A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Musculoskeletal Conditions Offered by Physiotherapists: A Systematic Review of Trial-Based Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal conditions are a leading contributor to disability worldwide. The treatment of these conditions accounts for 7% of health care costs in Germany and is often provided by physiotherapists. Yet, an overview of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for musculoskeletal conditions offered by physiotherapists is missing. This review aims to provide an overview of full economic evaluations of interventions for musculoskeletal conditions offered by physiotherapists.

METHODS

We systematically searched for publications in Medline, EconLit, and NHS-EED. Title and abstracts, followed by full texts were screened independently by two authors. We included trial-based full economic evaluations of physiotherapeutic interventions for patients with musculoskeletal conditions and allowed any control group. We extracted participants' information, the setting, the intervention, and details on the economic analyses. We evaluated the quality of the included articles with the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 5141 eligible publications and included 83 articles. The articles were based on 78 clinical trials. They addressed conditions of the spine (n = 39), the upper limb (n = 8), the lower limb (n = 30), and some other conditions (n = 6). The most investigated conditions were low back pain (n = 25) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (n = 16). The articles involved 69 comparisons between physiotherapeutic interventions (in which we defined primary interventions) and 81 comparisons in which only one intervention was offered by a physiotherapist. Physiotherapeutic interventions compared to those provided by other health professionals were cheaper and more effective in 43% (18/42) of the comparisons. Ten percent (4/42) of the interventions were dominated. The overall quality of the articles was high. However, the description of delivered interventions varied widely and often lacked details. This limited fair treatment comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence was found for physiotherapeutic interventions to be cost-effective, but the result depends on the patient group, intervention, and control arm. Treatments of knee and back conditions were primarily investigated, highlighting a need for physiotherapeutic cost-effectiveness analyses of less often investigated joints and conditions. The documentation of provided interventions needs improvement to enable clinicians and stakeholders to fairly compare interventions and ultimately adopt cost-effective treatments.

Management of low back pain and lumbosacral radicular syndrome: the Guideline of the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF)

BACKGROUND

Significant progress and new insights have been gained since the Dutch Physical Therapy guideline on low back pain (LBP) in 2013 and the Cesar en Mensendieck guideline in 2009, necessitating an update of these guidelines.

AIM

To update and develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of LBP and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) without serious specific conditions (red flags) for Dutch physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck Therapists.

DESIGN

Clinical practice guideline.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient.

POPULATION

Adults with LBP and/or LRS.

METHODS

Clinically relevant questions were identified based on perceived barriers in current practice of physical therapy. All clinical questions were answered using published guidelines, systematic reviews, narrative reviews or systematic reviews performed by the project group. Recommendations were formulated based on evidence and additional considerations, as described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. Patients participated in every phase.

RESULTS

The guideline describes a comprehensive assessment based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for LBP and LRS, including the identification of alarm symptoms and red flags. Patients are assigned to three treatment profiles (low, moderate and high risk of persistent symptoms) based on prognostic factors for persistent LBP. The guideline recommends offering simple and less intensive support to people who are likely to recover quickly (low-risk profile) and more complex and intensive support to people with a moderate or high risk of persistent complaints. Criteria for initiating and discontinuing physical therapy, and referral to a general practitioner are specified. Recommendations are formulated for information and advice, measurement instruments, active and passive interventions and behavior-oriented treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence based physical therapy guideline for the management of patients with LBP and LRS without red flags for physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck therapists was developed. Cornerstones of physical therapy assessment and treatment are risk stratification, shared decision-making, information and advice, and exercises.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

This guideline provides guidance for clinicians and patients to optimize treatment outcomes in patients with LBP and LRS and offers transparency for other healthcare providers and stakeholders.

Cost of chiropractic versus medical management of adults with spine-related musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The cost of spine-related pain in the United States is estimated at $134.5 billion. Spinal pain patients have multiple options when choosing healthcare providers, resulting in variable costs. Escalation of costs occurs when downstream costs are added to episode costs of care. The purpose of this review was to compare costs of chiropractic and medical management of patients with spine-related pain.

METHODS

A Medline search was conducted from inception through October 31, 2022, for cost data on U.S. adults treated for spine-related pain. The search included economic studies, randomized controlled trials and observational studies. All studies were independently evaluated for quality and risk of bias by 3 investigators and data extraction was performed by 3 investigators.

RESULTS

The literature search found 2256 citations, of which 93 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Forty-four studies were included in the review, including 26 cohort studies, 17 cost studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. All included studies were rated as high or acceptable quality. Spinal pain patients who consulted chiropractors as first providers needed fewer opioid prescriptions, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, specialist referrals and injection procedures.

CONCLUSION

Patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who consulted a chiropractor as their initial provider incurred substantially decreased downstream healthcare services and associated costs, resulting in lower overall healthcare costs compared with medical management. The included studies were limited to mostly retrospective cohorts of large databases. Given the consistency of outcomes reported, further investigation with higher-level designs is warranted.

