Motor control or graded activity exercises for chronic low back pain? A randomised controlled trial

The efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: A three-level meta-analysis and a trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

The current study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for chronic pain. Searches were conducted in Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception until September 30, 2022. Thirty-three RCTs, including 2293 participants, were included. Small to medium effect sizes for pain intensity/physical function favoring ACT were found both at post-treatment (pain intensity: g = 0.44; physical function: g = 0.59) and follow-up (pain intensity: g = 0.34; physical function: g = 0.56). The effect sizes on psychological outcomes were significant at post-treatment (depression: g = 0.43; anxiety: g = 0.43; quality of life: g = 0.45) and follow-up (depression: g = 0.43; anxiety: g = 0.35; quality of life: g = 0.43). The results of the trial sequential analyses indicated that pooled estimates were unlikely to be incidental findings, as effects of multiple testing were controlled and power was adequate. Face-to-face ACT yielded significantly larger effects on physical outcomes than internet-delivered ACT. Participants with chronic headache and fibromyalgia showed greater benefit from ACT compared to those with non-specific pain or mixed pain. In addition, the longer the follow-up duration, the smaller the effect sizes for pain intensity/physical function at follow-up. The present meta-analysis suggests sufficient evidence for the significant benefits of ACT for people with chronic pain.

Culture and musculoskeletal pain: strategies, challenges, and future directions to develop culturally sensitive physical therapy care

BACKGROUND

Pain experience has a multidimensional nature. Assessment and treatment recommendations for pain conditions suggest clinicians use biopsychosocial approaches to treat pain and disability. The current pain research is overwhelmingly skewed towards the study of biological and psychological factors including interventions, whereas, cultural factors are often ignored.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this Masterclass is threefold: (1) to discuss cultural influences on pain, (2) to provide strategies for delivering appropriate pain education and exercises in culturally diverse people with chronic pain, and (3) to present challenges and future directions to clinicians and researchers.

DISCUSSION

Cultural factors have a relevant influence on the way individuals experience and manage health and illness. Thus, people with different cultural experience perceive, respond, communicate and manage their pain in different ways. In this aspect, the contents of pain education should be presented using different culturally appropriate examples, metaphors, images, and delivery methods that may enhance the impact of the message. Efforts should be made to produce and spread culturally adapted evidence-based materials and resources. In addition, a culturally sensitive approach may help to introduce patients to graded activities, so that they can apply these strategies in culturally acceptable and meaningful ways. Future studies should investigate the effectiveness of culturally-adapted interventions in pain-related outcomes in different pain conditions in patients with different cultural backgrounds.

Influences of Kinesio Taping with Therapeutic Exercise in Patients with Low Back Pain

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of core stability exercise combined with Kinesio taping on pain, endurance, and balance in patients with lower back pain (LBP). 46 patients with LBP were recruited and randomly allocated into the core stability exercise with taping (CSET) group and the core stability exercise (CSE) group. All participants performed core stability exercises for 40 min/day, 5 times/week for 8 weeks, and additional Kinesio taping was applied to the lower backs in the CSET group. The primary outcome measure was the pain intensity using the visual analog scale, and secondary outcome measures were trunk endurance and balance using the Biering-Sorensen test and force plate, respectively. After the intervention, the CSET group showed significant improvements in pain and postural balance compared to the CSE group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in trunk endurance between two groups (p > 0.05). This study found that core stability exercise was effective in reducing pain and enhancing balance in patients with LBP, and demonstrated that the application of additional Kinesio taping further increased these effects. Therefore, we recommend that core exercise combined with Kinesio taping may be used to improve the pain and postural balance of patients with LBP in clinics.

Back to living well: community-based management of low back pain: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a long-term health condition with an unpredictable pattern of symptomatic episodes, remission, and recurrence. Recently published systematic reviews suggest that exercise is the most effective intervention for preventing recurrences of LBP in persons that have recovered. Similar programs may also be effective in preventing flare-ups in persistent LBP. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of the Back to Living Well program (Physical activity + Education + Self-management) developed to prevent recurrence or flare-ups of LBP. The study evaluated feasibility in terms of recruitment rate, adherence, satisfaction with the exercise and education sessions, and the data collection procedures. We also aimed to evaluate barriers and facilitators to the engagement in the program.

