J. Bart Staal

Injection Therapy for Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain : An Updated Cochrane Review

Study Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective. To determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low back pain. Summary of Background Data. The effectiveness of injection therapy for low back pain is still debatable. Heterogeneity of target tissue, pharmacological agent, and dosage, generally found in RCTs, point to the need for clinically valid comparisons in a literature synthesis. Methods. We updated the search of the earlier systematic review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases up to March 2007 for relevant trials reported in English, French, German, Dutch, and Nordic languages. We also screened references from trials identified. RCTs on the effects of injection therapy involving epidural, facet, or local sites for subacute or chronic low back pain were included. Studies that compared the effects of intradiscal injections, prolotherapy, or ozone therapy with other treatments were excluded unless injection therapy with another pharmaceutical agent (no placebo treatment) was part of one of the treatment arms. Studies about injections in sacroiliac joints and studies evaluating the effects of epidural steroids for radicular pain were also excluded. Results. Eighteen trials (1179 participants) were included in this review. The injection sites varied from epidural sites and facet joints (i.e. intra-articular injections, peri-articular injections and nerve blocks) to local sites (i.e. tender-and trigger points). The drugs that were studied consisted of corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and a variety of other drugs. The methodologic quality of the trials was limited with 10 of 18 trials rated as having a high methodologic quality. Statistical pooling was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Overall, the results indicated that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy. Conclusion. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic lowback pain. However, it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy.

Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

The study is to provide a critical analysis of the research literature on clinimetric properties of instruments that can be used in daily practice to measure active cervical range of motion (ACROM) in patients with non-specific neck pain. A computerized literature search was performed in Medline, Cinahl and Embase from 1982 to January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the clinimetric properties of identified instruments using a criteria list. The search identified a total of 33 studies, investigating three different types of measurement instruments to determine ACROM. These instruments were: (1) different types of goniometers/inclinometers, (2) visual estimation, and (3) tape measurements. Intra- and inter-observer reliability was demonstrated for the cervical range of motion instrument (CROM), Cybex electronic digital instrument (EDI-320) and a single inclinometer. The presence of agreement was assessed for the EDI-320 and a single inclinometer. The CROM received a positive rating for construct validity. When clinical acceptability is taken into account both the CROM and the single inclinometer can be considered appropriate instruments for measuring the active range of motion in patients with non-specific neck pain in daily practice. Reliability is the aspect most frequently evaluated. Agreement, validity and responsiveness are documented less frequently.

Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire

BackgroundComplaints of Arm Neck and Shoulder (CANS) represent a wide range of complaints, which can differ in severity from mild, periodic symptoms to severe, chronic and debilitating conditions. They are thought to be associated with both physical and psychosocial risk factors. The measurement and identification of the various risk factors for these complaints is an important step towards recognizing (a) high risk subgroups that are relevant in profiling CANS; and (b) also for developing targeted and effective intervention plans for treatment. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of CANS in a Dutch population of computer workers and to develop a questionnaire aimed at measuring workplace physical and psychosocial risk factors for the presence of these complaints.MethodsTo examine potential workplace risk factors for the presence of CANS, the Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ), a structured questionnaire, was developed and tested among 264 computer office workers of a branch office of the national social security institution in the Netherlands. The MUEQ holds 95 items covering demographic characteristics, in addition to seven main domains assessing potential risk factors with regard to (1) work station, (2) posture during work, (3) quality of break time, (4) job demands, (5) job control, and (6) social support. The MUEQ further contained some additional questions about the quality of the work environment and the presence of complaints in the neck, shoulder, upper and lower arm, elbow, hand and wrist. The prevalence rates of CANS in the past year were computed. Further, we investigated the psychometric properties of the MUEQ (i.e. factor structure and reliability).ResultsThe one-year prevalence rate of CANS indicated that 54% of the respondents reported at least one complaint in the arm, neck and/or shoulder. The highest prevalence rates were found for neck and shoulder symptoms (33% and 31% respectively), followed by hand and upper arm complaints (11% to 12%) and elbow, lower arm and wrist complaints (6% to 7%). The psychometric properties of the MUEQ were assessed using exploratory factor analysis which resulted in the identification of 12 factors. The calculation of internal consistency and cross validation provided evidence of reliability and lack of redundancy of items.ConclusionNeck and shoulder complaints are more frequently reported among Dutch computer workers than arm, elbow and hand complaints. The results further indicate that the MUEQ has satisfactory reliability and internal consistency when used to document CANS among computer workers in the Netherlands.

