PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Back Pain”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

The effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on return-to-work after low back pain; a prospective two year cohort study in six countries on low back pain patients sicklisted for 3-4 months.

AIMS: To study occurrence and effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on return-to-work applied for workers with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: A multinational cohort of 1631 workers fully sicklisted 3-4 months due to LBP (ICD-9 codes 721, 722, 724) was recruited from sickness benefit claimants databases in Denmark, Germany, Israel, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States. Medical, ergonomic, and other interventions, working status, and return-to-work were measured using questionnaires and interviews at three months, one and two years after the start of sickleave. Main outcome measure was time to return-to-work. Cox's proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios regarding the time to return-to-work, adjusted for prognostic factors. RESULTS: Ergonomic interventions varied considerably in occurrence between the national cohorts: 23.4% (mean) of the participants reported adaptation of the workplace, ranging from 15.0% to 30.5%. Adaptation of job tasks and adaptation of working hours was applied for 44.8% (range 41.0-59.2%) and 46.0% (range 19.9-62.9%) of the participants, respectively. Adaptation of the workplace was effective on return-to-work rate with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.47 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.72; p < 0.0001). Adaptation of job tasks and adaptation of working hours were effective on return-to-work after a period of more than 200 days of sickleave with an adjusted HR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.23; p < 0.0001) and 1.41 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.76; p = 0.002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that ergonomic interventions are effective on return-to-work of workers long term sicklisted due to LBP.

Absenteeism↗
PubMed2005

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: the long-term outcome pattern in patients with low back pain treated by chiropractors in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the low back pain (LBP) pattern at baseline; (2) to describe the long-term outcome pattern; (3) to investigate the presence of distinct subgroups in relation to outcome; (4) to establish whether short-term outcome is a predictor of long-term outcome. METHODS: A 3- to 6- and 12- to 18-month, multicenter practice-based, prospective descriptive study was performed in private chiropractic practices in Sweden. Fifty-eight of 64 previously compliant chiropractors each recruited a maximum of 30 consecutive patients with LBP. Complete baseline clinical information was provided on 1054 patients, of which 93% were interviewed approximately 3 months later, and 57% responded to a questionnaire at approximately 12 months. Chiropractic treatment was decided by the treating chiropractor. Twelve descriptive subgroups were created based on (1) duration of LBP at baseline, (2) duration of LBP in the past year, and (3) LBP pattern in the past year. The predictive value was tested for outcome status at the fourth visit. Information on self-reported LBP status and improvement over the past months were collected. RESULTS: Patients were spread in a U-shaped fashion from benign to severe with the 2 extreme groups being most prevalent. About half the participants reported "no LBP in the past week" at 3 months and somewhat fewer at 12 months. Almost 75% claimed to be definitely better at 3 months, and approximately 50% at 12 months. Specific predictive subgroups can be identified, mainly in relation to the past-year history of LBP. Improvement at the fourth visit is a predictor of long-term outcome. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of specific subgroups may improve the quality of care and the selection of homogeneous study populations in clinical trials.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

[Cause-specific treatment for nonspecific low back pain].

Nonspecific low back pain has long been a troublesome clinical entity in that the diagnoses are usually hard to define, and the effect of treatment unsure. We have been conducting long-term basic and clinical research in Zhujiang Hospital in an effort to find the exact mechanism for this disease and to explore its causal treatment. On the basis of literature review and treatment result evaluation, we recommend the following approaches for origin-specific diagnosis and treatments: (1) For spinal nerve dorsal ramus syndrome caused by mechanical stimulation on the stem part of the dorsal ramus, freezing the dorsal ramus with liquid-nitrogen may constitute the primary treatment. (2) In cases of low back pain originated from the lumbar disc due to degeneration of discs, treatment may be implemented through disc resection with or without arthrodesis. (3) Facet syndrome, a condition with low back pain that is seldom caused by pathological changes in the facet itself, but mostly by the pulling of the dorsal ramus due to the dislocation of the facet, should be attributed to the dorsal ramus syndrome. (4) Lumbar vertebra instability arising from loosened intervertebral conjunction calls for arthrodesis as the primary choice. (5) Interspinal ligaments injury can be most effectively treated by the combination of blocking and needle knife loosing. (6) Low back pain with underlying causes in the internal organs is often caused by diseases in the pelvic organs, and only these diseases are cured can the back pain be relieved. These origin-specific diagnosis and treatments we proposed here await further investigation and comments from our peers interested in this problem.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