METHODS

Seventeen participants with non-specific LBP recently discharged from care from physiotherapy, chiropractors or physician care (< 3 months) were referred to the study by health care providers or community advertisements between December 2018 and February 2019. Participants underwent a 12-week (1 session/week) individualized, group-based exercise in the community and 4 sessions (30 min each) of education. All participants completed an action plan weekly for 12 weeks and wore an activity monitor for 6 months. All participants responded to weekly pain measures and completed study questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, attrition rates and satisfaction. At the end of the intervention, participants completed an end-of-program survey.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine participants were screened for eligibility; 20 were deemed eligible, while 17 were included over a 2-month period meeting our feasibility targets. In total, 16 completed follow-up study questionnaires at 3 months, and 15 completed the 6-month follow-up. Fourteen participants responded to weekly messages, while 3 participants reported not having a mobile device or Internet access. In total, 15 participants responded to our end-of-program survey. Average age was 54.9 (11.7); 9 were female (53%), and the mean duration of LBP was 62.9 (69.7) months. All satisfaction responses in relation to the exercise program, education program and data collection procedures reached our threshold of 70% out of 100%. Reported barriers to engagement in the program included fear of injury, lack of motivation and travel. Facilitators included proximity to home, low cost, flexible schedule and friendly location.

CONCLUSION

The results show the program is feasible in terms of recruitment, low attrition, and patient satisfaction. Participants highlighted the excellent, relevant education program and the positive, personalized exercise. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention within a fully powered randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03328689.

Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? (WELBack) trial predicting response to exercise treatments for patients with low back pain: a validation randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Exercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Participants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04283409.

The effects of curl-up exercise in terms of posture and muscle contraction direction on muscle activity and thickness of trunk muscles

BACKGROUND

The curl-up exercise is widely used in clinical practice for strengthening abdominal muscles, but has been applied without a systematic method.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the most effective method considering the angle and muscle contraction direction during the curl-up exercise.

METHODS

Fourteen healthy males performed the curl-up exercise according to contraction direction (concentric and eccentric) and angle (30∘, 60∘, and 90∘). The muscle activity of the rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and iliopsoas (IP) was measured using electromyography (EMG), and the muscle thickness of transversus abdominis (TrA) was measured using ultrasonography.

RESULTS

The activities of the abdominal muscles (RA, EO, and IO) decreased with increasing angles (30∘, 60∘, and 90∘) (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference between eccentric and concentric contractions. The thickness ratio of TrA was the largest at an eccentric curl-up at 30∘, and the smallest at a concentric curl-up at 30∘ (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective angle for curl-up was 30∘. Although there is no difference in the direction of muscle contraction, eccentric curl-up at 30∘ could be considered the most effective posture for abdominal strengthening considering the importance of TrA.

Effectiveness of specific stabilization exercise compared with traditional trunk exercise in women with non-specific low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The primary physiotherapeutic treatment for LBP is physical exercise, but evidence suggesting a specific exercise as most appropriate for any given case is limited.

Objective

To determine if specific stabilization exercise (SSE) is more effective than traditional trunk exercise (TTE) in reducing levels of pain, disability and inflammation in women with non-specific low back pain (LBP).

Design

A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia.

Methods

Thirty-nine females experiencing non-specific LBP were included in two groups: the TTE program and SSE program, both were conducted by a physiotherapist during twenty sessions. The primary outcome was pain intensity (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale). Secondary outcomes were disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), and inflammation (IL-6 and TNF-α plasma levels). Measurements were taken at baseline, at half intervention, at post-intervention, and a month later.

Results

Mean group differences in change from baseline to post-intervention for TTE were: -4.5 points (CI 3.3 to 5.6) for pain, -5.1 points (CI 3.0 to 7.3) for disability, 0.19 pg/mL (95% CI [-1.6-1.2]) for IL-6 levels, and 46.2 pg/mL (CI 13.0 to 85.3) for TNF-α levels. For SSE, differences were: -4.3 points (CI 3.1 to 5.6) for pain, -6.1 points (CI 3.7 to 8.6) for disability, 1.1 pg/mL (CI 0.0 to 2.1) for IL-6 levels , and 12.8 pg/mL (95% CI [-42.3-16.7]) for TNF-α levels. There were an insignificant effect size and no statistically significant overall mean differences between both groups.