The Effects of a Graded Activity Intervention for Low Back Pain in Occupational Health on Sick Leave, Functional Status and Pain: 12-Month Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Behaviorally oriented graded activity interventions have been suggested for sick-listed workers with low back pain on return to work, but have not been extensively evaluated. Methods: One hundred and thirty-four workers were randomly assigned to either a graded activity intervention (n = 67) or usual care (n = 67) and followed-up for 12 months. Results: The graded activity group returned back to work faster with a median of 54 days compared to 67 days in the usual care group. The graded activity intervention was more effective after approximately 50 days post-randomization (HRR = 1.9, CI = 1.2–3.1, p = 0.01). Differences between the groups in number of recurrent episodes, total number of days of sick leave due to low back pain, and total number of days of sick leave due to all diagnoses, were in favor of the graded activity group, although not statistically significant. No effects of the graded activity intervention were found for functional status or pain. Conclusion: Graded activity intervention is a valuable strategy to enhance short-term return to work outcomes.

Physical Exercise for Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background The treatment-related burden for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may be relieved by physical exercises. Purpose The purpose of this study was to summarize and analyze the evidence provided by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on physical exercise interventions among patients with cancer undergoing HSCT. Data Sources PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PEDro were searched for relevant RCTs up to October 1, 2011. Study Selection Two reviewers screened articles on inclusion criteria and indentified relevant RCTs. Data Extraction Two authors assessed the selected articles for risk of bias. Data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the outcomes quality of life (QOL), psychological well-being and distress, and fatigue. Data Synthesis Eleven studies were included, with study populations consisting of recipients undergoing either an allogeneic or autologous HSCT (n=734). Four studies had low risk of bias. The exercise interventions were performed before, during, and after hospitalization for the HSCT. Different exercise programs on endurance, resistance and/or activities of daily living training, progressive relaxation, and stretching were used. Meta-analyses showed that exercise during hospitalization led to a higher QOL (weighted mean difference=8.72, 95% confidence interval=3.13, 14.31) and less fatigue (standardized mean difference=0.53, 95% confidence interval=0.16, 0.91) in patients with an allogeneic HSCT at the moment of discharge from the hospital. No marked effects were found for psychological well-being and distress. Individual study results suggested significant positive effects on QOL, fatigue, psychological well-being and distress, and physical functioning. Limitations Prevalent shortcomings in the included studies were the heterogeneity among studies and the lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessment. Conclusions The results suggest that recipients of HSCT may benefit from physical exercise.

Accuracy of diagnostic ultrasound in patients with suspected subacromial disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for detecting subacromial disorders in patients presenting in primary and secondary care settings. DATA SOURCES Medline and Embase were searched on June 9, 2010. In addition, the reference list of 1 systematic review and all included articles were searched to identify relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION Two reviewers independently selected the articles evaluating the accuracy of ultrasound for detecting subacromial disorders from the title and abstracts retrieved by the literature search. Selection criteria were ultrasound frequency greater than or equal to 7.5MHz as index test, surgery, magnetic resonance imaging and/or radiography as reference standards, and subacromial disorders as target conditions. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers independently extracted the data on study characteristics and results to construct 2 by 2 tables and performed a methodologic quality assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS Twenty-three studies were included: 22 reported on full-thickness rotator cuff tears, 15 on partial-thickness tears, 3 on subacromial bursitis, 2 on tendinopathy, and 2 on calcifying tendonitis, respectively. For full-thickness tears, pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was .95 (95% confidence interval, .90-.97), and specificity .96 (.93-.98). For partial-thickness tears, pooled sensitivity was .72 (.58-.83), and specificity .93 (.89-.96). Statistical pooling was not possible for the other disorders. For subacromial bursitis, sensitivity ranged from .79 to .81, and specificity from .94 to .98. For tendinopathy, sensitivity ranged from .67 to .93, specificity from .88 to 1.00. Sensitivity for calcifying tendonitis was 1.00 in both studies, with specificity ranging from .85 to .98. CONCLUSIONS We strongly recommend ultrasound in patients for whom conservative treatment fails, to rule in or out full-thickness tears, to rule in partial-thickness tears, and to a lesser extent to diagnose tendinopathy, subacromial bursitis, and calcifying tendonitis. These results can help physicians tailor treatment.

