James H. McAuley

Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study

Objective To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. Design Cohort study with one year follow-up. Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks’ duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. Main outcome measures Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. Results The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. Conclusions In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.

Motor Control Exercise for Persistent, Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Background: Previous systematic reviews have concluded that the effectiveness of motor control exercise for persistent low back pain has not been clearly established. Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of motor control exercises for persistent low back pain. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to June 2008. Pain, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes were extracted and converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. Where possible, trials were pooled using Revman 4.2. Results: Fourteen trials were included. Seven trials compared motor control exercise with minimal intervention or evaluated it as a supplement to another treatment. Four trials compared motor control exercise with manual therapy. Five trials compared motor control exercise with another form of exercise. One trial compared motor control exercise with lumbar fusion surgery. The pooling revealed that motor control exercise was better than minimal intervention in reducing pain at short-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=−14.3 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]=−20.4 to −8.1), at intermediate follow-up (weighted mean difference=−13.6 points, 95% CI=−22.4 to −4.1), and at long-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=−14.4 points, 95% CI=−23.1 to −5.7) and in reducing disability at long-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=−10.8 points, 95% CI=−18.7 to −2.8). Motor control exercise was better than manual therapy for pain (weighted mean difference=−5.7 points, 95% CI=−10.7 to −0.8), disability (weighted mean difference=−4.0 points, 95% CI=−7.6 to −0.4), and quality-of-life outcomes (weighted mean difference=−6.0 points, 95% CI=−11.2 to −0.8) at intermediate follow-up and better than other forms of exercise in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (weighted mean difference=−5.1 points, 95% CI=−8.7 to −1.4). Conclusions: Motor control exercise is superior to minimal intervention and confers benefit when added to another therapy for pain at all time points and for disability at long-term follow-up. Motor control exercise is not more effective than manual therapy or other forms of exercise.

Prognosis for patients with chronic low back pain: inception cohort study

Objectives To describe the course of chronic low back pain in an inception cohort and to identify prognostic markers at the onset of chronicity. Design Inception cohort study with one year follow-up. Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants The study sample was a subcohort of an inception cohort of 973 consecutive patients presenting to primary care with acute low back pain (<2 weeks’ duration). 406 participants whose pain persisted for three months formed the inception cohort of patients with chronic low back pain. Main outcome measures Outcomes and putative predictors measured at initial presentation, onset of chronicity (study entry), and follow-up at nine and 12 months. Recovery was determined from measures of pain intensity, disability, and work status. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. Results Completeness of follow-up was 97% of total person time for all outcomes. The cumulative probability of being pain-free was 35% at nine months and 42% at 12 months and for complete recovery was 35% at nine months and 41% at 12 months. Of the 259 participants who had not recovered from pain related disability at entry to the chronic study, 47% had recovered by 12 months. Previous sick leave due to low back pain, high disability levels or high pain intensity at onset of chronicity, low levels of education, greater perceived risk of persistent pain, and being born outside Australia were associated with delayed recovery. Conclusion More than one third of patients with recent onset, non-radicular chronic low back pain recover within 12 months. The prognosis is less favourable for those who have taken previous sick leave for low back pain, have high disability levels or high pain intensity at onset of chronic low back pain, have lower education, perceive themselves as having a high risk of persistent pain, and were born outside Australia.

Course and prognostic factors of whiplash: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

&NA; We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies of subjects with acute whiplash injuries. The aim was to describe the course of recovery, pain and disability symptoms and also to assess the influence of different prognostic factors on outcome. Studies were selected for inclusion if they enrolled subjects with neck pain within six weeks of a car accident and measured pain and/or disability outcomes. Studies were located via a sensitive search of electronic databases; Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane database, ACP Journal club, DARE and Psychinfo and through hand‐searches of relevant previous reviews. Methodological quality of all studies was assessed using a six item checklist. Sixty‐seven articles, describing 38 separate cohorts were included. Recovery rates were extremely variable across studies but homogeneity was improved when only data from studies of more robust methodological quality were considered. These data suggest that recovery occurs for a substantial proportion of subjects in the initial 3 months after the accident but after this time recovery rates level off. Pain and disability symptoms also reduce rapidly in the initial months after the accident but show little improvement after 3 months have elapsed. Data regarding the prognostic factors associated with poor recovery were difficult to interpret due to heterogeneity of the techniques used to assess such associations and the way in which they are reported. There was also wide variation in the measurement of outcome and the use of validated measures would improve interpretability and comparability of future studies.

Cortical changes in chronic low back pain: Current state of the art and implications for clinical practice

There is increasing evidence that chronic pain problems are characterised by alterations in brain structure and function. Chronic back pain is no exception. There is a growing sentiment, with accompanying theory, that these brain changes contribute to chronic back pain, although empirical support is lacking. This paper reviews the structural and functional changes of the brain that have been observed in people with chronic back pain. We cast light on the clinical implications of these changes and the possibilities for new treatments but we also advise caution against concluding their efficacy in the absence of solid evidence to this effect.