Conclusion

This study suggests that both interventions (traditional trunk and specific stabilization exercises) are effective in reducing pain and disability in non-specific LBP patients, but the two programs produce different degrees of inflammation change.

Clinical trial registration number

NCT02103036.

Comparison of spinal stability following motor control and general exercises in nonspecific chronic low back pain patients

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise was claimed to improve spinal stability in patients with chronic non-specific back pain, but to investigate the effectiveness of this exercise, other outcome measures have been used rather than spinal stability itself. The aim of our study is to assess motor control exercise effects on spinal stability using a biomechanical model.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients were assigned to either motor control or general exercises. Before and after trainings, participants were tested for spinal stability at seven isometric tasks. Electromyography signals were recorded from ten superficial muscles, and a hybrid EMG-driven musculoskeletal model estimated spinal stability indices at each task.

FINDINGS

Pain and disability significantly decreased in both groups. After trainings, patients had both increase and decrease in stability depending on the task, and stability did not increase/decrease uniformly in all patients. In the motor control group, stability increased at all positions but reached to significance only at right lateral pulling. In the general exercise group, except for pulling the trunk backward, stability decreased at other positions and reached to statistical significance only at pulling the trunk forward. No significant difference between groups was found in changing stability after the intervention.

INTERPRETATION

Interventions yielded no significant difference in disability, pain and stability index between two groups. Significant increase of stability in the motor control group at right lateral pulling may be attributed to more activity of abdominal muscles, and significant decrease of stability in the general exercise group at forward pulling may be attributed to more optimal activity of back muscles.

Effectiveness of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: midterm follow up results of a randomized controlled trial

•

Graded activity and physiotherapy have similar effects in terms of reducing pain and disability.

•

Healthcare professionals may identify inadequate beliefs in patients with low back pain.

•

It is important to stimulate patients with LBP return to work.

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health and economic problem worldwide. Graded activity and physiotherapy are commonly used interventions for nonspecific low back pain. However, there is currently little evidence to support the use of one intervention over the other in the medium-term.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of graded activity exercises to physiotherapy-based exercises at mid-term (three and six months’ post intervention) in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Methods

Sixty-six patients were randomly allocated to two groups: graded activity group (n = 33) and physiotherapy group (n = 33). These patients received individual sessions twice a week for six weeks. Follow-up measurements were taken at three and six months. The main outcome measurements were intensity pain (Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire).

Results

No significant differences between groups after three and six month-follow ups were observed. Both groups showed similar outcomes for pain intensity at three months [between group differences: −0.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.5 to 1.2)] and six months [0.1 (95% CI = −1.1 to 1.5)], disability at three months was [-0.6 (95% CI = −3.4 to 2.2)] and six months [0.0 (95% CI = −2.9 to 3.0)].

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that graded activity and physiotherapy have similar effects in the medium-term for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

September 2016 Letter to the Editor-in-Chief

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: "One More Cause of Failure to Validate a CPR: Overfitting" with Author's Response J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(9):811-812. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0202.

Comparison of muscular activities in the abdomen and lower limbs while performing sit-up and leg-raise

[Purpose] This study compared the muscle activities of sit-up and leg-raise. [Subjects and Methods] The subjects of this study were healthy students in their 20s. For electromyography of sit-ups and leg-raises in the supine position, 5 muscle groups of the abdomen were selected for the attachment of sensors: the upper and lower rectus abdominis, external oblique, rectus femoris, and the iliopsoas. SPSS 20.0 was used for the statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures of all factors was performed to verify the statistical significance of the measurements taken for the muscle activities and follow-up verification was made with the Bonferroni post hoc test. [Results] Sit-up and leg raise showed a significant difference. The eccentric sit-up exercise elicited a significant increase in the activation of the abdominal muscle. The leg raise and eccentric sit-up exercises elicited significant increases in the activation of hip flexor muscle. [Conclusion] The eccentric sit-up had the most outstanding effect on the abdominal muscles involved in stability of the trunk.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Effects of low back pain and of stabilization or movement-system-impairment treatments on induced postural responses: A planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Motor retraining for non-specific chronic low back pain (LBP) often focuses on voluntary postural tasks. This training, however, may not transfer to other known postural impairments, such as automatic postural responses to external perturbations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent current treatments of motor retraining ameliorate impaired postural coordination when responding to a perturbation of standing balance.