Minimal Intervention of Patient Education for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of minimal intervention of patient education (MIPE) for reducing disability and pain intensity in patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing MIPE, consisting of a single session of patient education, to no or other interventions in patients with LBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analysis was conducted where possible. A noninferiority margin of 5 points (0-100 scale) was considered for noninferiority hypotheses. We assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: A total of 21 trials were included. There were no differences between MIPE and no intervention for effects on disability and pain intensity. There was low-certainty evidence that MIPE had inferior effects on short-term disability (mean difference = 3.62; 95% CI: 0.85, 6.38; 15 trials; n = 3066; I2 = 75%) and pain intensity (mean difference = 9.43; 95% CI: 1.31, 17.56; 10 trials; n = 1394; I2 = 90%) than other interventions. No differences were found for subsequent time points. CONCLUSION: As an intervention delivered in isolation, and without tailoring (ie, one-size-fits-all intervention), MIPE on average did not provide benefits for reducing disability and pain intensity over no or other interventions. We encourage clinicians to consider using additional/other or more tailored treatments when helping people manage LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-13. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11865.

Self-reported characteristics of people seeking primary care physiotherapy in Denmark: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Limited knowledge exists on the self-reported characteristics of patients seeking primary care physiotherapy in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES

To describe primary symptom site, co-occurrent pain sites, pain intensity, symptom duration, and number of symptom episodes in patients seeking primary care physiotherapy using patient-reported data.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of patients seeking primary care physiotherapy within a nationwide network of clinics in Denmark (FysioDanmark® ). Data from the FysioDanmark® clinical database with patient-reported information obtained from questionnaires distributed to patients prior to their first consultation were used. This included primary symptom site, co-occurrent pain sites, pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), symptom duration, and number of symptom episodes.

RESULTS

Data from 61,097 patients (57% female) aged 42 years (interquartile range 29-53) and 63,566 first visits were included. The most common reasons for seeking care were back- (22.9%), non-specific- (19.8%) and shoulder symptoms (15.9%). The majority of patients (89.4%) reported symptoms lasting longer than 7 days, and many experienced recurrent episodes. Median pain intensity ranged from 3 to 5 across primary symptom sites and age groups. In general, females reported higher pain intensity than males.

CONCLUSION

Danish patients seeking primary care physiotherapy most commonly presented with back, non-specific, and shoulder symptoms, with mild-to-moderate pain lasting longer than 7 days, and many with recurrent episodes.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

(C)onsumer focused (E)ducation on p(A)racetamol (S)ide (E)ffects, i(N)adequate (O)utcomes and (W)eaning (CEASE NOW) for individuals with low back pain: results of a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility of a patient-education booklet to support patients with low back pain (LBP) to reduce paracetamol intake.

DESIGN

Single group, repeated measures feasibility study.

SETTING

Community.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults experiencing LBP of any kind and self-reporting consumption of paracetamol for LBP weekly for at least 1 month were invited to participate.

INTERVENTION

Participants received a patient-education booklet 1 week after the baseline measures were collected. The intervention was designed to change beliefs, increase knowledge and self-efficacy to deprescribe paracetamol for their LBP and create discussion with a health professional through the mechanisms of motivation, capacity and opportunity.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility of recruitment procedures, data collection and acceptability of the intervention.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in motivation, self-efficacy, opportunity to deprescribe paracetamol for their LBP, paracetamol usage and LBP clinical outcomes at baseline, 1-week and 1-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 24 participants were recruited into the study within the timeframe of 3 months from study advertisement and all completed the study follow-up. There were no missing data for any outcome measure across all follow-up points, 22 (91.6%) participants were willing to participate in a future randomised control trial (RCT) and over 60% of participants responded positively to questions regarding acceptability of the patient-educational booklet. Overall, at the 1-month follow-up, approximately two thirds (15/24) of participants had an increase in motivation and self-efficacy scores and had discussed or intended to discuss their paracetamol use for LBP with a health professional.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that the patient-education booklet is feasible to implement, and both the intervention and study design were well-received by participants. This study supports the undertaking an RCT to assess the effects of the patient-education booklet on deprescribing paracetamol in people with LBP.

Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability

This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with psychological treatment, on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low-back-pain. Databases were searched up to January 31, 2022 to retrieve respective randomized controlled trials of individualized and/or personalized and/or stratified exercise interventions with or without psychological treatment compared to any control. Fifty-eight studies (n = 10084) were included. At short-term follow-up (12 weeks), low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.28 [95%CI -0.42 to -0.14]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualized versus active exercises, and very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.40; [-0.58 to -0.22])), but not (low-certainty evidence) for disability (-0.18; [-0.22 to 0.01]) compared to passive controls. At long-term follow-up (1 year), moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.14 [-0.22 to -0.07]) and disability (-0.20 [-0.30 to -0.10]) indicates effects versus passive controls. Sensitivity analyses indicates that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Pain reduction caused by individualized exercise treatments in combination with psychological interventions (in particular behavioral-cognitive therapies) (-0.28 [-0.42 to -0.14], low certainty) is of clinical importance. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Individualized exercise can treat pain and disability in chronic non-specific low-back-pain. The effects at short term are of clinical importance (relative differences versus active 38% and versus passive interventions 77%), especially in regard to the little extra effort to individualize exercise. Sub-group analysis suggests a combination of individualized exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) with behavioral therapy interventions to booster effects. PERSPECTIVE: The relative benefit of individualized exercise therapy on chronic low back pain compared to other active treatments is approximately 38% which is of clinical importance. Still, sustainability of effects (> 12 months) is doubtable. As individualization in exercise therapies is easy to implement, its use should be considered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021247331.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively).

