Articles: low-back-pain.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain.
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to examine the usefulness of the addition of specific stabilization exercises to a general back and abdominal muscle exercise approach for patients with subacute or chronic nonspecific back pain by comparing a specific muscle stabilization-enhanced general exercise approach with a general exercise-only approach. ⋯ A general exercise program reduced disability in the short term to a greater extent than a stabilization-enhanced exercise approach in patients with recurrent nonspecific low back pain. Stabilization exercises do not appear to provide additional benefit to patients with subacute or chronic low back pain who have no clinical signs suggesting the presence of spinal instability.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomized clinical trial in acute low back pain.
The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately defined the terms 'mobilization' and 'manipulation', nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n = 80), interferential therapy (IFT; n = 80), and a combination of both (CT; n = 80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was defined as any 'mobilization' (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or 'manipulation' (high velocity thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax. ⋯ There was a significant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (chi2 = 9.178; df = 2; P = 0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n = 21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n = 7/74; df = 1; P = 0.003). The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may reflect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain: education or exposure in vivo as mediator to fear reduction?
Clinical research of graded exposure in vivo with behavioral experiments in patients with chronic low back pain who reported fear of movement/(re)injury shows abrupt changes in self-reported pain-related fears and cognitions. The abrupt changes are more characteristics of insight learning rather than the usual gradual progression of trial and error learning. The educational session at the start of the exposure might have contributed to this insight. ⋯ Performance of relevant daily activities, however, were not affected by the educational session and improved significantly only in the exposure in vivo condition. All improvements remained at half-year follow-up only in patients receiving the exposure in vivo. These patients also reported a significant decrease in pain intensity at follow-up.
-
Bmc Musculoskel Dis · Jan 2005
Randomized Controlled TrialTesting the effectiveness of an innovative information package on practitioner reported behaviour and beliefs: the UK Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists Low back pain ManagemENT (COMPLeMENT) trial [ISRCTN77245761].
Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem. Initiatives designed to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for LBP include printed evidence-based clinical guidelines. The three professional groups of chiropractic, osteopathy and musculoskeletal physiotherapy in the UK share common ground with their approaches to managing LBP and are amongst those targeted by LBP guidelines. Even so, many seem unaware that such guidelines exist. Furthermore, the behaviour of at least some of these practitioners differs from that recommended in these guidelines. Few randomised controlled trials evaluating printed information as an intervention to change practitioner behaviour have utilised a no-intervention control. All these trials have used a cluster design and most have methodological flaws. None specifically focus upon practitioner behaviour towards LBP patients. Studies that have investigated other strategies to change practitioner behaviour with LBP patients have produced conflicting results. Although numerous LBP guidelines have been developed worldwide, there is a paucity of data on whether their dissemination actually changes practitioner behaviour. Primarily because of its low unit cost, sending printed information to large numbers of practitioners is an attractive dissemination and implementation strategy. The effect size of such a strategy, at an individual practitioner level, is likely to be small. However, if large numbers of practitioners are targeted, this strategy might achieve meaningful changes at a population level. ⋯ The primary aim of this prospective, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is to test the short-term effectiveness (six-months following intervention) of a directly-posted information package on the reported clinical behaviour (primary outcome), attitudes and beliefs of UK chiropractors, osteopaths and musculoskeletal physiotherapists. We sought to randomly allocate a combined sample of 1,800 consenting practitioners to receive either the information package (intervention arm) or no information above that gained during normal practice (control arm). We collected questionnaire data at baseline and six-months post-intervention. The analysis of the primary outcome will assess between-arm differences of proportions of responses to questions on recommendations about activity, work and bed-rest, that fall within categories previously defined by an expert consensus exercise as either 'guideline-consistent' and 'guideline-inconsistent'.
-
Bmc Musculoskel Dis · Jan 2005
Randomized Controlled TrialManipulative therapy and/or NSAIDs for acute low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial [ACTRN012605000036617].
Acute low back pain is a common condition resulting in pain and disability. Current national and international guidelines advocate general practitioner care including advice and paracetamol (4 g daily in otherwise well adults) as the first line of care for people with acute low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are advocated in many guidelines as second line management options for patients with acute low back pain who are not recovering. No studies have explored the role of NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to first line management for acute low back pain. The primary aim of this study is to investigate if NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to general practitioner advice and paracetamol results in shorter recovery times for patients with acute low back pain. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether the addition of SMT and/or NSAIDs influences pain, disability and global perceived effect at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks after onset of therapy for patients with significant acute low back pain. ⋯ This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial examining the addition of NSAIDs and/or SMT in 240 people who present to their general practitioner with significant acute low back pain.