DESIGN

Planned secondary analysis of a prospectively registered (NCT01362049), randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

METHOD

Sixty-eight subjects with chronic, recurrent, non-specific LBP were allocated to perform a postural response task as a secondary assessment one week before and one week after receiving either stabilization or Movement System Impairment (MSI)-directed treatment over 6 weekly 1-h sessions plus home exercises. For assessment, subjects completed the Oswestry disability and numeric pain rating questionnaires and then performed a postural response task of maintaining standing balance in response to 3 trials in each of 4 randomly presented directions of linear surface translations of the platform under the subjects' feet. Integrated amplitudes of surface electromyography (EMG) were recorded bilaterally from the rectus abdominis (RA), internal oblique (IO), and external oblique (EO) muscles during the postural response task.

RESULTS

No significant effects of treatment on EMG responses were evident. Oswestry and numeric pain ratings decreased similarly following both treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Stabilization and MSI-directed treatments do not affect trunk EMG responses to perturbations of standing balance in people with LBP, suggesting current methods of motor retraining do not sufficiently transfer to tasks of reactive postural control.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

A literature review of clinical tests for lumbar instability in low back pain: validity and applicability in clinical practice

Background

Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice.

Methods

We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales.

Results

Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97).

The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)].

The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87).

The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27).

Conclusions

The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0058-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The short-term effects of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is one of the most common problematic health conditions worldwide and is highly associated with disability, quality of life, emotional changes, and work absenteeism. Graded activity programs, based on cognitive behavioral therapy, and exercises are common treatments for patients with low back pain. However, recent evidence has shown that there is no evidence to support graded activity for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

AIM

to compare the effectiveness of graded activity and physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 66 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomized to perform either graded activity (moderate intensity treadmill walking, brief education and strength exercises) or physiotherapy (strengthening, stretching and motor control). These patients received individual sessions twice a week for six weeks. The primary measures were intensity of pain (Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire).

RESULTS

After six weeks, significant improvements have been observed in all outcome measures of both groups, with a non-significant difference between the groups. For intensity of pain (mean difference = 0.1 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.1-1.3) and disability (mean difference = 0.8 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.6-4.2). No differences were found in the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that graded activity and physiotherapy showed to be effective and have similar effects for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Differences in lumbopelvic control and occupational behaviours in female nurses with and without a recent history of low back pain due to back injury

Low back pain is highly prevalent in nurses. This study aimed to determine which physical fitness, physical activity (PA) and biomechanical characteristics most clearly distinguish between nurses with [recently injured (RInj)] and without [not recently injured (NRInj)] a recent back injury. Twenty-seven (8 RInj, 19 NRInj) female nurses completed questionnaires (pain, work, PA), physical fitness, biomechanical and low back discomfort measures, and wore an accelerometer for one work shift. Relative to NRInj nurses, RInj nurses exhibited reduced lumbopelvic control (41.4% more displayed a moderate loss of frontal plane position), less active occupational behaviours (less moderate PA; less patient lifts performed alone; more sitting and less standing time) and more than two times higher low back discomfort scores. Despite no physical fitness differences, the lumbopelvic control, occupational behaviours and discomfort measures differed between nurses with and without recent back injuries. It is unclear whether poor lumbopelvic control is causal or adaptive in RInj nurses and may require further investigation. Practitioner Summary: It is unclear which personal modifiable factors are most clearly associated with low back pain in nurses. Lumbopelvic control was the only performance-based measure to distinguish between nurses with and without recent back injuries. Future research may investigate whether reduced lumbopelvic control is causal or adaptive in recently injured nurses.

Predicting response to motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with low back pain: preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current treatments for low back pain have small effects. A research priority is to identify patient characteristics associated with larger effects for specific interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify simple clinical characteristics of patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from either motor control exercises or graded activity.

DESIGN

This study was a secondary analysis of the results of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-two patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled in the trial, which was conducted in Australian physical therapy clinics. The treatment consisted of 12 initial exercise sessions over an 8-week period and booster sessions at 4 and 10 months following randomization. The putative effect modifiers (psychosocial features, physical activity level, walking tolerance, and self-reported signs of clinical instability) were measured at baseline. Measures of pain and function (both measured on a 0-10 scale) were taken at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months by a blinded assessor.