Results

27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP.

Conclusions

There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

Treatment-based classification for low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison.

CONCLUSION

The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a comorbidity-adapted exercise program for low back pain in older adults (COMEBACK): a protocol

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of low back pain increases with age and has a profound impact on physical and psychosocial health. With increasing age comes increasing comorbidity, and this also has pronounced health consequences. Whilst exercise is beneficial for a range of health conditions, trials of exercise for low back pain management often exclude older adults. It is currently unknown whether an exercise program for older adults with low back pain, tailored for the presence of comorbidities, is acceptable for participants and primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). Therefore, this mixed-methods study will assess the feasibility of an 8-week comorbidity-adapted exercise program for older people with low back pain and comorbid conditions.

METHODS

The 3-phased feasibility study will be performed in a primary healthcare setting. PHCPs will be trained to deliver a comorbidity-adapted exercise program for older people with low back pain and comorbidities. Healthcare-seeking adults > 65 will be screened for eligibility over telephone, with a recruitment target of 24 participants. Eligible participants will attend an initial appointment (diagnostic phase). During this initial appointment, a research assistant will collect patient demographics, self-reported outcome measurement data, and perform a physical and functional examination to determine contraindications and restrictions to an exercise program. During the development phase, PHCPs will adapt the exercise program to the individual and provide patient education. During the intervention phase, there will be two supervised exercise sessions per week, over 8 weeks (total of 16 exercise sessions). Each exercise session will be approximately 60 min in duration. A qualitative evaluation after the last exercise program session will explore the feasibility of the exercise program for participants and PHCPs. Progression criteria will determine the suitability for a fully powered randomised controlled trial.

DISCUSSION

This mixed-methods feasibility study will assess an exercise program for older adults with low back pain and comorbidities. Once assessed for feasibility, the exercise program may be tested for effectiveness in a larger, fully powered randomised controlled trial. This information will add to the sparse evidence base on appropriate options for managing back pain in older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number: ACTRN12621000379819p (06/04/2021; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621000379819p ).

TRIAL SPONSOR

Macquarie University, Department of Chiropractic, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia.

Individual Patient Education for Managing Acute and/or Subacute Low Back Pain: Little Additional Benefit for Pain and Function Compared to Placebo. A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of individual patient education for managing acute and/or subacute low back pain (LBP), compared to no intervention/placebo education, noneducational interventions, or other type of education.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL (up to September 30, 2020); reference lists of previous systematic reviews.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating individual education for patients with acute and/or subacute LBP.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogeneous RCTs. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs. There was moderate certainty evidence that individual patient education was more effective than placebo education for pain at medium term (mean difference [MD], -0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.52, -0.07) and physical function at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.25; 95% CI: -0.47, -0.02) and medium term (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.04), but with no clinically relevant effects. There was low-to-moderate certainty evidence that individual patient education was superior to noneducational interventions on short-term quality of life (MD, -12.00; 95% CI: -20.05, -3.95) and medium-term sick leave (odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.88). We found no clinically relevant between-group effects for any other comparison (low-to-high certainty of evidence) at any follow-up.

CONCLUSION

One or 2 hours of individual patient education probably makes little to no difference in pain and functional outcomes compared with placebo for patients with acute and/or subacute LBP. Considering its effects on other outcomes (eg, reassurance) and patients' desire for information about their condition, it is reasonable to retain patient education as part of a first-line approach when managing acute and subacute LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):432-445. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10698.

Effect of a 6-month sedentary behavior reduction intervention on well-being and workplace health in desk workers with low back pain

BACKGROUND: Research suggests reducing sedentary behavior improves low back pain; however, the impact on presenteeism, health, productivity, and sleep in desk workers with chronic low back pain is not known. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of a sedentary behavior intervention on multiple dimensions of workplace health. METHODS: 24 participants with chronic low back pain and desk jobs were randomized to either a sedentary behavior reduction intervention group or control. Outcomes included a modified Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ), the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ), SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Six-month changes in outcomes were compared across intervention groups using ANCOVA regression, adjusting for baseline values. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated for outcomes to explain the magnitude of group differences. RESULTS: The intervention group reported 1.5 hours/day less sitting time (p < 0.001) compared to controls at 6 months. SF-36 subscales of energy/fatigue, social functioning, and pain improved, and sleep disturbance was reduced among intervention participants. Productivity, concentration, and presenteeism were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: A sedentary behavior reduction intervention may improve well-being and workplace health without impacting productivity and concentration in desk workers with chronic low back pain.

