We randomized 75 postal employees with low back pain of longer than six weeks duration to receive Naturopathic care (n = 39) or standardized physiotherapy (n = 36) over a period of 12 weeks. The study was conducted in clinics on-site in postal outlets. Participants in the Naturopathic care group received dietary counseling, deep breathing relaxation techniques and acupuncture. The control intervention received education and instruction on physiotherapy exercises using an approved education booklet. We measured low back pain using the Oswestry disability questionnaire as the primary outcome measure, and quality of life using the SF-36 in addition to low back range of motion, weight loss, and Body Mass Index as secondary outcomes.
Sixty-nine participants (92%) completed eight weeks or greater of the trial. Participants in the Naturopathic care group reported significantly lower back pain (−6.89, 95% CI. −9.23 to −3.54, p = <0.0001) as measured by the Oswestry questionnaire. Quality of life was also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care in all domains except for vitality. Differences for the aggregate physical component of the SF-36 was 8.47 (95% CI, 5.05 to 11.87, p = <0.0001) and for the aggregate mental component was 7.0 (95% CI, 2.25 to 11.75, p = 0.0045). All secondary outcomes were also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care: spinal flexion (p<0.0001), weight-loss (p = 0.0052) and Body Mass Index (−0.52, 95% CI, −0.96 to −0.08, p = 0.01).
Naturopathic care provided significantly greater improvement than physiotherapy advice for patients with chronic low back pain.
Low back pain is a ubiquitous and economically costly problem. Unfortunately, the clinical management of low back pain is not yet well understood. Chiropractic management of back pain, long the black sheep of back care, has undergone a transition and is now a more respected and understood alternative to conservative medical care, itself under increased scrutiny due to unsatisfactory outcomes and unacceptable iatrogenic side effects. The substantial amount of clinical and related research on the effectiveness of manipulation for low back pain is summarized here from a larger study, divided into randomized control trials, case-control trials, meta-analyses and descriptive studies. The chiropractic management of low back pain is found to be a more effective way of dealing with this medical, social and economic problem. It is suggested that greater utilization of chiropractors be encouraged such that the “right people are doing the right things at the right time”.
chiropractic; manipulation; utilization; backache; clinical trials
Objective: To investigate predictors of long term prognosis in patients treated for shoulder pain in primary care.
Methods: Data were taken from two pragmatic randomised clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of conservative treatments for shoulder pain presenting to primary care. Shoulder pain severity, disability, and perceived recovery measured in the long term (UK, 18 months; Netherlands, 12 months) were considered as outcome measures. Prognostic indicators measured before randomisation were determined by linear regression (pain severity and disability) and logistic regression (perceived recovery).
Results: 316 adults with a new episode of shoulder pain were recruited (UK, n = 207; Netherlands, n = 109). In multivariate analysis, greater shoulder disability at follow up was associated with higher baseline disability score, concomitant neck pain, and a gradual onset and longer duration of shoulder symptoms. Pain scores at follow up were higher in women and in those with longer baseline duration of symptoms and higher baseline pain or disability scores. Being female, reporting gradual onset of symptoms, and a higher baseline disability score each independently reduced the likelihood of perceived recovery.
Conclusions: The results suggest that there is no long term difference in outcome between patients with shoulder pain treated with different clinical interventions in different clinical settings, or having different clinical diagnoses. Baseline clinical characteristics of this consulting population, rather than the randomised treatments which they received, were the most powerful predictors of outcome. Whether this highlights the need for earlier intervention or reflects different natural histories of shoulder pain is a topic for further research.
Objective To compare the effects of a minimal intervention strategy aimed at assessment and modification of psychosocial prognostic factors and usual care for treatment of (sub)acute low back pain in general practice.
Design Cluster randomised clinical trial.
Setting 60 general practitioners in 41 general practices.
Participants 314 patients with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration, recruited by their general practitioner.
Interventions In the minimal intervention strategy group the general practitioner explored the presence of psychosocial prognostic factors, discussed these factors, set specific goals for reactivation, and provided an educational booklet. The consultation took about 20 minutes. Usual care was not standardised.
Main outcome measures Functional disability (Roland-Morris disability questionnaire), perceived recovery, and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks.
Results The dropout rate was 8% in the minimal intervention strategy group and 9% in the usual care group. Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure during 12 months of follow-up in the whole group or in relevant subgroups (patients with high scores on psychosocial measures at baseline or a history of frequent or prolonged low back pain).
Conclusion This study provides no evidence that (Dutch) general practitioners should adopt our new treatment strategy aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors in patients with (sub)acute low back pain. Further research should examine why our new strategy was not more effective than usual care.