RESULTS

Self-reported clinical instability was a statistically significant and clinically important modifier of treatment response for 12-month function (interaction: 2.72; 95% confidence interval=1.39 to 4.06). Participants with high scores on the clinical instability questionnaire (≥9) did 0.76 points better with motor control exercises, whereas those who had low scores (<9) did 1.93 points better with graded activity. Most other effect modifiers investigated did not appear to be useful in identifying preferential response to exercise type.

LIMITATIONS

The psychometric properties of the instability questionnaire have not been fully tested.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple 15-item questionnaire of features considered indicative of clinical instability can identify patients who respond best to either motor control exercises or graded activity.

Nature and determinants of the course of chronic low back pain over a 12-month period: a cluster analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that low back pain (LBP) is a condition with an unpredictable pattern of exacerbation, remission, and recurrence. However, there is an incomplete understanding of the course of LBP and the determinants of the course.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were: (1) to identify clusters of LBP patients with similar fluctuating pain patterns over time and (2) to investigate whether demographic and clinical characteristics can distinguish these clusters.

DESIGN

This study was a secondary analysis of data extracted from a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Pain scores were collected from 155 participants with chronic nonspecific LBP. Pain intensity was measured monthly over a 1-year period by mobile phone short message service. Cluster analysis was used to identify participants with similar fluctuating patterns of pain based on the pain measures collected over a year, and t tests were used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

The cluster analysis revealed the presence of 3 main clusters. Pain was of fluctuating nature within 2 of the clusters. Out of the 155 participants, 21 (13.5%) had fluctuating pain. Baseline disability (measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and treatment groups (from the initial randomized controlled trial) were significantly different in the clusters of patients with fluctuating pain when compared with the cluster of patients without fluctuating pain.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study was the fact that participants were undergoing treatment that may have been responsible for the rather positive prognosis observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A small number of patients with fluctuating patterns of pain over time were identified. This number could increase if individuals with episodic pain are included in this fluctuating group.

The use of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale to measure rehabilitative progress in a physiotherapy setting

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) are two measures which the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) of New Zealand have made compulsory for physiotherapists to record at a patients initial visit and discharge. Therefore, it is important to assess clinicians' compliance to this reporting requirement, and whether research results regarding effectiveness of these measures are transferable to the clinic.

METHOD

A retrospective observational study that assessed compliance in recording these measures, and analyzed the changes in scores seen across 11 physiotherapy practices in New Zealand over a 12-month period.

RESULTS

Overall compliance rates of 51·8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 50·7-52·9] for PSFS and 51·9% (95% CI: 50·7-53·0) for NPRS were reported. These figures increase to 85·3% (95% CI: 82·0-88·6) PSFS; and 85·1% (95% CI: 81·7-88·4) NPRS, when a full discharge for the patient was made. Mean change in PSFS scores were 5·1 (95% CI: 5·0-5·1) points representing an 85·2% (95% CI: 84·1-86·3) change in total score.

DISCUSSION

The study has shown that when patients complete a prescribed course of rehabilitation, clinicians show good compliance in recording PSFS and NPRS. Change in PSFS score is, on average, above the minimal clinically important difference shown in previous studies.

Efficacy of graded activity versus supervised exercises in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Low back pain is a relevant public health problem, being an important cause of work absenteeism worldwide, as well as affecting the quality of life of sufferers and their individual functional performances. Supervised active physical routines and of cognitive-behavioral therapies are recommended for the treatment of chronic Low back pain, although evidence to support the effectiveness of different techniques is missing. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to contrast the effectiveness of two types of exercises, graded activity or supervised, in decreasing symptoms of chronic low back pain.

Methods/design

Sample will consist of 66 patients, blindly allocated into one of two groups: 1) Graded activity which, based on an operant approach, will use time-contingent methods aiming to increase participants’ activity levels; 2) Supervised exercise, where participants will be trained for strengthening, stretching, and motor control targeting different muscle groups. Interventions will last one hour, and will happen twice a week for 6 weeks. Outcomes (pain, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, return to work, physical activity, physical capacity, and kinesiophobia) will be assessed at baseline, at treatment end, and three and six months after treatment end. Data collection will be conducted by an investigator blinded to treatment allocation.

Discussion

This project describes the randomisation method that will be used to compare the effectiveness of two different treatments for chronic low back pain: graded activity and supervised exercises. Since optimal approach for patients with chronic back pain have yet not been defined based on evidence, good quality studies on the subject are necessary.