Insights into the Anti-Aging Prevention and Diagnostic Medicine and Healthcare

Aging is an irreversible and natural phenomenon that occurs as a person ages. Anti-aging medicine applies advanced science and medical technology to early detection, prevention, treatment, and reversal of age-related dysfunctions, disorders, and diseases. Therefore, anti-aging diagnostic medicine and healthcare are important factors in helping the elderly population lead healthy and active lives. However, it is challenging to diagnose various aging and related diseases accurately through various forms of anti-aging diagnostic medicine and health management. It may not be treated appropriately, so many older people are making various efforts to prevent aging themselves in advance. Therefore, anti-aging medicine and health care have been developed in various forms, from health checkups to alternative medicine and biophysical technology beyond simple clinical medicine, and are being applied to demand the needs of the elderly. This review intends to explore and characterize various applications related to anti-aging medicine and healthcare in the elderly. In addition, economic, medical, and ethical considerations arising from the relationship between the increase in the elderly population and the continuous development of anti-aging medicine can be considered.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Effectiveness of brief patient information materials for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate what format for providing patient information (i.e. written summary, infographic or video animation) is most effective for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING/PATIENTS

One hundred and fifty-nine patients with non-specific LBP were recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomised to receive patient information in one of three formats: video animation, infographic or written summary. Patients were allowed to read or watch the materials for up to 20 min.

MEASUREMENTS

Outcome were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcome was the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. The secondary outcome was beliefs about imaging for LBP assessed by two questions.

RESULTS

All 159 patients completed the study. Our findings revealed no difference between groups for the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. Correct beliefs about imaging were more likely with the infographic than the video animation (Question 1- Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 8.7; Question 2- OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 2.7, 17.2) and more likely with the written summary than the video animation (Question 1- OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 7.4; Question 2- OR = 3.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 8.5). No difference between infographic and written summary formats were reported for the questions assessing LBP imaging beliefs.

CONCLUSION

The three materials were equally effective in improving patient's general beliefs about LBP care. However, the traditional written summary or infographic formats were more effective than the video animation format for improving beliefs about imaging for LBP.

Cell-based strategies for IVD repair: clinical progress and translational obstacles

Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a major cause of low back pain, a prevalent and chronic condition that has a striking effect on quality of life. Currently, no approved pharmacological interventions or therapies are available that prevent the progressive destruction of the IVD; however, regenerative strategies are emerging that aim to modify the disease. Progress has been made in defining promising new treatments for disc disease, but considerable challenges remain along the entire translational spectrum, from understanding disease mechanism to useful interpretation of clinical trials, which make it difficult to achieve a unified understanding. These challenges include: an incomplete appreciation of the mechanisms of disc degeneration; a lack of standardized approaches in preclinical testing; in the context of cell therapy, a distinct lack of cohesion regarding the cell types being tested, the tissue source, expansion conditions and dose; the absence of guidelines regarding disease classification and patient stratification for clinical trial inclusion; and an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms underpinning therapeutic responses to cell delivery. This Review discusses current approaches to disc regeneration, with a particular focus on cell-based therapeutic strategies, including ongoing challenges, and attempts to provide a framework to interpret current data and guide future investigational studies.

Site-Directed Differentiation of Human Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Nucleus Pulposus Cells Using an Injectable Hydroxyl-Functional Diblock Copolymer Worm Gel

Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs) have been identified for their promising therapeutic potential to regenerate and repopulate the degenerate intervertebral disk (IVD), which is a major cause of lower back pain. The optimal cell delivery system remains elusive but encapsulation of cells within scaffolds is likely to offer a decisive advantage over the delivery of cells in solution by ensuring successful retention within the tissue. Herein, we evaluate the use of a fully synthetic, thermoresponsive poly(glycerol monomethacrylate)-poly(2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate) (PGMA-PHPMA) diblock copolymer worm gel that mimics the structure of hydrophilic glycosaminoglycans. The objective was to use this gel to direct differentiation of human ASCs toward a nucleus pulposus (NP) phenotype, with or without the addition of discogenic growth factors TGFβ or GDF6. Accordingly, human ASCs were incorporated into a cold, free-flowing aqueous dispersion of the diblock copolymer, gelation induced by warming to 37 °C and cell culture was conducted for 14 days with or without such growth factors to assess the expression of characteristic NP markers compared to those produced when using collagen gels. In principle, the shear-thinning nature of the biocompatible worm gel enables encapsulated human ASCs to be injected into the IVD using a 21G needle. Moreover, we find significantly higher gene expression levels of ACAN, SOX-9, KRT8, and KR18 for ASCs encapsulated within worm gels compared to collagen scaffolds, regardless of the growth factors employed. In summary, such wholly synthetic worm gels offer considerable potential as an injectable cell delivery scaffold for the treatment of degenerate disk disease by promoting the transition of ASCs toward an NP-phenotype.

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes.

INTERVENTIONS

Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000.

LIMITATIONS

Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Factors Impacting Physical Therapy Utilization for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Retrospective Analysis of a Clinical Data Set

OBJECTIVE

Factors predicting physical therapy utilization for lower back pain (LBP) remain unclear, limiting the development of value-based initiatives. The purpose of this study was to identify important factors that impact the number of physical therapist visits per episode of care for US adults with nonspecific LBP.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational cohort study of a clinical dataset derived from 80 clinics of a single physical therapy provider organization. Research variables were categorized at the individual (patient) level and the organization (therapist, clinic) level. A hierarchical regression model was designed to identify factors influencing the number of physical therapist visits per episode of care.

