Gustavo C Machado

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any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups.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.

Factors defining care-seeking in low back pain--a meta-analysis of population based surveys.

Little is known about factors determining health care‐seeking behavior in low back pain. While a number of studies have described general characteristics of health care utilization, only a few have aimed at appropriately assessing determinants of care‐seeking in back pain, by comparing seekers and non‐seekers. The objective of this systematic review was to identify determinants of health care‐seeking in studies with well‐defined groups of care‐seekers and non‐seekers with non‐specific low back pain.

Symptoms of Depression and Risk of New Episodes of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

To investigate the contribution of symptoms of depression to future episodes of low back pain (LBP).

Paracetamol for low back pain

BACKGROUNDnAnalgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.nnnMAIN RESULTSnOur searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnWe found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.

Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background The management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions. Results Nineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference –3.7, 95% confidence interval –15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval –9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes. Conclusions The relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.

Are neck pain scales and questionnaires compatible with the international classification of functioning, disability and health? A systematic review

Purpose.u2003To identify neck-pain-specific questionnaires and scales that measure functioning and disability and assess whether their contents are comparable to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Methods.u2003A systematic search was conducted in LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTSDISCUS databases, identifying questionnaires and scales used to assess neck-related functioning and disability from 1966 to November 2007. Each item of each scale or questionnaire was extracted and classified according to the ICF categories. Results.u2003The databases yielded a total of 888 articles, of which seven questionnaires were identified and included in the review. A total of 74 items were analyzed, 27 linked to body function, 46 to activities and participation, 1 to environmental factors, and 5 to non-classified items. While the pain disability index tends to focus on limitations to body functions, the functional rating index and the Copenhagen neck functional disability scale appear to be limited to measuring activity. Three questionnaires (the neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, the neck disability index, and the neck pain and disability scale) have demonstrated a well-balanced distribution of items across the ICF components. Conclusion.u2003Most identified questionnaires reflect limitations or restrictions in one component only. These results provide valuable information on the content quality of these questionnaires for health-care providers and researchers.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background While it is now clear that paracetamol is ineffective for spinal pain, there is not consensus on the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for this condition. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for spinal pain. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and LILACS for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs with placebo for spinal pain. Reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A between-group difference of 10 points (on a 0–100 scale) was used for pain and disability as the smallest worthwhile effect, as well as to calculate numbers needed to treat. Random-effects models were used to calculate mean differences or risk ratios with 95% CIs. Results We included 35 randomised placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs reduced pain and disability, but provided clinically unimportant effects over placebo. Six participants (95% CI 4 to 10) needed to be treated with NSAIDs, rather than placebo, for one additional participant to achieve clinically important pain reduction. When looking at different types of spinal pain, outcomes or time points, in only 3 of the 14 analyses were the pooled treatment effects marginally above our threshold for clinical importance. NSAIDs increased the risk of gastrointestinal reactions by 2.5 times (95% CI 1.2 to 5.2), although the median duration of included trials was 7u2005days. Conclusions NSAIDs are effective for spinal pain, but the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between the intervention and placebo groups is not clinically important. At present, there are no simple analgesics that provide clinically important effects for spinal pain over placebo. There is an urgent need to develop new drug therapies for this condition.

The efficacy of conservative treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures on acute pain relief: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PurposeThe aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of commonly used non-surgical treatments in acute care of adults with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs).MethodsA systematic approach was used to search eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining analgesic medications, passive physical therapies, bed rest or orthoses. Data on pain, activity/participation and adverse events were extracted. Methodological quality and quality of evidence were assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (score range 0–10) and the GRADE criteria, respectively.ResultsFive RCTs (total nxa0=xa0350) were identified including one placebo-controlled and four controlled trials examining analgesics (2 studies) and orthoses (3). PEDro scores ranged from 4 to 7. The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. In two trials, spinal orthoses provided significantly higher medium-term pain relief [pooled standardized mean differences (SMD): −1.47, 95xa0% confidence interval (CI) −1.82, −1.13; I2xa0=xa00xa0%] and disability reduction (pooled SMD: −1.73, 95xa0% CI −2.09, −1.37; I2xa0=xa00xa0%) than no intervention. Immediate- and short-term pain effects of diclofenac (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and tramadol (a strong opioid) were demonstrated when compared to a Chinese medicine, whereas non-significant effects were found for oxycodone and tapentadol (strong opioids) in a placebo-controlled trial. Low/insufficient statistical power, co-interventions and potential conflict of interest might have influenced the results.ConclusionsAt present, there is insufficient evidence to inform conservative care for acute pain related to VCF. Large, multinational, placebo/sham-controlled trials to address this gap in evidence are needed.

Is alcohol intake associated with low back pain? A systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUNDnAlcohol intake has been widely reported as a risk factor for low back pain (LBP), however, the literature is inconclusive about this association.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine, in a systematic review, the relationship between alcohol intake and LBP.nnnMETHODSnA search was conducted in CINAHL, LILACS, Medline, National Research Register and Web of Science to identify studies that investigated the association between alcohol intake and LBP. Quantitative results and its estimators were extracted. When possible, meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model.nnnRESULTSnTwenty-six studies were included in this review. Twenty-three studies were retrospective cohorts, two were case-controls, and one employed a longitudinal design. Pooled results from nine studies (two case-controls and seven retrospective cohorts) showed that alcohol consumption is slightly associated with LBP (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.5). This association appears to be present in studies investigating alcohol as an abuse dependence substance in chronic LBP. Remaining individual studies tended to report no statistical significant association. No dose-response relationship was identified. Only one longitudinal study was identified and even though alcohol consumption was found to be negatively associated with a future episode of LBP (OR: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9) this association lost significance for future incidence of LBP in people with no LBP at baseline.nnnCONCLUSIONSnAlcohol consumption appears to be associated with complex and chronic LBP only and in people with alcohol consumption dependence. Clinicians in the musculoskeletal field could use this information to design educational strategies for this population.

Smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain: A systematic review

Guidelines for low back pain (LBP) often recommend the use of self-management such as unsupervised exercise, booklets, and online education. Another potentially useful way for patients to self-manage LBP is by using smartphone applications (apps). However, to date, there has been no rigorous evaluation of LBP apps and no guidance for consumers on how to select high-quality, evidence-based apps. This chapter reviews smartphone apps for the self-management of LBP and evaluates their content quality and whether they recommend evidence-based interventions. This chapter shows that generally app developers are selecting interventions that are endorsed by guidelines, although their quality is low. There are many apps available for the self-management of LBP, but their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes has not been rigorously assessed. App developers need to work closely with healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients to ensure app content is accurate, evidence based, and engaging.