Clinical guidelines provide similar recommendations for the management of new neck pain and low back pain (LBP) but it is unclear if general practitioner’s (GP) care is similar. While GP’s management of LBP is well documented, little is known about GP’s management of neck pain. We aimed to describe GP’s management of new neck pain and compare this to GP’s management of new LBP in Australia between April 2000 and March 2010.
All GP–patient encounters for a new (i.e. first visit to any medical practitioner) neck pain or LBP problem were compared in terms of treatment delivered, referral patterns and requests for laboratory and imaging investigations.
General practitioners in Australia have managed new neck pain and LBP problems at a rate of 3.1 and 5.8 per 1,000 GP–patient encounters, respectively. GP’s primarily utilised medications, in particular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, to manage new neck and LBP problems and referred approximately 25% of all patients for imaging. Patients with new neck pain are more frequently managed using physical treatments and were referred more often to allied health professionals and specialists. In comparison, patients with new LBP were managed more frequently with medication, advice, provision of a sickness certificate and ordering of pathology tests.
This is the first time GP management of a new episode of neck pain has been documented using a nationally representative sample and it is also the first time that the management of back and neck pain has been compared. Despite guidelines endorsing a similar approach for the management of new neck pain and LBP, in actual clinical practice Australian GPs manage these two conditions differently.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2135-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Primary care; General practice; Low back pain; Neck pain
Objective: To investigate the effects of ambulant myofeedback training including ergonomic counselling (Mfb) and ergonomic counselling alone (EC), on work-related neck-shoulder pain and disability. Methods: Seventy-nine female computer workers reporting neck-shoulder complaints were randomly assigned to Mfb or EC and received four weeks of intervention. Pain intensity in neck, shoulders, and upper back, and pain disability, were measured at baseline, immediately after intervention, and at three and six months follow-up. Results: Pain intensity and disability had significantly decreased immediately after four weeks Mfb or EC, and the effects remained at follow up. No differences were observed between the Mfb and EC group for outcome and subjects in both intervention groups showed comparable chances for improvement in pain intensity and disability. Conclusions: Pain intensity and disability significantly reduced after both interventions and this effect remained at follow-up. No differences were observed between the two intervention groups.
Work-related neck-shoulder complaints; Myofeedback training; Neck-shoulder region
To evaluate the cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, manual therapy, and care by a general practitioner for patients with neck pain.
Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.
183 patients with neck pain for at least two weeks recruited by 42 general practitioners and randomly allocated to manual therapy (n=60, spinal mobilisation), physiotherapy (n=59, mainly exercise), or general practitioner care (n=64, counselling, education, and drugs).
Main outcome measures
Clinical outcomes were perceived recovery, intensity of pain, functional disability, and quality of life. Direct and indirect costs were measured by means of cost diaries that were kept by patients for one year. Differences in mean costs between groups, cost effectiveness, and cost utility ratios were evaluated by applying non-parametric bootstrapping techniques.
The manual therapy group showed a faster improvement than the physiotherapy group and the general practitioner care group up to 26 weeks, but differences were negligible by follow up at 52 weeks. The total costs of manual therapy (€447; £273; $402) were around one third of the costs of physiotherapy (€1297) and general practitioner care (€1379). These differences were significant: P<0.01 for manual therapy versus physiotherapy and manual therapy versus general practitioner care and P=0.55 for general practitioner care versus physiotherapy. The cost effectiveness ratios and the cost utility ratios showed that manual therapy was less costly and more effective than physiotherapy or general practitioner care.
Manual therapy (spinal mobilisation) is more effective and less costly for treating neck pain than physiotherapy or care by a general practitioner.
What is already known on this topicThe cost of treating neck pain is considerableMany conservative interventions are available, such as prescription drugs, yet their cost effectiveness has not been evaluatedNo randomised trials of conservative treatment for neck pain have so far included an economic evaluationWhat this study addsManual therapy is more effective and less costly than physiotherapy or care by a general practitioner for treating neck painPatients undergoing manual therapy recovered more quickly than those undergoing the other interventions
Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common conditions in old age, leading to impaired functional ability and decreased independence. Manual and exercise therapies are common and effective therapies for the general LBP and NP populations. However, these treatments have not been adequately researched in older LBP and NP sufferers.
The primary aim of these studies is to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) manual treatment plus home exercise, 2) supervised rehabilitative exercise plus home exercise, and 3) home exercise alone, in terms of patient-rated pain, for senior LBP and NP patients. Secondary aims are to compare the three treatment approaches in regards to patient-rated disability, general health status, satisfaction, improvement and medication use, as well as objective outcomes of spinal motion, trunk strength and endurance, and functional ability. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility will also be assessed. Finally, using qualitative methods, older LBP and NP patient's perceptions of treatment will be explored and described.