RESULTS

Higher out-of-pocket payments per visit, receipt of "active" physical therapy, longer average visit length, earlier use of physical therapy, and sex of the therapist (male) were found to predict fewer visits per episode of care. Percent change of function, prior receipt of physical therapy by the same provider organization, self-discharge from physical therapy, level of starting function, and therapist certification were found to predict more visits. Of the variance in number of visits, 8.0% was attributable to the health care organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual factors, such as higher out-of-pocket payment, have a significant impact on reducing visits per episode of care and should be considered when developing value-based initiatives to optimize clinical and utilization outcomes.

IMPACT

Payers use consumer-directed healthcare to reduce costs by discouraging utilization of low value services and encouraging use of low-cost providers. LBP is a costly condition for which physical therapy is a high-value treatment. This study shows that non-need factors predict the number of physical therapy visits per episode of care for patients with nonspecific LBP. Insurance benefit plans with lower out-of-pocket payments for physical therapy and higher reimbursement for active physical therapist interventions may facilitate appropriate utilization of high-value treatment for LBP.

Effects of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain is associated with pain and disability, but symptoms are often self-healing. The effectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain remains uncertain with conflicting evidence from systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the effects of exercise therapy, compared with other interventions, on pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects in adult patients with acute low back pain.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, PEDro, Open Grey, Web of Science, and PROSPERO were searched for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors using AMSTAR. Meta-analyses were performed if possible, using data from the original studies. Data for pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects were analyzed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

The searches retrieved 2602 records, of which 134 publications were selected for full-text screening. Twenty-four reviews were included, in which 21 randomized controlled trials (n = 2685) presented data for an acute population, related to 69 comparisons. Overlap was high, 76%, with a corrected covered area of 0.14. Methodological quality varied from low to high. Exercise therapy was categorized into general exercise therapy, stabilization exercise, and McKenzie therapy. No important difference in pain or disability was evident when exercise therapy was compared with sham ultrasound, nor for the comparators usual care, spinal manipulative therapy, advice to stay active, and educational booklet. Neither McKenzie therapy nor stabilization exercise yielded any important difference in effects compared with other types of exercise therapy. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest very low to moderate certainty of evidence that exercise therapy may result in little or no important difference in pain or disability, compared with other interventions, in adult patients with acute low back pain. A limitation of this systematic review is that some included reviews were of low quality. When implementing findings of this systematic review in clinical practice, patients' preferences and the clinician's expertise also should be considered, to determine if and when exercise therapy should be the intervention of choice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD46146, available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=46146 .

Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Meta-Analysis of Integrated Therapeutic Methods in Noninvasive Lower Back Pain Therapy (LBP): The Role of Interdisciplinary Functional Diagnostics

Introduction. Lower back pain (LBP) is almost a problem of civilizations. Quite often, it is a consequence of many years of disturbed distribution of tension within the human body caused by local conditions (injuries, hernias, stenoses, spondylolisthesis, cancer, etc.), global factors (postural defects, structural integration disorders, lifestyle, type of activity, etc.), or systemic diseases (connective tissue, inflammation, tumours, abdominal aneurysm, and kidney diseases, including urolithiasis, endometriosis, and prostatitis). Therefore, LBP rehabilitation requires the use of integrated therapeutic methods, combining the competences of interdisciplinary teams, both in the process of diagnosis and treatment. Aim of the Study. Given the above, the authors of the article conducted meta-analysis of the literature in terms of integrated therapeutic methods, indicating the techniques focused on a holistic approach to the patient. The aim of the article is to provide the reader with comprehensive knowledge about treating LBP using noninterventional methods. Material and Methods. An extensive search for the materials was conducted online using PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Embase. The most common noninterventional methods have been described, as well as the most relevantly updated and previously referenced treatment of LBP. The authors also proposed noninvasive (measurable) diagnostic procedures for the functional assessment of the musculoskeletal system, including initial, systematic, and cross-sectional control. All figures and images have been prepared by the authors and are their property.

Results

This review article goes beyond combining a detailed description of each procedure with full references, as well as a comprehensive discussion of this very complex and troublesome problem.

Conclusions

Lower back pain is a serious health problem, and this review article will help educate physicians and physiotherapists dealing with LBP in the options of evidence-based treatment. Ultimately, the article introduces and postulates the need to systematize therapeutic procedures in LBP therapy, with a long-term perspective.

Neck Pain and Lower Back Pain

Neck pain is the fourth leading cause of disability. Acute neck pain largely resolves within 2 months. History and physical examination play a key role in ruling out some of the more serious causes for neck pain. The evidence for pharmacologic interventions for acute and chronic musculoskeletal neck pain is limited. Lower back pain is the leading cause of disability and productivity loss. Consultation with a physical medicine and rehabilitation spine specialist within 48 hours for acute pain and within 10 days for all patients with lower back pain may significantly decrease rate of surgical interventions and increase patient satisfaction.

Treatment of Patients with Low Back Pain: A Comparison of Physical Therapy and Chiropractic Manipulation

Low back pain (LBP) is a pandemic and costly musculoskeletal condition in the United States (U.S.). Patients with LBP may endure surgery, injections, and expensive visits to emergency departments. Some suggest that using physical therapy (PT) or chiropractic in the earlier stage of LBP reduces the utilization of expensive health services and lowers the treatment costs. Given that there are costs and benefits with each of these treatments, the remaining question is in a short period of time which of these treatments is optimal. The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of chiropractic versus PT in the U.S. A decision tree analytic model was used for estimating the economic outcomes. The findings showed that the total average cost in the chiropractic group was $48.56 lower than the PT group. The findings also showed that the daily adjusted life years (DALY) in the chiropractic group was 0.0043 higher than the PT group. Chiropractic care was shown to be a cost-effective alternative compared with PT for adults with at least three weeks of LBP over six months.

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program: Does psychological profile modify the treatment effect of a preventive manual therapy intervention? A secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chiropractic maintenance care is effective as secondary/tertiary prevention of non-specific low back pain (LBP), but the potential effect moderation by psychological characteristics is unknown. The objective was to investigate whether patients in specific psychological sub-groups had different responses to MC with regard to the total number of days with bothersome pain and the number of treatments.

METHOD

Data from a two-arm randomized pragmatic multicenter trial with a 12-month follow up, designed to investigate the effectiveness of maintenance care, was used. Consecutive patients, 18-65 years of age, with recurrent and persistent LBP seeking chiropractic care with a good effect of the initial treatment were included. Eligible subjects were randomized to either maintenance care (prescheduled care) or to the control intervention, symptom-guided care. The primary outcome of the trial was the total number of days with bothersome LBP collected weekly for 12 months using an automated SMS system. Data used to classify patients according to psychological subgroups defined by the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (adaptive copers, interpersonally distressed and dysfunctional) were collected at the screening visit.

RESULTS

A total of 252 subjects were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations linear regression framework. Patients in the dysfunctional subgroup who received maintenance care reported fewer days with pain (-30.0; 95% CI: -36.6, -23.4) and equal number of treatments compared to the control intervention. In the adaptive coper subgroup, patients who received maintenance care reported more days with pain (10.7; 95% CI: 4.0, 17.5) and more treatments (3.9; 95% CI: 3.5, 4.2). Patients in the interpersonally distressed subgroup reported equal number of days with pain (-0.3; 95% CI: -8.7, 8.1) and more treatments (1.5; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1) on maintenance care.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological and behavioral characteristics modify the effect of MC and should be considered when recommending long-term preventive management of patients with recurrent and persistent LBP.

Comparative Efficacy of Clinic-Based and Telerehabilitation Application of Mckenzie Therapy in Chronic Low-Back Pain

Studies on validation of telerehabilitation as an effective platform to help manage as well as reduce burden of care for Low-Back Pain (LBP) are sparse. This study compared the effects of Telerehabilitation-Based McKenzie Therapy (TBMT) and Clinic-Based McKenzie Therapy (CBMT) among patients with LBP. Forty-seven consenting patients with chronic LBP who demonstrated 'directional preference' for McKenzie Extension Protocol (MEP) completed this quasi experimental study. The participants were assigned into either the CBMT or TBMT group using block permuted randomization. Participants in the CBMT and TBMT groups received MEP involving a specific sequence of lumbosacral repeated movements in extension aimed to centralize, decrease, or abolish symptoms, thrice weekly for eight weeks. TBMT is a comparable version of CBMT performed in the home with the assistance of a mobile phone app. Outcomes were assessed at the 4th and 8th weeks of the study in terms of Pain Intensity (PI), Back Extensors Muscles' Endurance (BEME), Activity Limitation (AL), Participation Restriction (PR), and General Health Status (GHS). Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Alpha level was set at p< 0.05. Within-group comparison across baseline, 4^th and 8^th weeks indicate that both CBMT and TBMT had significant effects on PI (p=0.001), BEME (p=0.001), AL (p=0.001), PR (p=0.001) and GHS (p=0.001) respectively. However, there were no significant differences (p>0.05) in the treatment effects between TBMT and CBMT, except for 'vitality' (p=0.011) scale in the GHS where TBMT led to significantly higher mean score. Mobile-app platform of the McKenzie extension protocol has comparable clinical outcomes with the traditional clinic-based McKenzie Therapy, and thus is an effective supplementary platform for care of patients with low-back pain.

Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a treatment-based classification system founded on 3 core principles: classification into diagnostic syndromes, classification-based intervention, and appropriate application of force. Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of MDT for low back pain; however, results have varied. The inconsistent delivery of MDT across trials may explain the different findings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare treatment effect sizes for pain or disability between trials that delivered MDT consistent with the core principles of the approach and trials that met some or none of these principles.

