PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Esmail

Publications and source records attributed to R Esmail.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

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↗
PubMed2004

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↗
PubMed2002

Multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is, in many countries, the main cause of long term disability in middle age. Patients with chronic low back pain are often referred for multidisciplinary treatment. Previous published systematic reviews on this topic included no randomised controlled trials and pooled together controlled and non-controlled studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation on pain, function, employment, quality of life and global assessment outcomes in subjects with chronic disabling low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, CINAHL, Health STAR, and The Cochrane Library from the beginning of the database to June 1998 using the comprehensive search strategy recommended by the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. INTERVENTION specific key words for this review were: patient care team, patient care management, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, multiprofessional, multimodal, pain clinic and functional restoration. We also reviewed reference lists and consulted the editors of the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. SELECTION CRITERIA DESIGN: randomised controlled trials comparing multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a non-multidisciplinary control intervention. POPULATION: Adults with disabling low back pain of more than three months in duration. INTERVENTION: Patients had to be assessed and treated by qualified professionals according to a plan that addresses physical and at least one of psychological, or social/occupational dimensions. OUTCOMES: Only trials which reported treatment effect in at least one of pain, function, employment status, quality of life or global improvement. Exclusion: Pure educational interventions (back schools) and pure physical interventions were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selection, data extraction and quality grading of studies was done by two independent reviewers using pre-tested data forms. Study quality was assessed according to the scheme recommended by the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials with internal validity scores of five or more in a ten point scale were considered high quality. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. Given the marked heterogeneity in study settings, interventions and control groups we decided not to pool trial results in a meta-analysis. Instead, we summarized findings by strength of evidence and nature of intervention and control treatments. The evidence was judged to be strong when multiple high quality trials produced generally consistent findings. It was judged to be moderate when multiple low quality or one high quality and one or more low quality trials produced generally consistent findings. Evidence was considered to be limited when only one randomised trial existed or if findings of existing trials were inconsistent. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials (12 randomised comparisons) were included. They randomised a total of 1964 patients with chronic low back pain. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improved function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improved pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psycho-physical treatments did not improve pain, function or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improves pain and function. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2001

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments. RESULTS: Ten trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2001

A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the methodology of systematic reviews of conservative therapies for chronic nonspecific low back pain and to study the relation between the methodologic quality and other characteristics of these reviews. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Systematic reviews offer a concise summary of the evidence on treatment effectiveness, but flaws in their methodology can lead to invalid conclusions with serious implications for quality of patient care. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by two blinded authors using three inclusion criteria: 1) chronic nonspecific low back pain, 2) systematic review, and 3) conservative treatment intervention. Data were extracted from each review by three authors. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 1102 titles and abstracts; 109 met inclusion criteria. A review of the full text of these articles excluded an additional 73 articles. Data abstraction and methodologic assessment were conducted on 36 articles reviewing 19 discrete interventions. The average quality score was 4.1, ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high). There was a trend for recent reviews to be of higher quality. Fifty-six percent of the reviews had positive conclusions, but they had lower quality scores compared with those that had negative or uncertain conclusions. There were 27 (73%) qualitative and 10 (27%) quantitative summaries of results. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall quality of systematic reviews was satisfactory, the quality of the individual papers included in the reviews varied considerably. The reviews often provided contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of a wide range of commonly used conservative interventions for chronic nonspecific low back pain. These findings illustrate the pitfalls of systematic reviews where there are a number of low-quality trials and underscore the need for high-quality primary trials that will allow for more conclusive reviews.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration back review group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was performed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exercise therapy is a widely used treatment for low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy for low back pain with regard to pain intensity, functional status, overall improvement, and return to work. METHODS: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, PsycLIT, and reference lists of articles were searched. Randomized trials testing all types of exercise therapy for subjects with nonspecific low back pain with or without radiation into the legs were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Because trials were considered heterogeneous with regard to study populations, interventions, and outcomes, it was decided not to perform a meta-analysis, but to summarize the results using a rating system of four levels of evidence: strong, moderate, limited, or none. RESULTS: In this review, 39 trials were identified. There is strong evidence that exercise therapy is not more effective for acute low back pain than inactive or other active treatments with which it has been compared. There is conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with inactive treatments for chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was more effective than usual care by the general practitioner and just as effective as conventional physiotherapy for chronic low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarized in this systematic review does not indicate that specific exercises are effective for the treatment of acute low back pain. Exercises may be helpful for patients with chronic low back pain to increase return to normal daily activities and work.

