Manuela L. Ferreira

Changes in recruitment of the abdominal muscles in people with low back pain: Ultrasound measurement of muscle activity

Study Design. Ultrasound and electromyographic (EMG) measures of trunk muscle activity were compared between low back pain (LBP) and control subjects in a cross-sectional study. Objectives. To compare the recruitment of the abdominal muscles (measured as a change in thickness with ultrasound imaging) between people with and without low back pain and to compare these measurements with EMG recordings made with intramuscular electrodes. Summary of Background Data. Although ultrasonography has been advocated as a noninvasive measure of abdominal muscle activity, it is not known whether it can provide a valid measure of changes in motor control of the abdominal muscles in LBP. Methods. Ten subjects with recurrent LBP and 10 matched controls were tested during isometric low load tasks with their limbs suspended. Changes in thickness from resting baseline values were obtained for transversus abdominis (TrA), obliquus internus (OI), and obliquus externus (OE) using ultrasonography. Fine wire EMG was measured concurrently. Results. Study participants with LBP had a significantly smaller increase in TrA thickness with isometric leg tasks compared with controls. No difference was found between groups for OI or OE. Similar results were found for EMG. People with LBP had less TrA EMG activity with leg tasks, and there was no difference between groups for EMG activity for OI or OE. Conclusions. This study reinforces evidence for changes in automatic control of TrA in people with LBP. Furthermore, the data establish a new test of recruitment of the abdominal muscles in people with LBP. This test presents a feasible noninvasive test of automatic recruitment of the abdominal muscles.

Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial

Abstract Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head‐to‐head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non‐specific low back pain ⩾3 months were allocated to groups that received 8 weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient‐specific function (PSFS, 3–30) and global perceived effect (GPE, −5 to 5) at 8 weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12 months. Follow‐up was 93% at 8 weeks and 88% at 6 and 12 months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8 weeks (between‐group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9–4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9–2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4–4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4–2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short‐term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long‐term effects, in patients with chronic non‐specific back pain.

Specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain. Randomised clinical trials evaluating specific stabilisation exercise were identified and retrieved. Outcomes were disability, pain, return to work, number of episodes, global perceived effect, or health-related quality of life. A single trial reported that specific stabilisation exercise was more effective than no treatment but not more effective than spinal manipulative therapy for the management of cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain. Single trials reported that specific stabilisation exercise was effective for pelvic pain and for prevention of recurrence after an acute episode of low back pain but not to reduce pain or disability associated with acute low back pain. Pooled analyses revealed that, for chronic low back pain, specific stabilisation exercise was superior to usual medical care and education but not to manipulative therapy, and no additional effect was found when specific stabilisation exercise was added to a conventional physiotherapy program. A single trial reported that specific stabilisation exercise and a surgical procedure to reduce pain and disability in chronic low back pain were equally effective. The available evidence suggests that specific stabilisation exercise is effective in reducing pain and disability in chronic but not acute low back pain. Single trials indicate that specific stabilisation exercise can be helpful in the treatment of cervicogenic headache and associated neck pain, pelvic pain, and in reducing recurrence after acute low back pain.

The Influence of the Therapist-Patient Relationship on Treatment Outcome in Physical Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

Background The working alliance, or collaborative bond, between client and psychotherapist has been found to be related to outcome in psychotherapy. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the working alliance is related to outcome in physical rehabilitation settings. Data Sources A sensitive search of 6 databases identified a total of 1,600 titles. Study Selection Prospective studies of patients undergoing physical rehabilitation were selected for this systematic review. Data Extraction For each included study, descriptive data regarding participants, interventions, and measures of alliance and outcome—as well as correlation data for alliance and outcomes—were extracted. Data Synthesis Thirteen studies including patients with brain injury, musculoskeletal conditions, cardiac conditions, or multiple pathologies were retrieved. Various outcomes were measured, including pain, disability, quality of life, depression, adherence, and satisfaction with treatment. The alliance was most commonly measured with the Working Alliance Inventory, which was rated by both patient and therapist during the third or fourth treatment session. The results indicate that the alliance is positively associated with: (1) treatment adherence in patients with brain injury and patients with multiple pathologies seeking physical therapy, (2) depressive symptoms in patients with cardiac conditions and those with brain injury, (3) treatment satisfaction in patients with musculoskeletal conditions, and (4) physical function in geriatric patients and those with chronic low back pain. Limitations Among homogenous studies, there were insufficient reported data to allow pooling of results. Conclusions From this review, the alliance between therapist and patient appears to have a positive effect on treatment outcome in physical rehabilitation settings; however, more research is needed to determine the strength of this association.

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.

The Mckenzie Method for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of the Literature With a Meta-analysis Approach