Trial registration

NCT01719276

A meta-analysis of core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain

Objective

To review the effects of core stability exercise or general exercise for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).

Summary of Background Data

Exercise therapy appears to be effective at decreasing pain and improving function for patients with chronic LBP in practice guidelines. Core stability exercise is becoming increasingly popular for LBP. However, it is currently unknown whether core stability exercise produces more beneficial effects than general exercise in patients with chronic LBP.

Methods

Published articles from 1970 to October 2011 were identified using electronic searches. For this meta-analysis, two reviewers independently selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating core stability exercise versus general exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. Data were extracted independently by the same two individuals who selected the studies.

Results

From the 28 potentially relevant trials, a total of 5 trials involving 414 participants were included in the current analysis. The pooling revealed that core stability exercise was better than general exercise for reducing pain [mean difference (−1.29); 95% confidence interval (−2.47, −0.11); P = 0.003] and disability [mean difference (−7.14); 95% confidence interval (−11.64, −2.65); P = 0.002] at the time of the short-term follow-up. However, no significant differences were observed between core stability exercise and general exercise in reducing pain at 6 months [mean difference (−0.50); 95% confidence interval (−1.36, 0.36); P = 0.26] and 12 months [mean difference (−0.32); 95% confidence interval (−0.87, 0.23); P = 0.25].

Conclusions

Compared to general exercise, core stability exercise is more effective in decreasing pain and may improve physical function in patients with chronic LBP in the short term. However, no significant long-term differences in pain severity were observed between patients who engaged in core stability exercise versus those who engaged in general exercise.

Systematic Review Registration

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001717.

Lombalgia crônica: comparação entre duas intervenções na força inspiratória e capacidade funcional

INTRODUÇÃO: A dor lombar crônica apresenta alta incidência, grandes custos sociais e pessoais e esforços terapêuticos muitas vezes frustrantes. Faz-se necessário, então, avaliar os recursos fisioterapêuticos para entendê-los melhor e fundamentá-los cientificamente. OBJETIVOS: Comparar os efeitos entre duas intervenções fisioterapêuticas sobre a força muscular respiratória (FMR) e a capacidade funcional (CF) em pacientes com lombalgia crônica. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Série de casos cuja amostra (n = 10), composta por portadores de dor lombar crônica, foi dividida aleatoriamente em grupo controle, que recebeu fisioterapia convencional (eletroanalgesia, massoterapia e flexibilização), e grupo experimental, que recebeu a cinesioterapia combinada (composta por técnicas de isostretching + treinamento sensório-motor aquático). A mensuração da CF, realizada pelo teste de caminhada de seis minutos (TC6), e da FMR, pelas pressões máximas inspiratória (Pimáx) e expiratórias (Pemáx) por meio de manuvacuometria, aconteceu antes (ΔINI) e após (ΔFIN) as intervenções, que duraram sete semanas, com três sessões semanais. As comparações foram feitas pelo Mann-Whitney e Wilcoxon (α = 0,05). RESULTADOS: No GE, observou-se melhora, intragrupo, na Pimáx (p = 0,0164), Pemáx (p = 0,0227) e TC6 (p = 0,0092), e, no GC, apenas no TC6 (p = 0,018). Nas comparações intergrupo, obteve-se Pimáx e Pemáx semelhantes na ΔINI, mas diferentes na ΔFIN (p = 0,0166; p = 0,0045); e no TC6, observou-se diferença significativa apenas na ΔINI (p = 0,0484). CONCLUSÃO: O isostretching e treinamento sensório-motor aquático foram eficazes na melhora da FMR e da CF, e o tratamento fisioterapêutico convencional foi efetivo apenas na melhora da CF.

Feasibility of using short message service to collect pain outcomes in a low back pain clinical trial

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of using short message service (SMS) within a clinical trial of low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Technological advances have transformed communication technologies and opened the way for their use in clinical studies. SMSs have been tested for use in data collection for different patient groups, but little is known about use of this technology in low back pain research.

METHODS

Trial participants who owned a mobile phone and knew how to send SMS messages were included in the study. The participants were sent an SMS message asking them to rate their average pain, once a month for 12 consecutive months. Response rates during the year were calculated, and regression analyses were used to explore factors associated with phone ownership and response rates.