Exercise Therapy↗
PubMed2000

Back schools for non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1980, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. Back schools are frequently used in the treatment of low back pain patients. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of back schools for patients with non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Medline and Embase databases up to December 1997 and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to December 1998 if reported in English, Dutch, French or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised trials that reported on any type of back school for non-specific low back pain were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers blinded with respect to authors, institution and journal independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Our preset "high quality" level was 6 or more out of 11 internal validity criteria with positive scores. As data were statistically and clinically too heterogeneous, a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) was performed. The evidence was classified into 4 levels (strong, moderate, limited or no evidence) taking into account the methodological quality of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were included in our systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality was low. Only 3 trials were considered high quality. It was not possible to make relevant subgroup analyses for radiation versus no radiation or to have a relevant subgroup of studies reporting on acute low back pain only. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence that back schools have better short-term effects than other treatments for chronic low back pain, and that there is moderate evidence that back schools in an occupational setting are more effective compared to 'placebo' or waiting list controls. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Back schools may be effective for patients with recurrent and chronic low back pain in occupational settings, but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of back schools.

Exercise↗
PubMed2000

Exercise therapy for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Exercise therapy is a widely used treatment for low back pain. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of exercise therapy for low back pain with regard to pain intensity, functional status, overall improvement and return to work. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1999, issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 - April 1999), EMBASE (1988 - September 1998), PsycLIT (from 1984 to April 1999) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of all types of exercise therapy for subjects with non-specific low back pain with or without radiation into the legs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Because trials were considered heterogeneous with regard to study populations, interventions and outcomes, we decided not to perform a meta-analysis but to summarise the results using a rating system of four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited or no evidence). MAIN RESULTS: 39 RCTs were identified. There is strong evidence that exercise therapy is not more effective than inactive or other active treatments it has been compared with for acute low back pain. There is conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with inactive treatments for chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was more effective than usual care by the general practitioner and equally effective as conventional physiotherapy for chronic low back pain. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarised in this systematic review does not indicate that specific exercises are effective for the treatment of acute low back pain. Exercises may be helpful for chronic low back pain patients to increase return to normal daily activities and work.

Exercise Therapy↗
PubMed2000

Compliance with recommendations in a geriatric outreach assessment service.

OBJECTIVES: to measure the extent to which the recommendations of a geriatric outreach assessment service were being followed, and to determine what patient-related factors were associated with compliance with assessment recommendations. METHODS: eighty-one eligible patients or caregivers who had an assessment in a geriatric outreach service participated in a telephone interview. The interview focused on the use of health services and compliance with assessment recommendations. Patient-related variables obtained from charts included demographics, caregiver support and stability, health status and assessment recommendations. RESULTS: overall compliance with recommendations from the geriatric outreach assessment service was 65%. Patients were less likely comply fully with recommendations if they had a high number of recommendations [odds ratio (OR) = 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12-0.46; P = 0.0001], inadequate caregiver support (OR = 0.212; 95% CI = 0.04 to 1.02; P = 0.0523), or the ability to transfer themselves independently (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.02-0.63; P = 0.0124). They were more likely to have full compliance if they had normal vision (OR = 6.67; 95% CI = 1.22-36.46; P = 0.0284). CONCLUSION: it is important to focus on key issues when developing service recommendations and on the role of the informal caregiver in facilitating compliance with them. Good communication between the patient or caregiver and the family physician and geriatric services can help to identify strategies which might improve acceptance of recommendations.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

Ventilatory care in a selection of Ontario hospitals: bigger is not necessarily better! Critical Care Research Network (CCR-Net).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is variability in the structure and process of ventilatory care in intensive care units (ICUs) of the hospitals of Southwestern Ontario. DESIGN: Self-administered questionnaire-based survey. SETTING: ICUs of selected community and teaching hospitals of Southwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Head of respiratory therapy service of respective hospitals; in those hospitals without respiratory therapists, the ICU nurse manager. INTERVENTION: Self-administered questionnaire. OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The availability of different models of ventilators and respiratory therapist and physician coverage were assessed. In addition, the use of clinical practice guidelines, respiratory therapists, and the nursing role in ventilatory care were determined. RESULTS: In general, the structure of ventilatory care, including availability of different modes of ventilation, and coverage by respiratory therapists and physicians was more comprehensive in larger hospitals. However, the availability of some modes of ventilation varied more than expected among hospitals of comparable size. Similarly, variability in the process of ventilatory care, defined by the availability of clinical practice guidelines and the roles of respiratory therapists varied both within and among hospitals of different size. CONCLUSIONS: The structure and process of ventilatory care in this sample of Southwestern Ontario ICUs was found to be variable. Not all this variability could be accounted for by hospital size, suggesting a potential for improvement in overall ventilatory care. Further study is required before any specific recommendations can be considered.

Critical Care↗
PubMed1998

Withdrawal and withholding of life support in the intensive care unit: a comparison of teaching and community hospitals. The Southwestern Ontario Critical Care Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of withdrawal or withholding of life support (WD/WHLS), and to identify similarities and differences in the process of the withdrawal of life support (WDLS) between teaching and community hospitals' intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, with some data obtained by retrospective chart review. SETTING: The ICUs of three teaching hospitals and six community hospitals. PATIENTS: All patients who died in these nine ICUs over a 6-mo period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on admitting diagnosis, cause of death, mode of death (death despite active treatment, withdrawal or withholding of life support), those initiating and involved in WDLS, and modalities of life support withdrawn were gathered for patients dying in the ICU over a 6-mo period. One hundred sixty patients in community hospitals and 292 in teaching hospitals died in their respective ICUs over the 6-mo period. We found a difference in the distribution of mode of death between community hospitals and teaching hospitals, resulting from a greater proportion of patients dying as a result of withholding life support in community hospitals (11.9% vs. 3.8% withheld, respectively, p = .004). Among the six community hospitals and three teaching hospitals, we found a difference in the proportion of patients dying despite active treatment compared with those dying as a result of WD/WHLS (p = .042 and p = .044, respectively). Initiation of WDLS by physicians was more frequent at teaching hospitals (81% vs. 61%, p = .0005), while families more commonly initiated WDLS at community hospitals (34% vs. 19%, p = .005). A greater proportion of patients in teaching hospitals were receiving mechanical ventilation (99% vs. 89%) and vasopressors (76% vs. 65%) before WDLS. Similar proportions had mechanical ventilation withdrawn (68% and 74%, community hospitals and teaching hospitals, respectively), while there was a trend for fewer patients in community hospitals to have vasopressors withdrawn (56% vs. 70%, p = .082). The time to death after WDLS had begun was longer in community hospitals compared with teaching hospitals (0.74 +/- 1.38 days vs. 0.27 +/- 0.79 [SD] days, p = .0028). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of WD/WHLS was similar in community hospitals and teaching hospitals; however, withholding of life support was more common in community hospitals. The process of WDLS appears to differ between community hospitals and teaching hospitals.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Potential savings involved in the purchase of low-cost, high-volume medical commodities as established from a community hospital survey.

Health technology refers to the instruments, equipment, drugs and procedures used in health care delivery, as well as the organizations supporting it. Health technology assessment, which is the process of conducting investigations to establish the criteria for efficacious, effective and efficient patient care, is becoming increasingly important in an era of diminishing resources. This survey of 39 community hospitals in southwestern Ontario found that improved purchasing strategies can result in substantial cost savings which can in turn be used to improve patient care. The study shows that optimizing the price of basic hospital commodities could save an average community hospital as much as $625,000 per year.

Cost Control↗