Study Design and Objectives. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method for low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. The McKenzie method is a popular classification-based treatment for LBP. The faulty equation of McKenzie to extension exercises (generic McKenzie) is common in randomized trials. Methods. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and LILACS were searched up to August 2003. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed methodologic quality. Pooled effects were calculated among homogeneous trials using the random effects model. A sensitivity analysis excluded trials reporting on generic McKenzie. Results. Eleven trials of mostly high quality were included. McKenzie reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] on a 0- to 100-point scale, −4.16 points; 95% confidence interval, −7.12 to −1.20) and disability (WMD on a 0- to 100-point scale, −5.22 points; 95% confidence interval, −8.28 to −2.16) at 1 week follow-up when compared with passive therapy for acute LBP. When McKenzie was compared with advice to stay active, a reduction in disability favored advice (WMD on a 0- to 100-point scale, 3.85 points; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 7.39) at 12 weeks of follow-up. Heterogeneity prevented pooling of studies on chronic LBP as well as pooling of studies included in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions. There is some evidence that the McKenzie method is more effective than passive therapy for acute LBP; however, the magnitude of the difference suggests the absence of clinically worthwhile effects. There is limited evidence for the use of McKenzie method in chronic LBP. The effectiveness of classification-based McKenzie is yet to be established.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Sciatica: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Existing guidelines and systematic reviews provide inconsistent recommendations on epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica. Key limitations of existing reviews are the inclusion of trials with active controls of unknown efficacy and failure to provide an estimate of the size of the treatment effect. PURPOSE To determine the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica compared with placebo. DATA SOURCES International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION Randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections in participants with sciatica. DATA EXTRACTION Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Leg pain, back pain, and disability were converted to common scales from 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). Thresholds for clinically important change in the range of 10 to 30 have been proposed for these outcomes. Effects were calculated for short-term (>2 weeks but ≤3 months) and long-term (≥12 months) follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used in summary conclusions. Twenty-five published reports (23 trials) were included. The pooled results showed a significant, although small, effect of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo for leg pain in the short term (mean difference, -6.2 [95% CI, -9.4 to -3.0]) and also for disability in the short term (mean difference, -3.1 [CI, -5.0 to -1.2]). The long-term pooled effects were smaller and not statistically significant. The overall quality of evidence according to the GRADE classification was rated as high. LIMITATION The review included only English-language trials and could not incorporate dichotomous outcome measures into the analysis. CONCLUSION The available evidence suggests that epidural corticosteroid injections offer only short-term relief of leg pain and disability for patients with sciatica. The small size of the treatment effects, however, raises questions about the clinical utility of this procedure in the target population. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE None.

Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil. Which one is the best?

Study Design. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and clinimetric testing of self-report outcome measures. Objective. The aims of this investigation were to perform the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to perform a head-to-head comparison of the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the PSFS, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Functional Rating Index (FRI). Summary of Background Data. To date, there is no Brazilian-Portuguese version of the PSFS available and no head-to-head comparison of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the PSFS, RMDQ, and FRI has been undertaken. Methods. The PSFS was translated and adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese. The PSFS, the RMDQ, and the FRI were administered to 99 patients with low back pain to evaluate internal consistency, reproducibility, ceiling and floor effects, construct validity, internal and external responsiveness. To fully test the construct validity and external responsiveness of these measures, it was necessary to cross-culturally adapt the Pain Numerical Rating Scale and the Global Perceived Effect Scale. Results. All measures demonstrated high levels of internal consistency (Cronbachs α range = 0.88–0.90) and reproducibility (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient2,1 range = 0.85–0.94). High correlations among the disability-related measures were observed (Pearsons r ranging from 0.51 to 0.71). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. The PSFS was consistently more responsive than the other measures in both the internal responsiveness and external responsiveness analyses. Conclusion. The results from this study demonstrate that the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the RMDQ, the FRI and the PSFS have similar clinimetric properties to each other and to the original English versions. Of allthe measures tested in this study the PSFS seems the most responsive. These measures will enable international comparisons to be performed, and encourage researchers to include Portuguese speakers in their clinical trials.

Patient-centred communication is associated with positive therapeutic alliance: a systematic review

QUESTION During the patient-therapist encounter, which communication factors correlate with constructs of therapeutic alliance? DESIGN Systematic review. PARTICIPANTS Clinicians and patients in primary, secondary or tertiary care settings. MEASURES Studies had to investigate the association between communication factors (interaction styles, verbal factors or non-verbal factors) and constructs of the therapeutic alliance (collaboration, affective bond, agreement, trust, or empathy), measured during encounters between health practitioners and patients. RESULTS Among the twelve studies that met the inclusion criteria, 67 communication factors were identified (36 interaction styles, 17 verbal factors and 14 non-verbal factors). The constructs of therapeutic alliance in the included studies were rapport, trust, communicative success and agreement. Interaction styles that showed positive large correlations with therapeutic alliance were those factors that help clinicians to engage more with patients by listening to what they have to say, asking questions and showing sensitivity to their emotional concerns. Studies of verbal and non-verbal factors were scarce and inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS The limited evidence suggests patient-centred interaction styles related to the provision of emotional support and allowing patient involvement in the consultation process enhance the therapeutic alliance. Clinicians can use this evidence to adjust their interactions with patients to include communication strategies that strengthen the therapeutic alliance.

Changes in recruitment of transversus abdominis correlate with disability in people with chronic low back pain

Objectives Although motor control exercises have been shown to be effective in the management of low back pain (LBP) the mechanism of action is unclear. The current study investigated the relationship between the ability to recruit transversus abdominis and clinical outcomes of participants in a clinical trial. Methods Ultrasonography was used to assess the ability to recruit transversus abdominis in a nested design: a sample of 34 participants with chronic LBP was recruited from participants in a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of motor control exercise, general exercise and spinal manipulative therapy. Perceived recovery, function, disability and pain were also assessed. Results Participants with chronic LBP receiving motor control exercise had a greater improvement in recruitment of transversus abdominis (7.8%) than participants receiving general exercise (4.9% reduction) or spinal manipulative therapy (3.7% reduction). The effect of motor control exercise on pain reduction was greater in participants who had a poor ability to recruit transversus abdominis at baseline. There was a significant, moderate correlation between improved recruitment of transversus abdominis and a reduction in disability (r = −0.35; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.62). Conclusion These data provide some support for the hypothesised mechanism of action of motor control exercise and suggest that the treatment may be more effective in those with a poor ability to recruit transversus abdominis.