Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Acute Disease↗
Biomedical subjects
M W van Tulder
Publications and source records attributed to M W van Tulder.
Cost effectiveness of brace, physiotherapy, or both for treatment of tennis elbow.
BACKGROUND: The annual incidence of tennis elbow in the general population is high (1-3%). Tennis elbow often leads to limitation of activities of daily living and work absenteeism. Physiotherapy and braces are the most common treatments. OBJECTIVES: The hypothesis of the trial was that no difference exists in the cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, braces, and a combination of the two for treatment of tennis elbow. METHODS: The trial was designed as a randomised controlled trial with intention to treat analysis. A total of 180 patients with tennis elbow were randomised to brace only (n = 68), physiotherapy (n = 56), or a combination of the two (n = 56). Outcome measures were success rate, severity of complaints, pain, functional disability, and quality of life. Follow up was at six, 26, and 52 weeks. Direct healthcare and non-healthcare costs and indirect costs were measured. Mean cost differences over 12 months were evaluated by applying non-parametric bootstrap techniques. RESULTS: No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Success rate at 12 months was 89% in the physiotherapy group, 86% in the brace group, and 87% in the combination group. Mean total costs per patient were 2069 euros in the brace only group, 978 euros in the physiotherapy group, and 1256 euros in the combination group. The mean difference in total costs between the physiotherapy and brace group was substantial (1005 euros), although not significant. Cost effectiveness ratios and cost utility ratios showed physiotherapy to be the most cost effective, although this also was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: No clinically relevant or statistically significant differences in costs were identified between the three strategies.
Absenteeism↗
Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica.
BACKGROUND: Various types of traction are used in the treatment of low-back pain (LBP), often in conjunction with other treatments. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of traction in the management of LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 4, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, references in relevant reviews, and our personal files. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by sets of two reviewers. As available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, a qualitative analysis was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs, involving 2177 patients (1016 receiving traction) were included in the review. Five trials were considered high quality. There is strong evidence that there is no significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between either continuous or intermittent traction and placebo, sham, or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. There is moderate evidence that: autotraction is more effective other forms of traction are no more effective than placebo, sham or no treatment for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is limited evidence that: there is no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with continuous traction and the same program without traction, for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica autotraction on its own is more effective than a physical therapy program that includes Tru-Trac traction for patients with a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. There is conflicting evidence regarding the short-term effectiveness of either continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or other treatments, in the management of patients who have either chronic LBP or a mixed duration of LBP with sciatica. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that traction is probably not effective. Neither continuous nor intermittent traction by itself was more effective in improving pain, disability or work absence than placebo, sham or other treatments for patients with a mixed duration of LBP, with or without sciatica. Although trials studying patients with sciatica had methodological limitations and inconsistent results, there was moderate evidence that autotraction was more effective than mechanical traction for global improvement in this population.
Humans↗
Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with LBP. However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2004 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French, or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials. Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of back school for nonspecific LBP were included. Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution, and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high-quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. Because data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence), taking into account the methodologic quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (3,584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodologic quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high-quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short- and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status, and return to work during short- and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short- and intermediate-term, compared with exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo, or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodologic quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.
Humans↗
Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain.
BACKGROUND: Exercise therapy is widely used as an intervention in low-back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy in adult non-specific acute, subacute and chronic low-back pain versus no treatment and other conservative treatments. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL databases to October 2004; citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy for adult non-specific low-back pain and measuring pain, function, return-to-work/absenteeism, and/or global improvement outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-one randomized controlled trials (6390 participants) met inclusion criteria: acute (11), subacute (6) and chronic (43) low-back pain (1 unclear). Evidence was found of effectiveness in chronic populations relative to comparisons at all follow-up periods; pooled mean improvement was 7.3 points (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.9) for pain (out of 100), 2.5 points (1.0 to 3.9) for function (out of 100) at earliest follow-up. In studies investigating patients (i.e. presenting to healthcare providers) mean improvement was 13.3 points (5.5 to 21.1) for pain, 6.9 (2.2 to 11.7) for function, representing significantly greater improvement over studies where participants included those recruited from a general population (e.g. with advertisements). There is some evidence of effectiveness of graded-activity exercise program in subacute low-back pain in occupational settings, though the evidence for other types of exercise therapy in other populations is inconsistent. There was evidence of equal effectiveness relative to comparisons in acute populations [pain: 0.03 points (95% CI, -1.3 to 1.4)]. LIMITATIONS: This review largely reflects limitations of the literature, including low quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures, inconsistent and poor reporting, and possibility of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy appears to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low-back pain, particularly in healthcare populations. In subacute low-back pain there is some evidence that a graded activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, though evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low-back pain, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments.
Acute Disease↗
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain.
BACKGROUND: Although low-back pain is usually a self-limiting and benign disease that tends to improve spontaneously over time, a large variety of therapeutic interventions are available for its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of acupuncture for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain and dry-needling for myofascial pain syndrome in the low-back region. 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 trials of acupuncture (that involves needling) for adults with non-specific (sub)acute or chronic low-back pain, or dry-needling for myofascial pain syndrome in the low-back region. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality (using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group) and extracted data. The trials were combined using meta-analyses methods or levels of evidence when the data reported did not allow statistical pooling. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs were included; 20 were published in English, seven in Japanese, five in Chinese and one each in Norwegian, Polish and German. There were only three trials of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. They did not justify firm conclusions, because of small sample sizes and low methodological quality of the studies. 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 at short-term follow-up. There is evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, effects are only small. 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data do not allow firm conclusions about 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 methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area.
Acupuncture Therapy↗
Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.
BACKGROUND: Behavioural treatment, commonly used in the treatment of chronic low-back pain (CLBP), is primarily focused at reducing disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. In general, three behavioural treatment approaches are distinguished: operant, cognitive and respondent. OBJECTIVES: To determine if behavioural therapy is more effective than reference treatments for CLBP, and which type of behavioural treatment is most effective. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycLIT databases up to October 2003. References of identified randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised trials on behavioural treatment for non-specific CLBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for post-treatment and long-term results for each comparison, for each domain (i.e., behavioural outcomes, overall improvement, back pain specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (33%) were considered high quality. Comparing behavioural treatment to waiting list control (WLC) revealed strong evidence (4 trials, 134 people) in favour of a combined respondent-cognitive therapy for a medium positive effect on pain, and moderate evidence (2 trials, 39 people) in favour of progressive relaxation for a large positive effect on pain and behavioural outcomes (short-term only). When comparing operant treatment to WLC no significant differences could be detected on general functional status (strong evidence: 2 trials, 87 people) or on behavioural outcomes (moderate evidence; 3 trials, 153 people) (short-term only). There is limited evidence (1 trial, 98 people) that a graded activity program in an industrial setting is more effective than usual care for early return to work and reduced long-term sick leave. There is limited evidence (1 trail, 39 people) that there are no differences between behavioural treatment and exercises. Finally, there is moderate evidence (6 trials, 210 people) that there are no significant differences in short-term and long-term effectiveness when behavioural components are added to usual treatment programs for CLBP (i.e. physiotherapy, back education) on pain, generic functional status and behavioural outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combined respondent-cognitive therapy and progressive relaxation therapy are more effective than WLC on short-term pain relief. However, it is unknown whether these results sustain in the long term. No significant differences could be detected between behavioural treatment and exercise therapy. Whether clinicians should refer patients with CLBP to behavioural treatment programs or to active conservative treatment cannot be concluded from this review.
Behavior Therapy↗
Trend in methodological quality of randomised clinical trials in low back pain.
During the past decades, the number of published randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of conservative treatments for low back pain has substantially increased. At the same time several initiatives were undertaken in order to improve the methodological quality of published randomised clinical trials, also in the field of low back pain. We investigated how the methodological quality of randomised clinical trials in the field of low back pain developed over time since the first published trial in 1961. Methodological scores of 269 RCTs included in 15 Cochrane reviews of conservative treatment for low back pain were compared. Overall many trials showed methodological shortcomings. The median overall quality scores ranged from 36 to 82% depending on the type of intervention. There were no improvements in median overall methodological quality over time from 1960 to 2004. Improvements were apparent for a few validity criteria only.
Humans↗
Effect on the process of care of an active strategy to implement clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect on the process of care of an active strategy to implement clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial comparing an active strategy with standard dissemination. SETTING: Primary care physiotherapy practices. PARTICIPANTS: 113 physiotherapists were randomly allocated to receive the guidelines by mail (control group) or to receive an additional active strategy (intervention group) which consisted of a multifaceted programme including education, discussion, role playing, feedback, and reminders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the guidelines was measured by means of individual patients' forms recording the treatment completed by the physiotherapist. The forms were assessed using an algorithm based on the number of treatment sessions, treatment goals, interventions, and patient education. RESULTS: Physiotherapists in the intervention group more often correctly limited the number of treatment sessions for patients with a normal course of back pain (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.12 to 5.12), more often set functional treatment goals (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.72), more often used mainly active interventions (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.19 to 6.55), and more often gave adequate patient education (OR 3.59; 95% CI 1.35 to 9.55). They also adhered more to all four criteria (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.65). CONCLUSIONS: The active strategy moderately improved adherence to the guidelines. Active strategies are recommended to implement the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain.
Evidence-Based Medicine↗
Back schools for non-specific low-back pain.
BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with low-back pain (LBP). However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with non-specific LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to May 2003 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on any type of back school for non-specific LBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. As data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited or no evidence), taking into account the methodological quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs (3584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodological quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting, are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status and return to work during short and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain, and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short and intermediate-term, compared to exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodological quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.
Exercise↗
Muscle relaxants for non-specific low back pain.
BACKGROUND: The use of muscle relaxants in the management of non-specific low back pain is controversial. It is not clear if they are effective, and concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects involved. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine if muscle relaxants are effective in the treatment of non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 up to October 2001) and EMBASE (1988 up to October 2001) was carried out. These databases were searched using the algorithm recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. References cited in the identified articles and other relevant literature were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and/or double-blinded controlled trials, involving patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, treated with muscle relaxants as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic modalities, were included for review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently carried out the methodological quality assessment and data extraction of the trials. The analysis comprised not only a quantitative analysis (statistical pooling) but also a qualitative analysis ("best evidence synthesis"). This involved the appraisal of the strength of evidence for various conclusions using a rating system based on the quality and outcomes of the studies included. Evidence was classified as "strong", "moderate", "limited", "conflicting" or "no" evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three trials (77%) were of high quality, 24 trials (80%) were on acute low back pain. Four trials studied benzodiazepines, 11 non-benzodiazepines and two antispasticity muscle relaxants in comparison with placebo. Results showed that there is strong evidence that any of these muscle relaxants are more effective than placebo for patients with acute LBP on short-term pain relief. The pooled RR for non-benzodiazepines versus placebo after two to four days was 0.80 [95% CI; 0.71 to 0.89] for pain relief and 0.49 [95% CI; 0.25 to 0.95] for global efficacy. Adverse events, however, with a relative risk of 1.50 [95% CI; 1.14 to 1.98] were significantly more prevalent in patients receiving muscle relaxants and especially the central nervous system adverse effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI; 1.23 to 3.37). The various muscle relaxants were found to be similar in performance. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution. Trials are needed that evaluate if muscle relaxants are more effective than analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Acute Disease↗
Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain: an international comparison.
BACKGROUND: The enormous socioeconomic burden of low back pain emphasises the need for effective management of this problem, especially in an occupational context. To address this, occupational guidelines have been issued in various countries. AIMS: To compare available international guidelines dealing with the management of low back pain in an occupational health care setting. METHODS: The guidelines were compared regarding generally accepted quality criteria using the AGREE instrument, and also summarised regarding the guideline committee, the presentation, the target group, and assessment and management recommendations (that is, advice, return to work strategy, and treatment). RESULTS: and CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the quality criteria were variously met by the guidelines. Common flaws concerned the absence of proper external reviewing in the development process, lack of attention to organisational barriers and cost implications, and lack of information on the extent to which editors and developers were independent. There was general agreement on numerous issues fundamental to occupational health management of back pain. The assessment recommendations consisted of diagnostic triage, screening for "red flags" and neurological problems, and the identification of potential psychosocial and workplace barriers for recovery. The guidelines also agreed on advice that low back pain is a self limiting condition and, importantly, that remaining at work or an early (gradual) return to work, if necessary with modified duties, should be encouraged and supported.
Disability Evaluation↗
[Systematic reviews in practice. IX. Determining their place in treatment recommendations in practice guidelines].
In a systematic review (SR), the available evidence for a clinical problem is systematically and comprehensively collected from different studies, the likelihood of bias is assessed and the results are summarised in a reproducible manner. The results of an SR can be used in either individual patient care or the formulation of a practice guideline. Throughout the world, (national) organisations for guideline development use systems for classifying the validity of evidence according to the study design ('levels of evidence'), and this is also the case in the Netherlands. In formulating a treatment recommendation, consideration must be given to the various factors which determine the strength of the evidence: study design, consistency of the results (if more studies are available), quality of the individual studies, magnitude and precision of the reported effect and the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. If insufficient studies with the same outcome measure are available, problems can arise in an SR. In practice, problems can also arise with respect to estimating the cogency of an SR compared to another review or primary studies. For the same subject, there might be discordant reviews, differences between reviews and megatrials might exist or just one randomised clinical trial might be available. These problems can often be solved with the aid of a systematic analysis. This requires both methodological and clinical expertise.
Bias↗
Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery.
BACKGROUND: Although several rehabilitation programs, physical fitness programs or protocols regarding instruction for patients to return to work after lumbar disc surgery have been suggested, little is known about the efficacy and effectiveness of these treatments. There are still persistent fears of causing re-injury, re-herniation, or instability. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of active treatments that are used in the rehabilitation after first-time lumbar disc surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psyclit databases up to April 2000 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2001, Issue 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials on any type of active rehabilitation program after first-time disc surgery were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers performed the inclusion of studies and two other reviewers independently performed the methodological quality assessment. A rating system that consists of four levels of scientific evidence summarizes the results. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, six of which were of high quality. There is no strong evidence for the effectiveness for any treatment starting immediately post-surgery, mainly because of lack of (good quality) studies. For treatments that start four to six weeks post-surgery there is strong evidence (level 1) that intensive exercise programs are more effective on functional status and faster return to work (short-term follow-up) as compared to mild exercise programs and there is strong evidence (level 1) that on long term follow up there is no difference between intensive exercise programs and mild exercise programs with regard to overall improvement. For all other primary outcome measures for the comparison between intensive and mild exercise programs there is conflicting evidence (level 3) with regard to long-term follow-up. Furthermore, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of supervised training as compared to home exercises. There was also no strong evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation as compared to usual care. There is limited evidence (level 3) that treatments in working populations that aim at return to work are more effective than usual care with regard to return to work. Also, there is limited evidence (level 3) that low-tech and high-tech exercises, started more than 12 months post-surgery are more effective in improving low back functional status as compared to physical agents, joint manipulations or no treatment. Finally, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of any specific intervention when added to an exercise program, regardless of whether exercise programs start immediately post-surgery or later. None of the investigated treatments seem harmful with regard to re-herniation or re-operation. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that patients need to have their activities restricted after first time lumbar disc surgery. There is strong evidence for intensive exercise programs (at least if started about 4-6 weeks post-operative) on short term for functional status and faster return to work and there is no evidence they increase the re-operation rate. It is unclear what the exact content of post-surgery rehabilitation should be. Moreover, there are no studies that investigated whether active rehabilitation programs should start immediately post-surgery or possibly four to six weeks later.
Exercise Therapy↗
Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison.
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study. OBJECTIVES: To compare national clinical guidelines on low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To rationalize the management of low back pain, clinical guidelines have been issued in various countries around the world. Given that the available scientific evidence is the same, irrespective of the country, one would expect these guidelines to include more or less similar recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted of primary care health professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. RESULTS: Clinical guidelines from 11 different countries published from 1994 until 2000 were included in this review. The content of the guidelines appeared to be quite similar regarding the diagnostic classification (diagnostic triage) and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Consistent features were the early and gradual activation of patients, the discouragement of prescribed bed rest, and the recognition of psychosocial factors as risk factors for chronicity. However, there were discrepancies for recommendations regarding exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, muscle relaxants, and patient information. CONCLUSION: The comparison of clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations were generally similar. Updates of the guidelines are planned in most countries, although so far produced only in the United Kingdom. However, new evidence may lead to stronger conclusions and enable future guidelines to become even more concordant.
Australia↗
Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in melanoma patients.
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is a rapidly developing new imaging technique in the diagnosis and staging of melanoma. The objective of the current study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET in patients with melanoma. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies regarding FDG-PET and cutaneous melanoma was conducted. Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents databases, without any language restrictions. Eleven studies were selected. The methodologic quality of these studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation were determined for each study. Six studies could be included in the statistical pooling. Sources of heterogeneity were studied by meta-regression of the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in the detection of melanoma metastases were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.66-0.93) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95), respectively. The pooled DOR of 33.1 (95% CI, 21.9-54.0) suggests a high diagnostic accuracy for PET. Subgroup analysis revealed that PET is more accurate for systemic staging (DOR of 36.4) than for regional staging (DOR of 19.5). When used for regional staging, PET performed better in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage III disease, compared with patients with Stage I and Stage II disease. However, the methodologic quality of the studies was limited. Major problems were verification, review, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the poor methodologic quality of the available studies, to the authors' knowledge it is yet not possible to develop guidelines for the effective use of PET in patients with melanoma. Future accuracy studies should meet the methodologic criteria outlined in the current review.
Diagnosis, Differential↗
Preventive interventions for back and neck pain problems: what is the evidence?
STUDY DESIGN: A review of controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine which interventions are used to prevent back and neck pain problems as well as what the evidence is for their utility. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Given the difficulty in successfully treating long-term back and neck pain problems, there has been a call for preventive interventions. Little is known, however, about the value of preventive efforts for nonpatients, e.g., in the general population or workplace. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched to locate all investigations that were: 1) specifically designed as a preventive intervention; 2) randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials; and, 3) using subjects not seeking treatment. Outcome was evaluated on the key variables of reported pain, report of injury, dysfunction, time off work, health-care utilization, and cost. Conclusions were drawn using a grading system. RESULTS: Twenty-seven investigations meeting the criteria were found for educational efforts, lumbar supports, exercises, ergonomics, and risk factor modification. For back schools, only one of the nine randomized trials reported a significant effect, and there was strong evidence that back schools are not effective in prevention. Because the randomized trials concerning lumbar supports were consistently negative, there is strong evidence that they are not effective in prevention. Exercises, conversely, showed stable positive results in randomized controlled trials, giving consistent evidence of relatively moderate utility in prevention. Because no properly controlled trials were found for ergonomic interventions or risk factor modification, there was not good quality evidence available to draw a conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results concerning prevention for subjects not seeking medical care are sobering. Only exercises provided sufficient evidence to conclude that they are an effective preventive intervention. There is a dire lack of controlled trials examining broad-based multidimensional programs. The need for high quality outcome studies is underscored.
Adult↗
Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain, but also to prevent the onset (primary prevention) or recurrences of a low back pain episode (secondary prevention). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of lumbar sup-ports for prevention and treatment of nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: The Medline, Cinahl, and Current Contents databases; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999; and the Embase database up to September 1998 were all searched. References of identified trials and systematic reviews were reviewed and the Science Citation Index used to identify additional trials. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A quantitative analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence was classified as strong, moderate, limited or conflicting, and no evidence. RESULTS: Five randomized and two nonrandomized preventive trials and six randomized therapeutic trials were included in the review. Only 4 of the 13 studies were of high quality. There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not effective for primary prevention. No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention. The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment, whereas it is still unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be a need for high quality randomized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of adequate compliance.
Braces↗