Dan Cherkin

Acupuncture and Dry-Needling for Low Back Pain : An Updated Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Collaboration

Objectives. To assess the effects of acupuncture and dry-needling for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain. Background. Low back pain is usually a self-limiting condition that tends to improve spontaneously over time. However, for many people, back pain becomes a chronic or recurrent problem for which a large variety of therapeutic interventions are employed. Search strategy. We updated the searches from 1996 to February 2003 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also searched the Chinese Cochrane Centre database of clinical trials and Japanese databases to February 2003. Selection Criteria. Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture (that involved needling) or dry-needling for adults with nonspecific acute/subacute or chronic low back pain. Data Collection and Analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality (using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group) and extracted data. The trials were combined using meta-analysis methods or levels of evidence when the data reported did not allow statistical pooling. Results. Thirty-five randomized clinical trials were included: 20 were published in English, 7 in Japanese, 5 in Chinese, and 1 each in Norwegian, Polish, and German. There were only 3 trials of acupuncture for acute low back pain. These studies did not justify firm conclusions because of their small sample sizes and low methodologic quality. For chronic low back pain, there is evidence of pain relief and functional improvement for acupuncture compared to no treatment or sham therapy. These effects were only observed immediately after the end of the sessions and in short-term follow-up. There is also evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, the effects are onlysmall. Dry-needling appears to be a useful adjunct to other therapies for chronic low back pain. No clear recommendations could be made about the most effective acupuncture technique. Conclusions. The data do not allow firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low back pain. For chronic low back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and “alternative” treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodologic quality, there is a clear need for higher quality trials in this area.

Evaluation of a physician education intervention to improve primary care for low-back pain i: Impact on physicians

In an effort to improve the cost-effectiveness of primary care for low-back pain, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a physician education intervention. The program was designed to provide family physicians with specific information, tools, and techniques that our previous studies and the literature suggested should be associated with more satisfying and cost-effective care for low-back pain. The in-clinic educational intervention included feedback of the findings of our previous studies of care for back pain (comparing family physicians and chiropractors), an up-to-date summary of scientific knowledge relevant to the management of back pain in primary care, a videotape contrasting ineffective and effective patient encounters, and a clinical assessment form for low-back pain. The back pain-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of 15 primary care providers in a large health maintenance organization clinic and of 14 family physicians in six group practices were assessed before and after the intervention. Significant increases were noted in the proportions of providers who felt confident they knew how to manage low-back pain, who believed their patients were satisfied, and who claimed they reassured patients that they did not have serious disease. The intervention, however, had little impact on the prevalence of negative feelings about patients with back pain or frustration with patients who wanted their doctor to “fix” their problem. The intervention had a similar impact on health maintenance organization and fee-for-service physicians.

Unanticipated Benefits of CAM Therapies for Back Pain: An Exploration of Patient Experiences

OBJECTIVES The goal of this research was to provide insight into the full range of meaningful outcomes experienced by patients who participate in clinical trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. DESIGN Data for this study were assembled from five randomized trials evaluating six different CAM treatments for back pain. A conventional qualitative content analysis was conducted on responses to open-ended questions asked at the end of telephone interviews assessing treatment outcomes. SUBJECTS A total of 884 study participants who received CAM therapies completed post-treatment interviews. Of these, 327 provided qualitative data used in the analyses. RESULTS Our analysis identified a range of positive outcomes that participants in CAM trials considered important but were not captured by standard quantitative outcome measures. Positive outcome themes included increased options and hope, increased ability to relax, positive changes in emotional states, increased body awareness, changes in thinking that increased the ability to cope with back pain, increased sense of well-being, improvement in physical conditions unrelated to back pain, increased energy, increased patient activation, and dramatic improvements in health or well-being. The first five of these themes were mentioned for all of the CAM treatments, while others tended to be more treatment specific. A small fraction of these effects were considered life transforming. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that standard measures used to assess the outcomes of CAM treatments fail to capture the full range of outcomes that are important to patients. In order to capture the full impact of CAM therapies, future trials should include a broader range of outcomes measures.

What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause-eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Low back pain: a call for action

Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of years lost to disability and its burden is growing alongside the increasing and ageing population.1 Because these population shifts are more rapid in low-income and middle-income countries, where adequate resources to address the problem might not exist, the effects will probably be more extreme in these regions. Most low back pain is unrelated to specific identifiable spinal abnormalities, and our Viewpoint, the third paper in this Lancet Series,2,3 is a call for action on this global problem of low back pain.

Effectiveness Guidance Document (EGD) for acupuncture research - a consensus document for conducting trials.