METHODS

In this systematic review, databases were searched from inception to June 2018 for studies that delivered MDT compared to nonpharmacological, conservative control interventions in patients with low back pain and reported outcomes of pain or disability. Studies were classified as "adherent" (meeting the core principles of MDT) or "nonadherent" (using some or none of the principles of MDT). Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Meta-regression procedures were used to analyze the effect of delivery mode on clinical outcomes, adjusting for covariates of symptom duration (less than or greater than 3 months) and control intervention (minimal or active).

RESULTS

Studies classified as adherent to the MDT approach showed greater reductions in pain and disability of 15.0 (95% confidence interval: 7.3, 22.7) and 11.7 (95% confidence interval: 5.4, 18.0) points, respectively, on a 100-point scale compared to nonadherent trials.

CONCLUSION

This review provides preliminary evidence that treatment effects of MDT are greater when the core principles are followed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(4):219-229. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8734.

The effect of core stabilization exercise on lumbar joint position sense in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

[Purpose] This study aimed to examine the effect of core stabilization exercise (CSE) on joint position sense, pain intensity, and functional disability in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). [Participants and Methods] Thirty-eight participants with subacute nonspecific low back pain of 6-12 weeks duration, aged 18-60 years, were included in this study. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: a core stabilization exercise group (n=19) or a control group (n=19). Outcomes measures included lumbar joint repositioning error (LJRE), numeric pain rating scale (11-NRS), and the Roland-Morris disability questionnaires (RMDQ). Measures were taken at baseline, 4 weeks, 7 weeks of intervention, and at 4 weeks after the last intervention. [Results] All outcomes measures were significantly improved in the core stabilization exercise group, compared with the control group. [Conclusion] Core stabilization exercise can improve acuity of joint position sense, reduce pain, and functional disability compared with thermal therapy. The finding demonstrated that core stabilization exercises are more suitable for patients with subacute NSLBP than thermal therapy and this should be useful to clinicians.

The Nordic Maintenance Care program: Effectiveness of chiropractic maintenance care versus symptom-guided treatment for recurrent and persistent low back pain-A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background

For individuals with recurrent or persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP), exercise and exercise combined with education have been shown to be effective in preventing new episodes or in reducing the impact of the condition. Chiropractors have traditionally used Maintenance Care (MC), as secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of MC on pain trajectories for patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.

Method

This pragmatic, investigator-blinded, two arm randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients (18–65 years old) with non-specific LBP, who had an early favorable response to chiropractic care. After an initial course of treatment, eligible subjects were randomized to either MC or control (symptom-guided treatment). The primary outcome was total number of days with bothersome LBP during 52 weeks collected weekly with text-messages (SMS) and estimated by a GEE model.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups. MC resulted in a reduction in the total number of days per week with bothersome LBP compared with symptom-guided treatment. During the 12 month study period, the MC group (n = 163, 3 dropouts) reported 12.8 (95% CI = 10.1, 15.5; p = <0.001) fewer days in total with bothersome LBP compared to the control group (n = 158, 4 dropouts) and received 1.7 (95% CI = 1.8, 2.1; p = <0.001) more treatments. Numbers presented are means. No serious adverse events were recorded.

Conclusion

MC was more effective than symptom-guided treatment in reducing the total number of days over 52 weeks with bothersome non-specific LBP but it resulted in a higher number of treatments. For selected patients with recurrent or persistent non-specific LBP who respond well to an initial course of chiropractic care, MC should be considered an option for tertiary prevention.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain

BACKGROUND

Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls.

PARTICIPANTS

Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months.

MAIN MEASURES

Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care.

KEY RESULTS

Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Treating Low Back Pain: Literature Review With Meta-analysis

Study Design Literature review with meta-analysis. Background The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), a classification-based system, was designed to classify patients into homogeneous subgroups to direct treatment. Objectives To examine the effectiveness of MDT for improving pain and disability in patients with either acute (less than 12 weeks in duration) or chronic (greater than 12 weeks in duration) low back pain (LBP). Methods Randomized controlled trials examining MDT in patients with LBP were identified from 6 databases. Independent investigators assessed the studies for exclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval were calculated to compare the effects of MDT to those of other interventions in patients with acute or chronic LBP. Results Of the 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 11 yielded valid data for analysis. In patients with acute LBP, there was no significant difference in pain resolution (P = .11) and disability (P = .61) between MDT and other interventions. In patients with chronic LBP, there was a significant difference in disability (SMD, -0.45), with results favoring MDT compared to exercise alone. There were no significant differences between MDT and manual therapy plus exercise (P>.05) for pain and disability outcomes. Conclusion There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability in patients with acute LBP. In patients with chronic LBP, there is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is superior to other rehabilitation interventions for reducing pain and disability; however, this depends on the type of intervention being compared to MDT. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):476-490. Epub 30 Mar 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7562.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Other Conservative Treatments for Low Back Pain: A Guideline From the Canadian Chiropractic Guideline Initiative

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a clinical practice guideline on the management of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) in adults. The aim was to develop a guideline to provide best practice recommendations on the initial assessment and monitoring of people with low back pain and address the use of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) compared with other commonly used conservative treatments.