A high-intensity lumbar extensor strengthening program is little better than a low-intensity program or a waiting list control group for chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial

QUESTION Is eight weeks of high-intensity strengthening of the isolated lumbar extensors more effective than low-intensity strengthening or no strengthening? Are any gains maintained 16 weeks later? DESIGN Randomised, three-arm trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat-analysis. Participants in the waiting list control group were randomised again, after the first 8 weeks, to either the high-intensity or the low-intensity strengthening program. PARTICIPANTS Sixty-five army personnel with non-specific chronic low back pain. INTERVENTION The high-intensity training group received 10 sessions of 15 to 20 repetitions for the isolated lumbar extensor muscles. The low-intensity training group received a nonprogressive, low-intensity resistance protocol. OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcomes were global perceived effect and disability. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, fear of movement/(re-)injury, and isometric lumbar extensor muscle strength. Measures were taken before and after the training and 16 weeks later. RESULTS At eight weeks, SF-36 overall score was on average 7% (95% CI 1 to 13) greater in the high-intensity training group compared with the low-intensity training group and the waiting list control group, and self-assessed decrease of back symptoms was on average 39% (95% CI 14 to 64) greater in the high-intensity training group compared with the waiting list control group. There was no difference in improvement between the groups for any other outcome at 8 weeks or 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS Although some beneficial effects were found, the results of this high-intensity strengthening program of the isolated lumbar extensor muscles do not clearly support the generally-claimed beneficial influence of exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.

β2-Agonists and Physical Performance

Inhaled β₂-agonists are commonly used as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma. Their use in athletes, however, is restricted by anti-doping regulations. Controversies remain as to whether healthy elite athletes who use bronchodilators may gain a competitive advantage. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of inhaled and systemic β₂-agonists on physical performance in healthy, non-asthmatic subjects. To this end, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to August 2009. Reference lists were searched for additional relevant studies. The search criteria were for randomized controlled trials examining the effect of inhaled or systemic β₂-agonists on physical performance in healthy, non-asthmatic subjects. Two authors independently performed the selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Parallel-group and crossover trials were analysed separately. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data and, where possible, data were pooled using a fixed effects model. Twenty-six studies involving 403 participants (age range 7-30 years) compared inhaled β₂-agonists with placebo. No significant effect could be detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂(max)) [MD -0.14 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹; 95% CI -1.07, 0.78; 16 studies], endurance time to exhaustion at 105-110% VO₂(max) (MD -1.5 s; 95% CI -15.6, 12.6; four studies), 20-km time trial duration (MD -4.4 s; 95% CI -23.5, 14.7; two studies), peak power (MD -0.14 W · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -0.54, 0.27; four studies) and total work during a 30-second Wingate test (MD 0.80 J · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -2.44, 4.05; five studies). Thirteen studies involving 172 participants (age range 7-22 years) compared systemic β₂-agonists with placebo, with 12 studies involving oral and one study involving intravenous salbutamol. A significant effect was detected for systemic β₂-agonists on endurance time to exhaustion at 80-85% VO₂(max) (MD 402 s; 95% CI 34, 770; two studies), but not for VO₂(max) (placebo 42.5 ± 1.7 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹, salbutamol 42.1 ± 2.9 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹, one study), endurance time to exhaustion at 70% VO₂(max) (MD 400 s; 95% CI -408, 1208; one study) or power output at 90% VO₂(max) (placebo 234.9 ± 16 W, salbutamol 235.5 ± 18.1 W, one study). A significant effect was shown for systemic β₂-agonists on peak power (MD 0.91 W · kg⁻¹; 95% CI 0.25, 1.57; four studies), but not on total work (MD 7.8 J · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -3.3, 18.9; four studies) during a 30-second Wingate test. There were no randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of systemic formoterol, salmeterol or terbutaline on physical performance. In conclusion, no significant effects were detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on endurance, strength or sprint performance in healthy athletes. There is some evidence indicating that systemic β₂-agonists may have a positive effect on physical performance in healthy subjects, but the evidence base is weak.Inhaled β2-agonists are commonly used as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma. Their use in athletes, however, is restricted by anti-doping regulations. Controversies remain as to whether healthy elite athletes who use bronchodilators may gain a competitive advantage.The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of inhaled and systemic β2-agonists on physical performance in healthy, nonasthmatic subjects. To this end, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to August 2009. Reference lists were searched for additional relevant studies. The search criteria were for randomized controlled trials examining the effect of inhaled or systemic β2-agonists on physical performance in healthy, nonasthmatic subjects. Two authors independently performed the selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Parallel-group and crossover trials were analysed separately. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data and, where possible, data were pooled using a fixed effects model.Twenty-six studies involving 403 participants (age range 7–30 years) compared inhaled β2-agonists with placebo. No significant effect could be detected for inhaled β2-agonists on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O2max) [MD −0.14mL•kg−1•min−1; 95% CI −1.07, 0.78; 16 studies], endurance time to exhaustion at 105–110% V̇O2max (MD −1.5 s; 95% CI −15.6, 12.6; four studies), 20-km time trial duration (MD −4.4 s; 95% CI −23.5, 14.7; two studies), peak power (MD −0.14 W•kg−1; 95% CI −0.54, 0.27; four studies) and total work during a 30-second Wingate test (MD 0.80 J•kg−1; 95% CI −2.44, 4.05; five studies). Thirteen studies involving 172 participants (age range 7–22 years) compared systemic β2-agonists with placebo, with 12 studies involving oral and one study involving intravenous salbutamol. A significant effect was detected for systemic β2-agonists on endurance time to exhaustion at 80–85% V̇O2max (MD 402 s; 95% CI 34, 770; two studies), but not for V̇O2max (placebo 42.5–1.7mL•kg−1•min−1, salbutamol 42.1±2.9mL•kg−1•min−1, one study), endurance time to exhaustion at 70% V̇O2max (MD 400 s; 95%CI −408, 1208; one study) or power output at 90% V̇O2max (placebo 234.9±16 W, salbutamol 235.5±18.1 W, one study). Asignificant effect was shown for systemic β2-agonists on peak power (MD 0.91 W•kg−1; 95% CI 0.25, 1.57; four studies), but not on total work (MD 7.8 J•kg−1; 95% CI −3.3, 18.9; four studies) during a 30-second Wingate test. There were no randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of systemic formoterol, salmeterol or terbutaline on physical performance.In conclusion, no significant effects were detected for inhaled β2-agonists on endurance, strength or sprint performance in healthy athletes. There is some evidence indicating that systemic β2-agonists may have a positive effect on physical performance in healthy subjects, but the evidence base is weak.

