B.W. Koes

Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care : An International Comparison

Study Design. Descriptive study. Objectives. To compare national clinical guidelines on low back pain. Summary of Background Data. To rationalize the management of low back pain, clinical guidelines have been issued in various countries around the world. Given that the available scientific evidence is the same, irrespective of the country, one would expect these guidelines to include more or less similar recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. Methods. Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted of primary care health professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. Results. Clinical guidelines from 11 different countries published from 1994 until 2000 were included in this review. The content of the guidelines appeared to be quite similar regarding the diagnostic classification (diagnostic triage) and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Consistent features were the early and gradual activation of patients, the discouragement of prescribed bed rest, and the recognition of psychosocial factors as risk factors for chronicity. However, there were discrepancies for recommendations regarding exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, muscle relaxants, and patient information. Conclusion. The comparison of clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations were generally similar. Updates of the guidelines are planned in most countries, although so far produced only in the United Kingdom. However, new evidence may lead to stronger conclusions and enable future guidelines to become even more concordant.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥18xa0years) population with chronic (≥12xa0weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (nxa0=xa037), back school (nxa0=xa05), TENS (nxa0=xa06), low level laser therapy (nxa0=xa03), behavioural treatment (nxa0=xa021), patient education (nxa0=xa01), traction (nxa0=xa01), and multidisciplinary treatment (nxa0=xa06). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.

The effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of acute and chronic low back pain: A systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration back review group

STUDY DESIGNnA systematic review of randomized controlled trials.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of acupuncture for the management of nonspecific low back pain.nnnSUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATAnAcupuncture is one of the oldest forms of therapy, but little is known about the effectiveness of acupuncture for low back pain.nnnMETHODSnRandomized controlled trials were done to assess the effectiveness of all types of acupuncture treatment, which involves needling for subjects with nonspecific low back pain. Two reviewers blinded with respect to authors, institution, and journal independently assessed the methodologic quality of the studies. Because data were statistically and clinically too heterogeneous, a qualitative review was performed. The evidence was classified into four levels: strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence.nnnRESULTSnEleven randomized controlled trials were included. Overall, the methodologic quality was low. Only two studies met the preset high quality level for this review. No study clearly evaluated acupuncture for acute low back pain. The results indicate that there was no evidence showing acupuncture to be more effective than no treatment. There was moderate evidence indicating that acupuncture is not more effective than trigger-point injection or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and there was limited evidence that acupuncture is not more effective than placebo or sham acupuncture for the management of chronic low back pain.nnnCONCLUSIONSnBecause this systematic review did not clearly indicate that acupuncture is effective in the management of back pain, the authors would not recommend acupuncture as a regular treatment for patients with low back pain. There clearly is a need for more high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group

Study Design. A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Objectives. To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with LBP. However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. Methods. We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2004 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French, or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials. Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of back school for nonspecific LBP were included. Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution, and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high-quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. Because data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence), taking into account the methodologic quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies. Results. Nineteen randomized controlled trials (3,584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodologic quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high-quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short- and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status, and return to work during short- and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient. Conclusion. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short- and intermediate-term, compared with exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo, or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodologic quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.

Implementation of the Dutch Low Back Pain Guideline for General Practitioners: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Study Design. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy. Objectives. To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations. Summary of Background Data. Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners. Methods. General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication. Results. Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group. Conclusions. The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for chronic non-specific low-back pain.

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), acupuncture and herbal medicine for chronic non-specific LBP. A comprehensive search was conducted by an experienced librarian from the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) in multiple databases up to December 22, 2008. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with chronic non-specific LBP, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant, patient-centred outcome measure were included. Two authors working independently from one another assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The data were pooled when clinically homogeneous and statistically possible or were otherwise qualitatively described. GRADE was used to determine the quality of the evidence. In total, 35 RCTs (8 SMT, 20 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine), which examined 8,298 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these (2 SMT, 8 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine) were thought to have a low risk of bias. In general, the pooled effects for the studied interventions demonstrated short-term relief or improvement only. The lack of studies with a low-risk of bias, especially in regard to SMT precludes any strong conclusions; however, the principal findings, which are based upon low- to very-low-quality evidence, suggest that SMT does not provide a more clinically beneficial effect compared with sham, passive modalities or any other intervention for treatment of chronic low-back pain. There is evidence, however, that acupuncture provides a short-term clinically relevant effect when compared with a waiting list control or when acupuncture is added to another intervention. Although there are some good results for individual herbal medicines in short-term individual trials, the lack of homogeneity across studies did not allow for a pooled estimate of the effect. In general, these results are in agreement with other recent systematic reviews on SMT, but in contrast with others. These results are also in agreement with recent reviews on acupuncture and herbal medicine. Randomized trials with a low risk of bias and adequate sample sizes are direly needed.

Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain

PurposeInconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP.MethodsAn International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions.ResultsA set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45xa0%. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’ and ‘health-related quality of life’. Consensus on ‘physical functioning’ and ‘pain intensity’ was consistent across all stakeholders, ‘health-related quality of life’ was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain ‘number of deaths’.ConclusionsThe following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’, ‘health-related quality of life’ and ‘number of deaths’. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.

Prevalence and determinants of one month hand pain and hand related disability in the elderly (Rotterdam study)

Objective: To study the prevalence of hand pain and hand disability in an open population, and the contribution of their potential determinants. Methods: Baseline data were used from 7983 participants in the Rotterdam study (a population based study in people aged ⩾55 years). A home interview was used to determine the presence of hand pain during the previous month, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis in any joint, diabetes, stroke, thyroid disease, neck/shoulder pain, gout, history of fracture in the past five years, and Parkinson’s disease, as well as age, sex, and occupation. Hand disability was defined as the mean score of eight questions related to hand function. Body mass index was measured and hand x rays were taken. Results: The one month period prevalence of hand pain was 16.9%. The prevalence of hand disability was 13.6%. In univariate analysis for hand pain, rheumatoid arthritis had the highest explained variance (R2) and odds ratio. For hand disability, aging showed the highest explained variance and Parkinson’s disease had the highest odds ratio. All determinants together showed an explained variance of 19.8% for hand pain and 25.2% for hand disability. In multivariate analysis, positive radiographic hand osteoarthritis was a poor explanation for hand pain (R2u200a=u200a0.5%) or hand disability (R2u200a=u200a0). Conclusions: The contribution of available potential determinants in this study was about 20% for hand pain and 25% for hand disability in an unselected population of elderly people. Thus a greater part of hand pain/hand disability remains unexplained.

Role of radiography in predicting progression of osteoarthritis of the hip: prospective cohort study

Abstract Objectives To investigate which variables identify people at high risk of progression of osteoarthritis of the hip. Design Population based cohort study. Setting Ommoord district in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Participants 1904 men and women aged 55 years and older from the Rotterdam study were selected on the basis of the presence of osteoarthritic signs on radiography at baseline, as defined by a Kellgren and Lawrence score ≥ grade 1. Main outcome measures Radiological progression of osteoarthritis of the hip, defined as a decrease of joint space width (≥ 1.0 mm) at follow-up or the presence of a total hip replacement. Methods Potential determinants of progression of hip osteoarthritis were collected at baseline. x Ray films of the hip at baseline and follow-up (mean follow-up time 6.6 years) were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and progression of hip osteoarthritis. Results In 13.1% (1904 subjects) of the study population (mean age 66.2 years), progression of hip osteoarthritis was evident on the radiograph. Starting with a simple model of only directly obtainable variables, the Kellgren and Lawrence score at baseline, when added to the model, was a strong predictor (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.4), increasing to 24.3 (11.3 to 52.1) in subjects with hip pain at baseline. Conclusions The Kellgren and Lawrence score at baseline was by far the strongest predictor for progression of hip osteoarthritis, especially in patients with existing hip pain at baseline. In patients with hip pain, a radiograph has strong additional value in identifying those at high risk of progression of hip osteoarthritis.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar supports for home care workers with recurrent low back pain: An economic evaluation alongside a randomized-controlled trial

Study Design. Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a 12-months randomized-controlled trial. Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of wearing a lumbar support for home care workers with recurrent low back pain (LBP) (secondary prevention). Summary of Background Data. LBP is a large medical and economical burden. Evidence on the secondary preventive use of lumbar supports is sparse. Methods. A total of 360 home care workers with a self-reported history of LBP were randomly assigned to usual care or usual care plus wearing a lumbar support on working days with LBP, during a 1-year period. Primary clinical outcome measures were the average number of self-reported days with LBP, number of calendar days sick leave in general, and quality of life. Direct and indirect costs were measured by means of cost diaries. Differences in mean costs between groups, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios were evaluated, and cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves presented by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. Results. During the intervention period, the home care workers using a lumbar support in addition to usual care reported on average 54 fewer days with LBP (95% confidence interval [CI], −85 to −29). The estimated mean difference in sick leave was not statistically significant (−5.0 days per year in favor of the lumbar support group; 95% CI, −21.1 to 6.8). There was no statistically significant difference in quality of life. Direct costs were &OV0556;235 (US