METHODS

The topic areas were chosen based on an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality comparative effectiveness review, specific to spinal manipulation as a nonpharmacological intervention. The panel updated the search strategies in Medline. We assessed admissible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for each question using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. Evidence profiles were used to summarize judgments of the evidence quality and link recommendations to the supporting evidence. Using the Evidence to Decision Framework, the guideline panel determined the certainty of evidence and strength of the recommendations. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi technique. The guideline was peer reviewed by an 8-member multidisciplinary external committee.

RESULTS

For patients with acute (0-3 months) back pain, we suggest offering advice (posture, staying active), reassurance, education and self-management strategies in addition to SMT, usual medical care when deemed beneficial, or a combination of SMT and usual medical care to improve pain and disability. For patients with chronic (>3 months) back pain, we suggest offering advice and education, SMT or SMT as part of a multimodal therapy (exercise, myofascial therapy or usual medical care when deemed beneficial). For patients with chronic back-related leg pain, we suggest offering advice and education along with SMT and home exercise (positioning and stabilization exercises).

CONCLUSIONS

A multimodal approach including SMT, other commonly used active interventions, self-management advice, and exercise is an effective treatment strategy for acute and chronic back pain, with or without leg pain.

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of non-specific neck pain and low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific neck pain and low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review of economic evaluations.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed in 5 clinical and 3 economic electronic databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included economic evaluations performed alongside randomised controlled trials. Differences in costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, if possible, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were descriptively analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. On average, exercise therapy was associated with lower costs and larger effects for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective (based on ICUR). Exercise therapy had similar costs and effect for QALY in comparison with other interventions for neck pain from a societal perspective, and subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective. There was limited or inconsistent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with usual care for neck pain and acute low back pain, other interventions for acute low back pain and different types of exercise therapy for neck pain and low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise therapy seems to be cost-effective compared with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was not (more) cost-effective compared with other interventions for neck pain and low back pain. The cost-utility estimates are rather uncertain, indicating that more economic evaluations are needed.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42017059025.

Factors Affecting Utilization of Steroid Injections in the Treatment of Lumbosacral Degenerative Conditions in the United States

BACKGROUND

Lumbar degenerative conditions are an extremely common set of diagnoses with a large spectrum of treatment options. Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are widely used but have come under increased scrutiny as we move toward a value-based model of health care. We assessed current utilization of epidural steroid injections, changes in utilization over time, and the influence of payer type and geographic region within the United States on their utilization. In addition, we analyzed the relationship between ESIs and surgical rates across states.

METHODS

The Medicare 5% national sample administrative database (SAF5) and a large national database from a commercial health care company (HORTHO) were used to catalog clinical data for patients with lumbar degenerative conditions. Specific queries into the rate of ESIs and lumbar surgery were also performed within this group.

RESULTS

There were 4 108 121 patients found between 2005 and 2015 in the SAF5 and HORTHO databases carrying a diagnosis related to lumbar degenerative conditions. The overall yearly injection rates for patients with lumbar degenerative conditions ranged from 9.84% to 10.18%. In patients older than 65, the rate of ESI was higher for Medicare as compared with private payer insurance (16.27% versus 14.14%, P < .001). There was a higher rate of ESI for patients who eventually underwent surgery in the Medicare group as compared with the commercial group (55.30% versus 40.40%, P < .001). There was a positive correlation between rates of ESI with the rate of surgery between states.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions with ESI based on payer type. There was increased utilization of lumbar ESI between 2007 and 2012, although this change was less than 0.5%. The data also suggest a positive correlation between rates of ESIs and surgical intervention across states. This points to areas in the country with high utilization of both ESI and surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, economic and decision analysis.

A case control series for the effect of photobiomodulation in patients with low back pain and concurrent depression

Background and aims

To present incidental findings in patients with low back pain (LBP) who received photobiomodulation (PBM) administered to the back and thighs as an adjunct to physical therapy (PT) and then experienced improvement in concurrent depression.

Materials and methods

Five outpatients with LBP and concurrent self-reported depression were treated for LBP over five weeks with PT (5-sessions) and concurrent PBM (final 3-sessions), and retrospectively matched to five control patients treated with PT alone (5-sessions). The PBM device emitted light at 850nm and 660 nm with an irradiance of 100 mW/cm² and fluence of 3 J/cm² on 12 symmetrical posterior sites (thoracic, lumbar and thighs) for 30 sec/site.

Results

Both groups had non-significant differences in all baseline scores, except for higher functional status (ARGS) in the PBM-group (33.6 ± 12.2 vs.18.6 ± 3.6, t(8) = 2.638, p = 0.030). After treatment, the mean decrease in depression scores (OMSQ-12 item #6) was significantly larger in the PBM-group (43.0 ± 22.0 vs. 8.0 ± 5.7, t(8) = 3.449, p = 0.009). Improvement in functional status (ARGS) in the PBM-group was similar to that in the controls (42.0 ± 13.5 vs. 43.4 ± 11.1, t(8) = 0.179, p = 0.862), suggesting group differences in antidepressant effect were independent of functional status improvement.

Conclusions

This preliminary investigation suggests that an antidepressant effect may result from PBM to the back and thighs in patients with LBP and concurrent depression.