The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis

Background: Although low-back pain is a highly prevalent condition, its clinical course remains uncertain. Our main objective was to systematically review the literature on the clinical course of pain and disability in patients with acute and persistent low-back pain. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether pain and disability have similar courses. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of inception cohort studies. We identified eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We included prospective studies that enrolled an episode-inception cohort of patients with acute or persistent low-back pain and that measured pain, disability or recovery. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality. We used mixed models to determine pooled estimates of pain and disability over time. Results: Data from 33 discrete cohorts (11 166 participants) were included in the review. The variance-weighted mean pain score (out of a maximum score of 100) was 52 (95% CI 48–57) at baseline, 23 (95% CI 21–25) at 6 weeks, 12 (95% CI 9–15) at 26 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3–10) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain for cohorts with acute pain. Among cohorts with persistent pain, the variance-weighted mean pain score (out of 100) was 51 (95% CI 44–59) at baseline, 33 (95% CI 29–38) at 6 weeks, 26 (95% CI 20–33) at 26 weeks and 23 (95% CI 16–30) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain. The course of disability outcomes was similar to the time course of pain outcomes in the acute pain cohorts, but the pain outcomes were slightly worse than disability outcomes in the persistent pain cohorts. Interpretation: Patients who presented with acute or persistent low-back pain improved markedly in the first six weeks. After that time improvement slowed. Low to moderate levels of pain and disability were still present at one year, especially in the cohorts with persistent pain.

Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND We aimed to investigate whether the addition of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, would result in faster recovery for patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care. METHODS 240 patients with acute low back pain who had seen their general practitioner and had been given advice and paracetamol were randomly allocated to one of four groups in our community-based study: diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and placebo manipulative therapy (n=60); spinal manipulative therapy and placebo drug (n=60); diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and spinal manipulative therapy (n=60); or double placebo (n=60). The primary outcome was days to recovery from pain assessed by survival curves (log-rank test) in an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN012605000036617. FINDINGS Neither diclofenac nor spinal manipulative therapy appreciably reduced the number of days until recovery compared with placebo drug or placebo manipulative therapy (diclofenac hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.42, p=0.516; spinal manipulative therapy hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, p=0.955). 237 patients (99%) either recovered or were censored 12 weeks after randomisation. 22 patients had possible adverse reactions including gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness, and heart palpitations. Half of these patients were in the active diclofenac group, the other half were taking placebo. One patient taking active diclofenac had a suspected hypersensitivity reaction and ceased treatment. INTERPRETATION Patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care do not recover more quickly with the addition of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy.

Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: A randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background The evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled. Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain. Design This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Setting The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia. Patients The participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks’ duration. Intervention Twelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks. Measurements Primary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patients global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patients global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months. Results The exercise intervention improved activity and patients global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=−0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise. Limitation Clinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided. Conclusions Motor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

OBJECTIVE Estimates of treatment effects reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials are less subject to bias than those estimates provided by other study designs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials. METHODS Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for eligible trials from earliest records to November 2006. Continuous pain outcomes were converted to a common 0-100 scale and pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS A total of 76 trials reporting on 34 treatments were included. Fifty percent of the investigated treatments had statistically significant effects, but for most the effects were small or moderate: 47% had point estimates of effects of <10 points on the 100-point scale, 38% had point estimates from 10 to 20 points and 15% had point estimates of >20 points. Treatments reported to have large effects (>20 points) had been investigated only in a single trial. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis revealed that the analgesic effects of many treatments for non-specific low back pain are small and that they do not differ in populations with acute or chronic symptoms.

Low Back Pain and Best Practice Care A Survey of General Practice Physicians

BACKGROUND Acute low back pain (LBP) is primarily managed in general practice. We aimed to describe the usual care provided by general practitioners (GPs) and to compare this with recommendations of best practice in international evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute LBP. METHODS Care provided in 3533 patient visits to GPs for a new episode of LBP was mapped to key recommendations in treatment guidelines. The proportion of patient encounters in which care arranged by a GP aligned with these key recommendations was determined for the period 2005 through 2008 and separately for the period before the release of the local guideline in 2004 (2001-2004). RESULTS Although guidelines discourage the use of imaging, over one-quarter of patients were referred for imaging. Guidelines recommend that initial care should focus on advice and simple analgesics, yet only 20.5% and 17.7% of patients received these treatments, respectively. Instead, the analgesics provided were typically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4%) and opioids (19.6%). This pattern of care was the same in the periods before and after the release of the local guideline. CONCLUSIONS The usual care provided by GPs for LBP does not match the care endorsed in international evidence-based guidelines and may not provide the best outcomes for patients. This situation has not improved over time. The unendorsed care may contribute to the high costs of managing LBP, and some aspects of the care provided carry a higher risk of adverse effects.