RESULTS

Of the 133 participants in the trial, 105 (61.1%) had mobile phones and 97 (56.4%) knew how to use SMS. The regression analyses showed that older patients were less likely to own a mobile phone (P < 0.000). Response rates to SMS alone during the 12 months ranged from 54.8% to 74.2%, and for SMS supplemented with phone interviews ranged from 91.5% to 99%. The median (interquartile range) number of the scheduled 12 assessments completed by SMS per patient was 9 (interquartile range, 5-11). The Poisson regression revealed no significant effect for any of the predictors studied: age, sex, education level, and pain level at baseline and after treatment (P ≥ 0.16).

CONCLUSION

SMS supplemented with phone interviews, but not SMS alone, is a feasible option to collect simple data within a back pain clinical trial setting.

Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. Protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. General exercise seems to be an effective option for management of chronic low back pain (LBP) but very little is known about the management of a sub-acute LBP within sub-groups.

Recent research has developed clinical tests to identify a subgroup of patients with chronic non-specific LBP who have movement control dysfunction (MD).

Method/Design

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effects of general exercise and specific movement control exercise (SMCE) on disability and function in patients with MD within recurrent sub-acute LBP. The main outcome measure is the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Discussion

European clinical guideline for management of chronic LBP recommends that more research is required to develop tools to improve the classification and identification of specific clinical sub-groups of chronic LBP patients. Good quality RCTs are then needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions aimed at these specific target groups. This RCT aims to test the hypothesis whether patients within a sub-group of MD benefit more through a specific individually tailored movement control exercise program than through general exercises.

Effect of motor control exercises versus graded activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Motor control exercises to improve control and coordination of trunk muscles and graded activity under the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy are 2 commonly used exercise therapies, yet there is little evidence to support the use of one intervention over the other.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

DESIGN

This study was a prospectively registered randomized controlled trial with outcome assessment and statistical analyses conducted blind to group.

SETTING

The study was conducted in primary care settings.

PATIENTS

The participants were 172 patients with chronic (>12 weeks) nonspecific low back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either motor control exercises or graded activity. There was no attempt to subclassify patients to match them to a treatment. Patients in both groups received 14 sessions of individualized, supervised exercise therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were average pain over the previous week (numeric rating scale) and function (Patient-Specific Functional Scale); secondary outcomes were disability (24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), global impression of change (Global Perceived Effect Scale), and quality of life (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire [SF-36]). Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months after intervention.

RESULTS

A linear mixed models analysis showed that there were no significant differences between treatment groups at any of the time points for any of the outcomes studied. For example, the effect for pain at 2 months was 0.0 (-0.7 to 0.8).

LIMITATIONS

Clinicians could not be blinded to the interventions.

CONCLUSION

results of this study suggest that motor control exercises and graded activity have similar effects for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

The effectiveness of graded activity in patients with non-specific low-back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low-back pain (LBP) is considered a major health and economic problem in Western society. Nowadays a common used intervention on non-specific LBP is graded activity (GA). Graded Activity developed by Lindström et al., consisted of four parts: (i) measurements of functional capacity; (ii) a work-place visit; (iii) back school education and (iv) an individual, sub-maximal, gradually increased exercise program with an operant-conditioning behavioural approach as described by Fordyce et al.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of GA in adults with non-specific LBP on pain, disabilities and return to work.

DATA SOURCES

An extensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library was conducted in July 2011.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of GA in patients with non-specific LBP were eligible. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the PEDro scale. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted according to van Peppen et al. to interpret the outcomes of the included studies.

RESULTS

Ten articles were included in this systematic review; these articles described five RCTs (680 patients). The best-evidence synthesis revealed that there was no or insufficient evidence for a positive effect of GA on pain, disabilities and return to work in patients with non-specific LBP.

CONCLUSION

Currently there is no or insufficient evidence that GA results in better outcomes of patients with non-specific LBP.

Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire

Several versions of the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) have been proposed; however, their responsiveness has not been extensively explored. The objective of this study was to compare the responsiveness of four versions of the RMDQ. Perceived disability was measured using the 24-item, two 18-item and an 11-item RMDQ on 1,069 low back pain patients from six randomised controlled trials. Responsiveness was calculated using effect size, Guyatt's responsiveness index (GRI) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Effect size analyses showed that both 18-item versions of the RMDQ were superior to the 24- and 11-item versions of the RMDQ. GRI showed that the 24- and 18-item versions of the RMDQ were similar but more responsive than the 11-item. ROC curves revealed that the 11-item was less responsive than the other three versions, which had similar responsiveness. The results of this study demonstrate that the 24-item and both 18-item versions of the RMDQ have similar responsiveness with all having superior responsiveness to the 11-item.

