Ability to discriminate between healthy and low back pain sufferers using ultrasound during maximum lumbar extension

Objective To analyze the ability to discriminate between healthy individuals and individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) by measuring the relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures of the erector spinae (ES) muscles using an ultrasound during maximal isometric lumbar extension. Design Cross-sectional study with screening and diagnostic tests with no blinded comparison. Setting University laboratory. Participants Healthy individuals (n=33) and individuals with CNLBP (n=33). Interventions Each subject performed an isometric lumbar extension. With the variables measured, a discriminate analysis was performed using a value ≥6 in the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) as the grouping variable. Then, a logistic regression with the functional and architectural variables was performed. A new index was obtained from each subject value input in the discriminate multivariate analysis. Main Outcome Measures Morphologic muscle variables of the ES muscle were measured through ultrasound images. The reliability of the measures was calculated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The relation between patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcome measures was analyzed using a discriminate function from standardized values of the variables and an analysis of the reliability of the ultrasound measurement. Results The reliability tests show an ICC value >.95 for morphologic and functional variables. The independent variables included in the analysis explained 42% (P=.003) of the dependent variable variance. Conclusions The relation between objective variables (electromyography, thickness, pennation angle) and a subjective variable (RMDQ ≥6) and the capacity of this relation to identify CNLBP within a group of healthy subjects is moderate. These results should be considered by clinicians when treating this type of patient in clinical practice.

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). RESULTS: Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned 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 de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=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 re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.

Exercise and Auricular Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effects of adding auricular acupuncture (AA) to exercise for participants with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). Methods: Participants with CLBP were recruited from primary care and a university population and were randomly allocated (n=51) to 1 of 2 groups: (1) "Exercise Alone (E)"-12-week program consisting of 6 weeks of supervised exercise followed by 6 weeks unsupervised exercise (n=27); or (2) "Exercise and AA (EAA)"-12-week exercise program and AA (n=24). Outcome measures were recorded at baseline, week 8, week 13, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Results: Participants in the EAA group demonstrated a greater mean improvement of 10.7% points (95% confidence interval, -15.3,-5.7) (effect size=1.20) in the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire at 6 months compared with 6.7% points (95% confidence interval, -11.4,-1.9) in the E group (effect size=0.58). There was also a trend towards a greater mean improvement in quality of life, LBP intensity and bothersomeness, and fear-avoidance beliefs in the EAA group. The dropout rate for this trial was lower than anticipated (15% at 6 mo), adherence with exercise was similar (72% E; 65% EAA). Adverse effects for AA ranged from 1% to 14% of participants. Discussion: Findings of this study showed that a main RCT is feasible and that 56 participants per group would need to be recruited, using multiple recruitment approaches. AA was safe and demonstrated additional benefits when combined with exercise for people with CLBP, which requires confirmation in a fully powered RCT.

The back 2 activity trial: education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain.:education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports the use of exercise-based treatment for chronic low back pain that encourages the patient to assume an active role in their recovery. Walking has been shown it to be an acceptable type of exercise with a low risk of injury. However, it is not known whether structured physical activity programmes are any more effective than giving advice to remain active.

METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study will test the feasibility of using a pedometer-driven walking programme, as an adjunct to a standard education and advice session in participants with chronic low back pain. Fifty adult participants will be recruited via a number of different sources. Baseline outcome measures including self reported function; objective physical activity levels; fear-avoidance beliefs and health-related quality of life will be recorded. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated under strict, double blind conditions to one of two treatments groups. Participants in group A will receive a single education and advice session with a physiotherapist based on the content of the 'Back Book'. Participants in group B will receive the same education and advice session. In addition, they will also receive a graded pedometer-driven walking programme prescribed by the physiotherapist. Follow up outcomes will be recorded by the same researcher, who will remain blinded to group allocation, at eight weeks and six months post randomisation. A qualitative exploration of participants' perception of walking will also be examined by use of focus groups at the end of the intervention. As a feasibility study, treatment effects will be represented by point estimates and confidence intervals. The assessment of participant satisfaction will be tabulated, as will adherence levels and any recorded difficulties or adverse events experienced by the participants or therapists. This information will be used to modify the planned interventions to be used in a larger randomised controlled trial.

DISCUSSION: This paper describes the rationale and design of a study which will test the feasibility of using a structured, pedometer-driven walking programme in participants with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: [ISRCTN67030896].