This paper describes the design of two multi-methods clinical studies focusing on elderly patients with non-acute LBP and NP. Each study includes a randomized clinical trial (RCT), a cost-effectiveness study alongside the RCT, and a qualitative study. Four hundred and eighty participants (240 per study), ages 65 and older, will be recruited and randomized to one of three, 12-week treatment programs. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcomes are assessed by examiners masked to treatment assignment at baseline and 12 weeks. Health care cost data is collected through standardized clinician forms, monthly phone interviews, and self-report questionnaires throughout the study. Qualitative interviews using a semi-structured format are conducted at the end of the 12 week treatment period.
To our knowledge, these are the first randomized clinical trials to comprehensively address clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' perceptions of commonly used treatments for elderly LBP and NP sufferers.
NCT00269321 and NCT00269308
OBJECTIVES—Knowledge on the clinical course of low back pain presented in general practice is poor. Preceding studies offer a fragmentary view only, whereas further knowledge is important to enable the assessment of the prognosis. The object of this study is to investigate the course of low back pain presented in general practice to enable the assessment of the prognosis.
METHODS—A one year follow up study on the clinical course of low back pain in consecutive cases receiving usual care in general practice. During a period of two years 15 general practitioners from Amsterdam and surrounding areas included consecutive patients with both chronic and recent onset low back pain. After the initial visit, each patient was monitored for a period of 12 months. The follow up consisted of monthly postal questionnaires on the course of the low back pain and the related disability.
RESULTS—A total of 443 of 605 patients identified were included in the follow up, which was fully completed by 269 patients. In general, patients with less serious low back pain participated less often or did not complete the follow up. At 12 weeks 35% and at the end of the follow up 10% of the population, respectively, still suffered from low back pain. Both the pain and the disability seemed to diminish quickly after the initial visit, and both seemed to stabilise at a lower level if the low back pain did not disappear completely. About three of four patients, whose pain disappeared before the end of the follow up, endured one or more relapses within a year. The median time to a relapse was about seven weeks, and its median duration about six weeks. Both the pain and the disability turned out to be less severe during relapses. The median time to recovery for patients whose low back pain developed more than seven weeks before the initial visit, was four weeks longer than for patients with more recently developed low back pain at the initial visit.
CONCLUSIONS—The clinical course of low back pain presented in general practice, for the most patients, clearly is less favourable than expected. It takes more than just a few weeks to recover, and relapses occur within a year in most cases. Fortunately, both the pain and the disability quickly diminish, even if the low back pain does not resolve within a few weeks.
Keywords: backache; prognosis; follow up study; general practice
The rise in disability due to back pain has been exponential with escalating medical and societal costs. The relative contribution of individual prognostic indicators to the pattern of recovery remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic value of demographic, psychosocial, employment and clinical factors on outcome in patients with low back pain
A prospective cohort study with six-month follow-up was undertaken at a multidisciplinary back pain clinic in central London employing physiotherapists, osteopaths, clinical psychologists and physicians, receiving referrals from 123 general practitioners. Over a twelve-month period, 593 consecutive patients referred from general practice with simple low back pain were recruited. A baseline questionnaire was developed to elicit information on potential prognostic variables. The primary outcome measures were change in 24-item Roland Morris disability questionnaire score at six months as a measure of low back related functional disability and the physical functioning scale of the SF-36, adjusted for baseline scores.
Roland Morris scores improved by 3.8 index points (95% confidence interval 3.23 to 4.32) at six months and SF-36 physical functioning score by 10.7 points (95% confidence interval 8.36 to 12.95). Ten factors were linked to outcome yet in a multiple regression model only two remained predictive. Those with episodic rather than continuous pain were more likely to have recovered at six months (odds ratio 2.64 confidence interval 1.25 to 5.60), while those that classified themselves as non-white were less likely to have recovered (0.41 confidence interval 0.18 to 0.96).
Analysis controlling for confounding variables, demonstrated that participants showed greater improvement if their episodes of pain during the previous year were short-lived while those with Middle Eastern, North African and Chinese ethnicity demonstrated minimal improvement. The study did not support previous findings that a wide range of factors could predict outcome.
To assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain.
Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials.
A total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months.
Main outcome measures
Pain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments.
Ten trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments.
The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.
