Chung-Wei Christine Lin

An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care

The aim of this study was to present and compare the content of (inter)national clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain. To rationalise the management of low back pain, evidence-based clinical guidelines have been issued in many countries. 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. We updated a previous review that included clinical guidelines published up to and including the year 2000. Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted mainly of primary health care professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, Finnish, Spanish, Norwegian, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. This updated review includes national clinical guidelines from 13 countries and 2 international clinical guidelines from Europe published from 2000 until 2008. 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 for acute low back pain 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. For chronic low back pain, consistent features included supervised exercises, cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary treatment. However, there are some discrepancies for recommendations regarding spinal manipulation and drug treatment for acute and chronic low back pain. The comparison of international clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations are generally similar. There are also some differences which may be due to a lack of strong evidence regarding these topics or due to differences in local health care systems. The implementation of these clinical guidelines remains a challenge for clinical practice and research.

Efficacy and safety of paracetamol for spinal pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions. Results 12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference −0.5, 95% confidence interval −2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, −1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, −0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (−3.7, −5.5 to −1.9) and disability (−2.9, −4.9 to −0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. “High quality” evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain. Conclusions Paracetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.

Efficacy of paracetamol for acute low-back pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Regular paracetamol is the recommended first-line analgesic for acute low-back pain; however, no high-quality evidence supports this recommendation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of paracetamol taken regularly or as-needed to improve time to recovery from pain, compared with placebo, in patients with low-back pain. METHODS We did a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, placebo controlled trial across 235 primary care centres in Sydney, Australia, from Nov 11, 2009, to March 5, 2013. We randomly allocated patients with acute low-back pain in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive up to 4 weeks of regular doses of paracetamol (three times per day; equivalent to 3990 mg paracetamol per day), as-needed doses of paracetamol (taken when needed for pain relief; maximum 4000 mg paracetamol per day), or placebo. Randomisation was done according to a centralised randomisation schedule prepared by a researcher who was not involved in patient recruitment or data collection. Patients and staff at all sites were masked to treatment allocation. All participants received best-evidence advice and were followed up for 3 months. The primary outcome was time until recovery from low-back pain, with recovery defined as a pain score of 0 or 1 (on a 0-10 pain scale) sustained for 7 consecutive days. All data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTN 12609000966291. FINDINGS 550 participants were assigned to the regular group (550 analysed), 549 were assigned to the as-needed group (546 analysed), and 553 were assigned to the placebo group (547 analysed). Median time to recovery was 17 days (95% CI 14-19) in the regular group, 17 days (15-20) in the as-needed group, and 16 days (14-20) in the placebo group (regular vs placebo hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·87-1·14; as-needed vs placebo 1·05, 0·92-1·19; regular vs as-needed 1·05, 0·92-1·20). We recorded no difference between treatment groups for time to recovery (adjusted p=0·79). Adherence to regular tablets (median tablets consumed per participant per day of maximum 6; 4·0 [IQR 1·6-5·7] in the regular group, 3·9 [1·5-5·6] in the as-needed group, and 4·0 [1·5-5·7] in the placebo group), and number of participants reporting adverse events (99 [18·5%] in the regular group, 99 [18·7%] in the as-needed group, and 98 [18·5%] in the placebo group) were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that regular or as-needed dosing with paracetamol does not affect recovery time compared with placebo in low-back pain, and question the universal endorsement of paracetamol in this patient group. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and GlaxoSmithKline Australia.

Relationship between physical activity and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

&NA; It is often assumed that patients with pain‐related disability due to low back pain (LBP) will have reduced physical activity levels, but recent studies have provided results that challenge this assumption. The aim of our systematic review was to examine the relationship between physical activity and disability in LBP. The literature search included 6 electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and studies to May 2010. To be included, studies had to measure both disability (eg, with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and physical activity (eg, by accelerometry) in patients with non‐specific LBP. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data, and authors were contacted for additional data. Correlation coefficients were pooled using the random‐effects model. The search identified 3213 records and 18 studies were eligible for inclusion. The pooled results showed a weak relationship between physical activity and disability in acute or subacute (<3 months) LBP (r = −0.08, 95% confidence interval = −0.17 to 0.002), and a moderate and negative relationship in chronic (>3 months) LBP (r = −0.33, 95% confidence interval = −0.51 to −0.15). That is, persons with acute or subacute LBP appear to vary in the levels of physical activity independent of their pain‐related disability. Persons with chronic LBP with high levels of disability are also likely to have low levels of physical activity. Persons with acute or subacute back pain appear to vary in the levels of physical activity independent of disability. Persons with chronic back pain with high levels of disability will likely have low levels of physical activity.

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline.

Characteristics of people with recurrent ankle sprains: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Objective To examine whether people with recurrent ankle sprain, have specific physical and sensorimotor deficits. Design A systematic review of journal articles in English using electronic databases to September 2009. Included articles compared physical or sensorimotor measures in people with recurrent (≥2) ankle sprains and uninjured controls. Main outcome groups Outcome measures were grouped into: physical characteristics, strength, postural stability, proprioception, response to perturbation, biomechanics and functional tests. A meta-analysis was undertaken where comparable results within an outcome group were inconsistent. Results Fifty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Compared with healthy controls, people with recurrent sprains demonstrated radiographic changes in the talus, changes in foot position during gait and prolonged time to stabilisation after a jump. There were no differences in ankle range of motion or functional test performance. Pooled results showed greater postural sway when standing with eyes closed (SMD=0.9, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4) or on unstable surfaces (0.5, 0.1 to 1.0) and decreased concentric inversion strength (1.1, 0.2 to 2.1) but no difference in evertor strength, inversion joint position sense or peroneal latency in response to a perturbation. Conclusion There are specific impairments in people with recurrent ankle sprain but not necessarily in areas commonly investigated.

Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ).

Treatment of patients with chronic low back pain and its evolving disability primarily tries to improve the patients’ levels of activities and participation. Mostly, self-reported questionnaires have been used for clinical as well as research purposes to assess daily functioning (1,2), of which the most commonly used will be discussed below. However, this information may not necessarily reflect the real capacity of a patient’s performance. A recent review showed that the correlation of self-reported disability and physical activity level was at best moderate for patients with chronic low back pain (3). In order to improve objectivity, measures of body function, e.g., spinal mobility and lumbar extensor muscle strength, have been used, although the correlation with the level of disability is very weak (4,5). Furthermore, there are major concerns about reliability and validity (6–8). Besides the self-reported disability measures, many have urged to use more objective and direct measures of low back pain–specific functional capacity (5,9,10). Capacity is defined as the highest probable level of functioning that a person may reach in an activity domain at any given moment in a standardized environment. Although there is still no consensus for the definition of functional capacity evaluation (FCE), in the past decades, several FCE measures have been developed, of which the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (IWS-FCE) is among the most frequently used (11,12). However, recently published psychometric data have shown that some of the tasks included in the IWS-FCE are not reliable (13,14). Unfortunately, the entire sequence of tasks in, for example, the IWS-FCE, is time consuming and expensive, as is the training of the test observer. Therefore, we have decided not to include these measures in this review. Nevertheless, in order to keep up with, for example, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations to evaluate several core outcome domains, including physical functioning (9), we wanted to include easy to use performance tasks. Several tasks have been described (8,15–17), but most of them are not low back pain specific, and some, such as the Back Performance Scale, show insufficient factor structure, as in this measure the quality of the performance is also scored (1,18). Therefore, we decided only to include a performance task that assesses lifting, an activity that specifically might be hampered by low back pain. For the selection of the self-reported disability questionnaires and lifting performance tasks, we only selected questionnaires/tests that are low back pain specific and of which all psychometric, including responsiveness, properties have been studied in relevant low back pain populations and published in peer-reviewed journals. Other criteria for selection were: being available in at least English and for performance task measures, easy to administer, inexpensive, and not time consuming when used in clinical practice.

Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review

Background: There is uncertainty about the optimal approach to screen for clinically important cervical spine (C-spine) injury following blunt trauma. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria, 2 rules that are available to assist emergency physicians to assess the need for cervical spine imaging. Methods: We identified studies by an electronic search of CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. We included articles that reported on a cohort of patients who experienced blunt trauma and for whom clinically important cervical spine injury detectable by diagnostic imaging was the differential diagnosis; evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule or NEXUS or both; and used an adequate reference standard. We assessed the methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. We used the extracted data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and post-test probabilities. Results: We included 15 studies of modest methodologic quality. For the Canadian C-spine rule, sensitivity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 and specificity ranged from 0.01 to 0.77. For NEXUS, sensitivity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 and specificity ranged from 0.02 to 0.46. One study directly compared the accuracy of these 2 rules using the same cohort and found that the Canadian C-spine rule had better accuracy. For both rules, a negative test was more informative for reducing the probability of a clinically important cervical spine injury. Interpretation: Based on studies with modest methodologic quality and only one direct comparison, we found that the Canadian C-spine rule appears to have better diagnostic accuracy than the NEXUS criteria. Future studies need to follow rigorous methodologic procedures to ensure that the findings are as free of bias as possible.

The effectiveness of physical interventions for people with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review

Study design:Systematic review.Objectives:To provide a quantitative analysis of all randomized controlled trials designed to determine the effectiveness of physical interventions for people with spinal cord injury (SCI).Setting:Sydney, Australia.Methods:A search was conducted for randomized controlled trials involving physical interventions for people with SCI. Two reviewers independently rated methodological quality using the PEDro scale and extracted key findings from the trials.Results:Four thousand five hundred and forty three abstracts were identified of which 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials examined the effectiveness of fitness and strength training (n=7), gait training (n=5), hand therapy (n=3), stretch (n=4), acupuncture (n=3), hand splinting (n=2) and other related therapies (n=7). Six trials reported a between-group mean difference with a clearly important treatment effect on at least one outcome measure. These trials supported the use of fitness, strength and gait training as well as acupuncture.Conclusion:There is initial evidence supporting the effectiveness of some physical interventions for people with SCI. However, there is a pressing need for high-quality trials to determine the effectiveness of all physical interventions commonly administered in clinical practice.

The lower extremity functional scale has good clinimetric properties in people with ankle fracture

Background: There is limited information on the clinimetric properties of questionnaires of activity limitation in people after ankle fracture. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinimetric properties of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale, an activity limitation questionnaire, in people with ankle fracture. Design: This was a measurement study using data collected from 2 previous randomized controlled trials and 1 inception cohort study. Methods: Participants with ankle fracture (N=306) were recruited within 7 days of cast removal. Data were collected at baseline and at short- and medium-term follow-ups. Internal consistency and construct validity were assessed using Rasch analysis. Concurrent validity, responsiveness, and floor and ceiling effects were evaluated. Results: The Lower Extremity Functional Scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α>.90). The variance in activity limitation explained by the items was high (98.3%). Each item had a positive correlation with the overall scale, and most items supported the unidimensionality of the scale. These findings suggest that the scale has high internal consistency and construct validity. The scale also demonstrated high concurrent validity and responsiveness in the short term and no floor or ceiling effects. However, the scale would benefit from more-challenging items, as evident at the medium-term follow-up. Limitations: This was a secondary analysis of existing data sets. Conclusion: The Lower Extremity Functional Scale is a useful tool to monitor activity limitation in people with ankle fracture up to the short-term follow-up. More- difficult items may need to be added to improve the responsiveness of the scale for longer-term follow-up.