An electronic diary assessment of the effects of distraction and attentional focusing on pain intensity in chronic low back pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the effects of a manipulation of attention to pain (i.e. attentional focusing vs. distraction) on pain intensity in daily life of patients with chronic low back pain. It was hypothesized that attentional focusing would lead to decreased pain intensity in high pain fearful individuals, whereas distraction from pain would be associated with decreased pain intensity in low pain fearful individuals. DESIGN: An experience sampling methodology was used to examine the effects of a manipulation of attention to pain on pain intensity in daily life of pain patients. METHODS: A total number of 38 patients with chronic low back pain participated in this study and carried a palmtop computer for 2 weeks. During this period, patients were 'beeped' 8 times a day to complete diary questions. On certain days, instructions to either attend to or distract from pain were given. RESULTS: Multi-level analyses showed that attentional focusing was not associated with decreased pain intensity in high pain fearful individuals and that distraction did not lead to decreased pain intensity in low pain fearful individuals. The manipulations in isolation neither influenced pain intensity. The manipulation check was generally weak. CONCLUSION: A manipulation of attention to pain in daily life of patients with chronic low back pain proved difficult to accomplish. As the manipulation check was generally unsuccessful, no clear inferences about the underlying theory can be made. Future research within the field of pain treatments (e.g. in vivo exposure) might benefit greatly from electronic diary assessments studies.

Attention↗
PubMed2002

Using the dallas pain questionnaire to classify individuals with low back pain in a working population.

STUDY DESIGN: Individuals with low back pain were classified by cluster analysis of their responses to the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. These results enabled development of an alternative simple classification tool that yielded results close to those obtained by the cluster analysis. OBJECTIVES: To use the Dallas Pain Questionnaire to classify workers with low back pain, and to develop a practical classification tool for physicians. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The severity of low back pain is important information for patient management. Questionnaires exploring the multidimensional aspect of low back pain have been used to classify individuals with low back pain. The Dallas Pain Questionnaire is a short self-administered questionnaire that explores the functional and emotional aspects of chronic low back pain. It was tested in a population still at work using a simplified scoring system. METHODS: The study included 765 persons with low back pain still at work who completed the self-administered questionnaire. Of these patients, 732 could be classified by cluster analysis according to their answers to the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. A classification tool was developed to categorize them. Using external variables, the groups thus formed were compared. RESULTS: Respondents were classified into four classes: class 1 (minor disability), class 2 (intermediate disability), class 3 (disability for some physical activities), and class 4 (physical disability and emotional disturbance). External pain-related variables were clearly associated with increasing low back pain severity as measured by this classification tool. CONCLUSIONS: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire discriminated between different groups of persons with low back pain. The proposed classification uses a short, simple practical tool to assess different levels of low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Management of chronic disabling low back pain with 360 degrees fusion. Results from pain provocation test and concurrent posterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and pedicle screw instrumentation in patients with chronic disabling low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A follow-up study conducted by an independent observer was performed on the authors' first 29 consecutive patients treated with concurrent posterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and pedicle screw instrumentation, for whom at least 2 years had transpired since the operation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of concurrent instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion used to manage chronic disabling low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients chosen for surgery all had a history of chronic disabling low back pain exceeding 2 years and a sick leave period in excess of 6 months (average, 3.4 years). METHODS: From 1989 to 1993, 29 consecutive patients were surgically treated with fusion. The level of fusion was chosen depending on radiologic changes and results from a intradiscal injection provocation test. Bone union was verified by computed tomography scan with 1-mm-thin slices and sagittal reformation, and by a "second look" in all but three patients. All patients were evaluated subsequently by an independent observer in November 1995, 4.7 years after surgery on the average. RESULTS: Bone fusion was obtained in 27 of the 29 patients (93%). There was a highly significant reduction in back and leg pain measurements. Of the 29 patients, the results were excellent in 9 patients (31%), good in 6 patients (21%), fair in 6 patients (21%), and poor in 8 patients (27%). A total of 18 patients (62%) had returned to work. CONCLUSION: The authors consider posterior lumbar interbody fusion with concurrent posterolateral fusion and pedicle screw instrumentation a possible method for managing chronic disabling low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Measuring self-reported functional status and pain in patients with chronic low back pain by postal questionnaires: a reliability study.