Pedometer-driven walking for chronic low back pain:A feasibility randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of an RCT of a pedometer-driven walking program and education/advice to remain active compared with education/advice only for treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Fifty-seven participants with CLBP recruited from primary care were randomly allocated to either: (1) education/advice (E, n=17) or (2) education/advice plus an 8-week pedometer-driven walking program (EWP, n=40). Step targets, actual daily step counts, and adverse events were recorded in a walking diary over the 8 weeks of intervention for the EWP group only. All other outcomes (eg, functional disability using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ), pain scores, physical activity (PA) measurement etc.) were recorded at baseline, week 9 (immediately post-intervention), and 6 months in both groups. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 22% and the dropout rate was lower than anticipated (13% to 18% at 6 mo). Adherence with the EWP was high, 93% (n=37/40) walked for =6 weeks, and increased their steps/day [mean absolute increase in steps/d, 2776, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1996-3557] by 59% (95% CI, 40.73%-76.25%) from baseline. Mean percentage adherence with weekly step targets was 70% (95% CI, 62%-77%). Eight (20%) minor-related adverse events were observed in 13% (5/40) of the participants. The EWP group participants demonstrated an 8.2% point improvement [95% CI, -13 to -3.4] on the ODQ at 6 months compared with 1.6% points [95% CI, -9.3 to 6.1) for the E group (between group d=0.44). There was also a larger mean improvement in pain (d=0.4) and a larger increase in PA (d=0.59) at 6 months in EWP. DISCUSSION: This preliminary study demonstrated that a main RCT is feasible. EWP was safe and produced a real increase in walking; CLBP function and pain improved, and participants perceived a greater improvement in their PA levels. These improvements require confirmation in a fully powered RCT.

Physiotherapy for Sleep Disturbance in People With Chronic Low Back Pain:Results of a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of physiotherapy for sleep disturbance in chronic low back pain (CLBP) (=12wks). Design: Randomized controlled trial with evaluations at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Setting: Outpatient physiotherapy department in an academic teaching hospital. Participants: Participants with CLBP were randomly assigned to a walking program (n=20; mean age ± SD, 46.4±13.8y), supervised exercise class (n=20; mean age ± SD, 41.3±11.9y), or usual physiotherapy (n=20; mean age ± SD, 47.1±14.3y). The 3-month evaluation was completed by 44 participants (73%), and 42 (70%) participants completed the 6-month evaluation. Interventions: Participants received a physiotherapy-delivered 8-week walking program, an 8-week group supervised exercise class (1 class/wk), or 1-to-1 usual physiotherapy (advice, manual therapy, and exercise). Main Outcome Measures: Sleep was assessed by the self-reported Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Pittsburgh Sleep Diary, and objective actigraphy. Results: Groups were comparable at baseline. Most (95%, n=57) of the participants had sleep disturbance. The acceptability of actigraphy was excellent at baseline (58 of 60 participants), but dropped at 3 months (26 of 44 participants). There were improvements on the PSQI and ISI in all groups at 3 and 6 months, with predominantly medium effect sizes (Cohen d=0.2-0.5). Conclusions: The high prevalence of sleep disturbance indicated the feasibility of good recruitment in future trials. The PSQI would be a suitable screening tool and outcome measure alongside an objective nonobtrusive sleep outcome measure. The effectiveness of physiotherapy for sleep disturbance in CLBP warrants investigation in a fully powered randomized controlled trial. © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.

Different frequencies of acupuncture for treatment for chronic low back pain: an-assessor blinded pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES:
To examine the feasibility of a main RCT to compare the effectiveness of two frequencies (2 versus 5 times/week) of acupuncture treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP).
METHODS:
Participants (n=30) with chronic LBP were randomised into two groups to receive 10 acupuncture treatments: Low Frequency Group, 2 times/week for five weeks (n=15); High Frequency Group, 5 times/week for two weeks (n=15). The following outcomes were measured blindly at baseline, 2 weeks, 5 weeks, 3 months and 1 year: pain on a VAS, functional disability using the RMDQ, quality of life using the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP-2), psychological impact with the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) and Pain Locus of Control (PLC) questionnaire. Two objective outcomes, the Shuttle Walk Test (SWT) and Lateral Trunk Flexibility (LTF), were also measured.
RESULTS:
The compliance rate was 100% for each group. Some of the measurements were shown to be sensitive (VAS, RMDQ, MYMOP-2 Wellbeing). 66-330 participants would be required for a fully powered non-inferiority trial. The groups were balanced at baseline for LBP and demographic characteristics. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of any of the outcomes, at each follow-up time point. It was notable however that the clinically important improvement in terms of pain, functional disability, quality of life, and SWT in both groups was achieved within the first two weeks, which was maintained at one year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is feasible to conduct a main RCT, to compare different frequencies of acupuncture for LBP, using sensitive measurements. Also the trend for early clinically important improvement within a minimum of four measurements is worthy of further study.