What is already known on this topicDisabling chronic pain is regarded as the result of interrelating physical, psychological, and social or occupational factors requiring multidisciplinary interventionTwo previous systematic reviews of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic pain were open to bias and did not include any of the randomised controlled trials now availableWhat this study addsIntensive, daily biopsychosocial rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improves pain and function in chronic low back painLess intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomesIt is unclear whether the improvements are worth the cost of these intensive treatments
BACKGROUND. Bed rest is a traditional treatment for back pain, yet only in recent years has the therapeutic benefit of this been questioned. AIM. The aim of this pilot study was to ascertain whether or not 48 hours' bed rest had an effect on the outcome of acute low back pain. METHOD. The study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial to compare a prescription of 48 hours' strict bed rest with controls; the control subjects were encouraged to remain mobile and to have no daytime rest. Nine general practitioners from practices in the West Midlands recruited patients in the age range 16-60 years who presented with low back pain of less than seven days' duration, with or without pain radiation. The outcome measures assessed were: change in straight leg raise and lumbar flexion after seven days, Oswestry and Roland-Morris disability scores after seven days and 28 days, and time taken from work. RESULTS. Forty two patients were recruited: 20 were allocated to bed rest and 22 as controls. Compared with the bed rest group the control group had statistically better Roland-Morris scores at day seven (P < 0.05) but not at day 28. At day seven, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in straight leg raise or lumbar flexion measurements although the control group had a better mean lumbar flexion than the bed rest group. The improvement in disability scores at day seven compared with day one was similar for the two groups but more of the control group had fully recovered (defined as scores of one or zero on the Roland-Morris disability scale and five or less on the Oswestry disability scale) by day seven. Remaining mobile did not appear to cause any adverse effects. The number of days lost from work in both groups was equal. A large number of self-remedies and physical therapies were recorded by subjects from both groups. CONCLUSION. The results of this pilot study did not indicate whether bed rest or remaining mobile was superior for the treatment of acute low back pain; however, the study sample was small. Subjects in the control group possibly fared better as they appeared to have better lumbar flexion at day seven. It appears that 48 hours' bed rest cannot be recommended for the treatment of acute low back pain on the basis of this small study. Large-scale definitive trials are required to detect clinically significant differences.
Objectives To describe the course of chronic low back pain in an inception cohort and to identify prognostic markers at the onset of chronicity.
Design Inception cohort study with one year follow-up.
Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia.
Participants The study sample was a subcohort of an inception cohort of 973 consecutive patients presenting to primary care with acute low back pain (<2 weeks’ duration). 406 participants whose pain persisted for three months formed the inception cohort of patients with chronic low back pain.
Main outcome measures Outcomes and putative predictors measured at initial presentation, onset of chronicity (study entry), and follow-up at nine and 12 months. Recovery was determined from measures of pain intensity, disability, and work status. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression.
Results Completeness of follow-up was 97% of total person time for all outcomes. The cumulative probability of being pain-free was 35% at nine months and 42% at 12 months and for complete recovery was 35% at nine months and 41% at 12 months. Of the 259 participants who had not recovered from pain related disability at entry to the chronic study, 47% had recovered by 12 months. Previous sick leave due to low back pain, high disability levels or high pain intensity at onset of chronicity, low levels of education, greater perceived risk of persistent pain, and being born outside Australia were associated with delayed recovery.
Conclusion More than one third of patients with recent onset, non-radicular chronic low back pain recover within 12 months. The prognosis is less favourable for those who have taken previous sick leave for low back pain, have high disability levels or high pain intensity at onset of chronic low back pain, have lower education, perceive themselves as having a high risk of persistent pain, and were born outside Australia.
OBJECTIVE--To describe the natural course of recent acute low back pain in terms of both morbidity (pain, disability) and absenteeism from work and to evaluate the prognostic factors for these outcomes. DESIGN--Inception cohort study. SETTING--Primary care. PATIENTS--103 patients with acute localised non-specific back pain lasting less than 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Complete recovery (disappearance of both pain and disability) and return to work. RESULTS--90% of patients recovered within two weeks and only two developed chronic low back pain. Only 49 of 100 patients for whom data were available had bed rest and 40% of 75 employed patients lost no time from work. Proportional hazards regression analysis showed that previous chronic episodes of low back pain, initial disability level, initial pain worse when standing, initial pain worse when lying, and compensation status were significantly associated with delayed episode recovery. These factors were also related to absenteeism from work. Absenteeism from work was also influenced by job satisfaction and gender. CONCLUSIONS--The recovery rate from acute low back pain was much higher than reported in other studies. Those studies, however, did not investigate groups of patients enrolled shortly after the onset of symptoms and often mixed acute low back pain patients with patients with exacerbations of chronic pain or sciatica. Several sociodemographic and clinical factors were of prognostic value in acute low back pain. Factors which influenced the outcome in terms of episode recovery (mainly physical severity factors) were only partly predictive of absenteeism from work. Time off work and return to work depended more on sociodemographic and job related influences.