STUDY DESIGN: A reliability study was performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of self-reported functional status and pain in chronic low back pain patients by postal questionnaires. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evaluation tools focusing on the patients' self-reported physical function are recommended in studies on low back pain. Postal questionnaires are inexpensive and should be considered to assess long-term results. The reliability of a postal questionnaire has not been assessed in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Forty-two patients with chronic low back pain (15 men, 27 women; mean age, 40 years; range, 20-61 years) agreed to participate in the study. The mean duration of symptoms was 8.9 years (range, 1-40 years). A postal questionnaire was sent to the patients twice within a 2-week interval. The questionnaire included the following items: work, back satisfaction, General Function Score (GFS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain, fear-avoidance beliefs, life satisfaction and pain medication. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (88%) returned both questionnaires. Except for lumbar pain, there were no statistical differences between the answers from the two questionnaires. The intraclass coefficient values ranged from 0.70 (lumbar pain) to 0.94 (ODI). The repeatability or absolute size of measurement error was 11.9 for the ODI and 28.6 and 34.2 for lumbar and leg pain, respectively. The kappa values for work, back satisfaction, and pain medication were 0.94 and 0.61, 0.62, and 0.64, respectively. The kappa values for the separate items in the GFS ranged from 0.41 to 0.79. The correlations between ODI and the GFS, lumbar pain, life satisfaction, and back satisfaction were 0.35, -0.72, -0.76, and 0.76, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ODI was highly reliable. The questions about work, back satisfaction, and pain medication showed good agreement. The GFS, pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and life satisfaction appeared to lack sufficient reliability to be recommended in postal questionnaires.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Epidemiology of low-back pain in industry.

Low-back pain and back injuries are of such a complex nature that any one criterion cannot be applied by itself to give a valid assessment of the risk associated with manual materials-handling jobs. There is no question that low-back pain is an extremely significant cause of disability and has a major socioeconomic impact, but many different personal and job factors are associated with the incidence and prevalence of these complaints. There is a need for ongoing systematic investigations of the multiple risk factors that may be causally related to low-back pain and may possibly be amendable to preventive interventions. Knowledge of workplace and individual risk factors is far from complete. Prospective studies are needed so that factors contributing to the development of low-back pain can be separated from factors resulting from low-back pain. It is difficult to relate low-back pain to the workplace because it occurs quite often in workers employed in sedentary occupations. However, incidence, severity, and disability are all related to the physical demands of the job. In this regard, jobs involving lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, and holding; body movements such as frequent bending, twisting, and sudden movements; and working in bent-over postures appear to have a significant potential for producing low-back pain. A combination of lifting, bending, and twisting appears to be most hazardous. It is concluded that lifting heavy loads contributes to increased frequency and severity rates for low-back pain. This is true regardless of whether the lifting is performed over a short period or throughout the day and whether it is performed a few times per day of repetitively. If, however, such lifting is performed repetitively, the medical hazard extends beyond low-back problems to other musculoskeletal strain and sprain injuries and to fatigue-related injuries, particularly for weaker workers. In this latter regard, gender, age, anthropometry, and previous history of back pain are known to modify these risks for populations of workers. The inherent variability between workers and within any worker over time precludes the use of such factors to assign risk to any particular individual.