BackgroundThere is a need for more Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) to strengthen the evidence base for clinical and policy decision-making. Effectiveness Guidance Documents (EGD) are targeted to clinical researchers. The aim of this EGD is to provide specific recommendations for the design of prospective acupuncture studies to support optimal use of resources for generating evidence that will inform stakeholder decision-making.MethodsDocument development based on multiple systematic consensus procedures (written Delphi rounds, interactive consensus workshop, international expert review). To balance aspects of internal and external validity, multiple stakeholders including patients, clinicians and payers were involved.ResultsRecommendations focused mainly on randomized studies and were developed for the following areas: overall research strategy, treatment protocol, expertise and setting, outcomes, study design and statistical analyses, economic evaluation, and publication.ConclusionThe present EGD, based on an international consensus developed with multiple stakeholder involvement, provides the first systematic methodological guidance for future CER on acupuncture.

Adjunctive naturopathic care for type 2 diabetes: patient-reported and clinical outcomes after one year

BackgroundSeveral small, uncontrolled studies have found improvements in self-care behaviors and reductions in clinical risk in persons with type 2 diabetes who received care from licensed naturopathic physicians. To extend these findings and determine the feasibility and promise of a randomized clinical trial, we conducted a prospective study to measure the effects of adjunctive naturopathic care (ANC) in primary care patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.MethodsForty patients with type 2 diabetes were invited from a large integrated health care system to receive up to eight ANC visits for up to one year. Participants were required to have hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values between 7.5-9.5 % and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor (i.e., hypertension, hyperlipidemia or overweight). Standardized instruments were administered by telephone to collect outcome data on self-care, self-efficacy, diabetes problem areas, perceived stress, motivation, and mood. Changes from baseline scores were calculated at 6- and 12-months after entry into the study. Six and 12-month changes in clinical risk factors (i.e., HbA1c, lipid and blood pressure) were calculated for the ANC cohort, and compared to changes in a cohort of 329 eligible, non-participating patients constructed using electronic medical records data. Between-cohort comparisons were adjusted for age, gender, baseline HbA1c, and diabetes medications. Six months was pre-specified as the primary endpoint for outcome assessment.ResultsParticipants made 3.9 ANC visits on average during the year, 78 % of which occurred within six months of entry into the study. At 6-months, significant improvements were found in most patient-reported measures, including glucose testing (P = 0.001), diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.02), mood (P = 0.001), self-efficacy (P = 0.0001) and motivation to change lifestyle (P = 0.003). Improvements in glucose testing, mood, self-efficacy and motivation to change lifestyle persisted at 12-months (all P < 0.005). For clinical outcomes, mean HbA1c decreased by −0.90 % (P = 0.02) in the ANC cohort at 6-months, a −0.51 % mean difference compared to usual care (P = 0.07). Reductions at 12-months were not statistically significant (−0.34 % in the ANC cohort, P = 0.14; -0.37 % difference compared to the usual care cohort, P = 0.12).ConclusionsImprovements were noted in self-monitoring of glucose, diet, self-efficacy, motivation and mood following initiation of ANC for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Study participants also experienced reductions in blood glucose that exceeded those for similar patients who did not receive ANC. Randomized clinical trials will be necessary to determine if ANC was responsible for these benefits.

Survey of CAM interest, self-care, and satisfaction with health care for type 2 diabetes at group health cooperative

BackgroundVery little research has explored the factors that influence interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. We surveyed persons with sub-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes to evaluate potential relationships between interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments, current self-care practices, motivation to improve self-care practices and satisfaction with current health care for diabetes.Methods321 patients from a large integrated healthcare system with type 2 diabetes, who were not using insulin and had hemoglobin A1c values between 7.5-9.5%, were telephoned between 2009-2010 and asked about their self-care behaviors, motivation to change, satisfaction with current health care and interest in trying naturopathic (ND) care for their diabetes. Responses from patients most interested in trying ND care were compared with those from patients with less interest.Results219 (68.5%) patients completed the survey. Nearly half (48%) stated they would be very likely to try ND care for their diabetes if covered by their insurance. Interest in trying ND care was not related to patient demographics, health history, clinical status, or self-care behaviors. Patients with greater interest in trying ND care rated their current healthcare as less effective for controlling their blood sugar (mean response 5.9 +/- 1.9 vs. 6.6 +/- 1.5, p = 0.003), and were more determined to succeed in self-care (p = 0.007). Current CAM use for diabetes was also greater in ND interested patients.ConclusionsPatients with sub-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes expressed a high level of interest in trying ND care. Those patients with the greatest interest were less satisfied with their diabetes care, more motivated to engage in self-care, and more likely to use other CAM therapies for their diabetes.

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation

Objective To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trials implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model. Design Our logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources. Setting This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting. Methods Data collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and post-training evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data. Results We found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments. Conclusions These insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care-based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback.