PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Maurits van Tulder

Publications and source records attributed to Maurits van Tulder.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive method guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To help reviewers design, conduct, and report reviews of trials in the field of back and neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group published method guidelines for systematic reviews. Since its publication, new methodologic evidence emerged and more experience was acquired in conducting reviews. METHODS: All reviews and protocols of the Back Review Group were assessed for compliance with the 1997 method guidelines. Also, the most recent version of the Cochrane Handbook (4.1) was checked for new recommendations. In addition, some important topics that were not addressed in the 1997 method guidelines were included (e.g., methods for qualitative analysis, reporting of conclusions, and discussion of clinical relevance of the results). In May 2002, preliminary results were presented and discussed in a workshop. In two rounds, a list of all possible recommendations and the final draft were circulated for comments among the editors of the Back Review Group. RESULTS: The recommendations are divided in five categories: literature search, inclusion criteria, methodologic quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis. Each recommendation is classified in minimum criteria and further guidance. Additional recommendations are included regarding assessment of clinical relevance, and reporting of results and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews need to be conducted as carefully as the trials they report and, to achieve full impact, systematic reviews need to meet high methodologic standards.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2003

Rehabilitation following first-time lumbar disc surgery: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. 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 of these treatments, and there are still persistent fears of causing reinjury, reherniation, 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. METHODS: The authors searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Psyclit databases up to April 2000 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2001, issue 3. Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials on any type of active rehabilitation program after first-time disc surgery were included. Two independent reviewers performed the inclusion of studies, and two other reviewers independently performed the methodologic quality assessment. A rating system that consists of four levels of scientific evidence summarizes the results. 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 postsurgery, mainly because of the lack of good quality studies. For treatments that start 4 to 6 weeks postsurgery, 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 is 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 postsurgery, 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 postsurgery or later. None of the investigated treatments seem harmful with regard to reherniation or reoperation. 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 postoperative) and no evidence they increase the reoperation rate. It is unclear what the exact content of postsurgery rehabilitation should be. Moreover, there are no studies that investigated whether active rehabilitation programs should start immediately postsurgery or possibly 4 to 6 weeks later.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Low back pain.

Low back pain is a major burden to society. Many people will experience an episode of low back pain during their life. Some people develop chronic low back pain, which can be very disabling. Low back pain is associated with high direct and indirect costs. Recent epidemiological data suggest that there is a need to revise our views regarding the course of low back pain. Low back pain is not simply either acute or chronic but fluctuates over time with frequent recurrences or exacerbations. Also, low back pain may frequently be part of a widespread pain problem instead of being isolated, regional pain. Although epidemiological studies have identified many individual, psychosocial and occupational risk factors for the onset of low back pain, their independent prognostic value is usually low. Similarly, a number of factors have now been identified that may increase the risk of chronic disability but no single factor seems to have a strong impact. Consequently, it is still unclear what the most efficient strategy is for primary and secondary prevention. In general, multi-modal preventative approaches seem better able to reflect the clinical reality than single-modal interventions.

Acute Disease↗