Female↗
PubMed1998

Validation of the French version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire in chronic low back pain patients.

OBJECTIVES: To translate and to validate the metrological properties of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire, an instrument designed to evaluate the impact of low back pain on four aspects of patients' lives: daily activities, work and leisure activities, anxiety/depression and social interest. METHODS: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire, originally in English, was translated into French. The metrological properties of the French version were investigated in a cohort of 59 patients with chronic low back pain due to degenerative disk disease. Duration of the pain was between three and 24 months. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and/or analgesics, local corticosteroid injections and a plaster lumbar corset. Patients were evaluated at baseline, after ten days (under the same treatment), and at completion of the treatment. RESULTS: Results were reproducible for all four areas of the questionnaire (CCI > 0.75). Internal structural validity was satisfactory for the four areas (Cronbach alpha test = 0.89 to 0.91). At baseline, the pain score on a visual analog scale was significantly correlated with the Dallas scores for daily activities, anxiety/depression and social interest (external structural validity). The daily activities, work/leisure and anxiety/depression scores were sensitive to change (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.003, respectively), whereas the social interest score was not (P = 0.11). CONCLUSION: The French version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire is valid, reproducible, and sensitive to change in chronic low back pain patients.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1988

Differential diagnosis of severe back pain using MRI.

Back pain, despite its prevalence, often presents a diagnostic dilemma. Infection, degeneration, and neoplasm comprise major etiologic categories of severe nonspecific back pain. Diagnostic evaluation includes plain roentgenograms, computerized tomography, and radionuclide studies, all of which are often equivocal or misleading. We retrospectively analyzed 21 presentations of severe back pain of various causes evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to conventional diagnostic imaging modes. A characteristic MRI pattern of both the lesions's distribution and its signal intensity was observed that delineated each etiologic category. MRI was found to be particularly suited for use in the differential diagnosis of nonspecific back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Personal history, training, and worksite as predictors of back pain of nurses.

Back pain among nurses is a common problem. Prior studies of this problem have been based on cross-sectional or retrospective data. This 18-month prospective study involving nurses newly graduated from nursing school investigated personal, worksite, and training factors associated with future risk of back pain. Each nurse underwent a preliminary interview and periodic follow-ups to identify those with back injuries. Contingency tables and logistic regression analyses demonstrated that prior significant back pain episodes (evidenced by previous job changes because of back pain, frequent medication use, etc.) were associated with increased future risk. Training at nursing school or on the job did not have a protective effect. This pilot study therefore suggests factors useful in placement and counseling of new nurses and indicates the need for further implementation of mechanical lift assist device use.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed2005

Management of chronic low back pain.

Chronic low back pain is common. It presents a clinical challenge with widespread implications for resource utilization on a national scale. The causes of chronic low back pain may be mechanical or nonmechanical, nociceptive or neuropathic. Diagnosis is problematic because available tools lack both specificity and sensitivity. In rare instances, the cause of chronic low back pain can be attributed to an identified cause. Comprehensive pain management relies on the use of pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, and a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. Recent studies have shown a benefit for traditional adjunctive therapies and interdisciplinary treatment. Antidepressants and opioids have been and remain key elements for medical management, and some recently developed therapies have shown promising results in clinical trials. The following article presents an overview of evidence-based management for chronic low back pain, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical therapies.

Catheter Ablation↗
PubMed2006

Technology Insight: imaging of low back pain.

Chronic low back pain is a common condition that has significant economic consequences for affected patients and their communities. Despite the prevailing view that an anatomic diagnosis is often impossible, an origin for the pain can frequently be found if current diagnostic techniques are fully used. Such techniques include a mixture of noninvasive and invasive imaging. Prevalence data suggest that the intervertebral disc is one of the most common sources of back pain, accounting for around 40% of cases. The pathologic basis for discogenic low back pain might be full-thickness radial tears of the annulus fibrosus. Unfortunately, only MRI can image the internal morphology of the disc, and both CT and MRI lack the necessary specificity to validate this hypothesis. Many so-called radiographic abnormalities seen on CT and MRI are commonly encountered in asymptomatic individuals. Invasive techniques such as joint injections, nerve blocks and provocative discography can show the connection between an abnormal image and the source of low back pain, but do have notable related risks. The development of a noninvasive, low-risk technique that can show this connection is desirable.

Humans↗
PubMed1997

Primary care management of acute low back pain.

Acute low back pain will affect more than 80% of the population, with more than 28% of the industrial workforce suffering from lost work. Acute low back pain is recognized as the third most common illness presenting to private practice groups. The psychosocial overtones of depression and anxiety that often coexist or predate the episode of acute low back pain add to its complexity and cost. Diagnosis and treatment options are reviewed based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research recommendations of 1994. This article reviews details of the history and physical with emphasis on the importance of a thorough neurologic and psychologic evaluation. "Red flags" that should warn the clinician of the presence of a more acute illness are discussed with recommendations for referral. The treatment of acute low back pain now centers on increasing mobility and functional use of the spine as soon as possible. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents as well as aspirin and acetaminophen are recommended as first-line drug treatments; they have been found to be equally as effective as muscle relaxants and opioids for the control of pain without the burden of dependence and potential for abuse.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

An analysis of the relationship between activity and pain in chronic and acute low back pain.

We studied the temporal relationship between pain and activity in patients with acute or chronic low back pain. We studied 15 patients with acute low back pain and 15 patients with chronic low back pain over 3 wk. The activity levels were collected automatically using a wrist accelerometer and were sampled every minute. The pain levels were recorded at least every 90 min using a pocket-sized electronic diary. The time series from each patient were then analyzed using the cross-correlation function at various time offsets. We found that during the first 7 days of acute low back pain, there was a significant (P < 0.01) degree of cross-correlation between activity and pain. On average, pain followed activity by approximately 30 min. As these patients improved and reported less pain, the relationship between activity and pain disappeared. There was no such relationship at any point among the patients with chronic low back pain.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Do minimally invasive procedures have a place in the treatment of chronic low back pain?

Chronic low back pain is the leading cause of disability in the industrialized world. Medical and surgical treatments remain costly despite limited efficacy. The field of 'interventional pain' has grown enormously and evidence-based practice guidelines are systematically developed. In this article, the vast, complex and contradictory literature regarding the treatment of chronic low back pain is reviewed. Interventional pain literature suggests that there is moderate evidence (small randomized, nonrandomized, single group or matched-case controlled studies) for medial branch neurotomy and limited evidence (nonexperimental one or more center studies) for intradiscal treatments in mechanical low back pain. There is moderate evidence for the use of transforaminal epidural steroid injections, lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy for painful lumbar radiculopathy, and spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal pumps mostly after spinal surgery. In reality, there is no gold standard for the treatment of chronic low back pain, but these results appear promising.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2002

The effect of spinal introducer needle use on postoperative back pain.

Postdural puncture back pain has a reported incidence ranging from 2% to 29% following the administration of a spinal anesthetic. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the back pain and patient satisfaction scores after the administration of a spinal anesthetic with or without the use of an 18-gauge introducer needle. Eighty-four men and women were randomly assigned to either control or experimental groups; 67 were included in data analysis. The control group (n = 33) received spinal anesthesia using only a spinal needle, while the experimental group (n = 34) received spinal anesthesia using an introducer needle to guide the placement of the spinal needle. Pain measurements were measured using a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale upon arrival in the postanesthesia care unit, and at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. Patient satisfaction scores were evaluated using a 1 to 5 Lickert scale. No significant differences were found between groups concerning back pain or patient satisfaction scores upon discharge from the postanesthesia care unit, nor at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. However, a significant increase in the number of redirections between groups was observed in the nonintroducer group; despite this, back pain and patient satisfaction scores were not affected.

Adult↗