A randomized controlled trial of tai chi for long-term low back pain (TAI CHI): study rationale, design, and methods

Background

Low back pain persisting for longer than 3 months is a common and costly condition for which many current treatments have low-moderate success rates at best. Exercise is among the more successful treatments for this condition, however, the type and dosage of exercise that elicits the best results is not clearly defined. Tai chi is a gentle form of low intensity exercise that uses controlled movements in combination with relaxation techniques and is currently used as a safe form of exercise for people suffering from other chronic pain conditions such as arthritis. To date, there has been no scientific evaluation of tai chi as an intervention for people with back pain. Thus the aim of this study will be to examine the effects of a tai chi exercise program on pain and disability in people with long-term low back pain.

Methods and design

The study will recruit 160 healthy individuals from the community setting to be randomised to either a tai chi intervention group or a wait-list control group. Individuals in the tai chi group will attend 2 tai chi sessions (40 minutes)/week for 8 weeks followed by 1 tai chi session/week for 2 weeks. The wait-list control will continue their usual health care practices and have the opportunity to participate in the tai chi program once they have completed the follow-up assessments. The primary outcome will be bothersomeness of back symptoms measured with a 0–10 numerical rating scale. Secondary outcomes include, self-reports of pain-related disability, health-related quality of life and global perceived effect of treatment. Statistical analysis of primary and secondary outcomes will be based on the intention to treat principle. Linear mixed models will be used to test for the effect of treatment on outcome at 10 weeks follow up. This trial has received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. HREC Approval No.10452

Discussion

This study will be the first trial in this area and the information on its effectiveness will allow patients, clinicians and treatment funders to make informed choices regarding this treatment.

Trial Registration

This trial has been registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. ACTRN12608000270314

An investigation of the reproducibility of ultrasound measures of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

Ultrasound (US) measures are used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate improvements in activity of the abdominal muscles in patients with low back pain. Studies evaluating the reproducibility of these US measures provide some information; however, little is known about the reproducibility of these US measures over time in patients with low back pain. The objectives of this study were to estimate the reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of automatic activation of the lateral abdominal wall muscles using a leg force task in patients with chronic low back pain. Thirty-five participants from an existing randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial participated in the study. A reproducibility analysis was undertaken from all patients using data collected at baseline and after treatment. The reproducibility of measurements of thickness, muscle activation (thickness changes) and muscle improvement/deterioration after intervention (differences in thickness changes from single images made before and after treatment) was analysed. The reproducibility of static images (thickness) was excellent (ICC(2,1) = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.97, standard error of the measurement (SEM) = 0.04 cm, smallest detectable change (SDC) = 0.11 cm), the reproducibility of thickness changes was moderate (ICC(2,1) = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.76, SEM = 15%, SDC 41%), while the reproducibility of differences in thickness changes from single images with statistical adjustment for duplicate measures was poor (ICC(2,1) = 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, SEM = 21%, SDC = 66.5%). Improvements in the testing protocol must be performed in order to enhance reproducibility of US as an outcome measure for abdominal muscle activation.

Poderia a atividade física induzir analgesia em pacientes com dor crônica?

A dor crônica caracteriza-se pela persistência do sintoma além do período fisiológico de recuperação do tecido lesado. Essas dores causam incapacidade física e redução da performance cognitiva, reduzem a qualidade de vida e o bem-estar dos pacientes, cujo tratamento proposto contradiz o clássico binômio da terapia da dor aguda (repouso e fármacos). Para a dor crônica prescrevem-se exercícios físicos e sugerem-se tratamentos multidisciplinares. Embora a atividade física seja prescrita há mais de 20 anos, os mecanismos neurofisiológicos envolvidos ainda não são compreendidos. Descrevemos brevemente os mecanismos endógenos de controle da dor crônica e evidências da literatura científica que defendem o sistema opioide como mecanismo de ação na analgesia induzida pelo exercício em indivíduos sadios e atletas. Esse mecanismo também parece agir na população com dor crônica, embora haja controvérsias. Finalizamos o artigo com considerações clínicas para a prescrição do exercício para a população com dor crônica.