Clinimetric evaluation of methods to measure muscle functioning in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

BackgroundNeck pain is a significant health problem in modern society. There is evidence to suggest that neck muscle strength is reduced in patients with neck pain. This article provides a critical analysis of the research literature on the clinimetric properties of tests to measure neck muscle strength or endurance in patients with non-specific neck pain, which can be used in daily practice.MethodsA computerised literature search was performed in the Medline, CINAHL and Embase databases from 1980 to January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the clinimetric properties of identified measurement methods, using a checklist of generally accepted criteria for reproducibility (inter- and intra-observer reliability and agreement), construct validity, responsiveness and feasibility.ResultsThe search identified a total of 16 studies. The instruments or tests included were: muscle endurance tests for short neck flexors, craniocervical flexion test with an inflatable pressure biofeedback unit, manual muscle testing of neck musculature, dynamometry and functional lifting tests (the cervical progressive iso-inertial lifting evaluation (PILE) test and the timed weighted overhead test). All the articles included report information on the reproducibility of the tests. Acceptable intra- and inter-observer reliability was demonstrated for t enduranctest for short neck flexors and the cervical PILE test. Construct validity and responsiveness have hardly been documented for tests on muscle functioning.ConclusionThe endurance test of the short neck flexors and the cervical PILE test can be regarded as appropriate instruments for measuring different aspects of neck muscle function in patients with non-specific neck pain. Common methodological flaws in the studies were their small sample size and an inappropriate description of the study design.

Graded activity for workers with low back pain: who benefits most and how does it work?

OBJECTIVE To identify subgroups of workers absent from work due to low back pain who are more or less likely to return to work earlier as a result of a graded activity intervention, and to investigate whether this intervention is effective in reducing pain-related fears and if so, whether these reductions in pain-related fears mediate return to work. METHODS A subgroup analysis was conducted on data from a previous randomized controlled trial of 134 Dutch airline workers, which found that a behaviorally-oriented graded activity intervention was more effective than usual care in stimulating return to work. The subgroup analyses added interaction terms to a Cox regression model that described the relationship between treatment allocation and return to work over 12 months of followup. Furthermore, we studied the effects of graded activity on pain-related fears and added variables indicating a reduction in pain-related fears to the model in order to investigate their influence on return to work. RESULTS Statistically significant interactions were found for disability, fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity, and fear-avoidance beliefs about work. No indication was found that the reduction in pain-related fears in the graded activity group mediated more favorable return-to-work results in this group. CONCLUSION Workers who perceive their disability to be moderate and workers with moderate scores for fear-avoidance beliefs return to work more rapidly as a result of the graded activity intervention than workers with higher scores. The return to work of workers receiving the graded activity intervention is possibly independent from the reductions in pain-related fears caused by this intervention.