Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain patients to make the impairment and disability vanish or decrease. Lumbar supports are also used to prevent the onset of low back pain (primary prevention) or to prevent recurrences of a low back pain episode (secondary prevention). The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of non-specific low back pain. We searched the Medline, Cinahl and Current Contents databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999, and the Embase database up to September 1998. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified controlled trials, and used Science Citation Index to identify additional controlled trials. Controlled clinical trials that reported on any type of lumbar supports as preventive or therapeutic intervention for non-specific low back pain were included. One author extracted data from the trials considering characteristics of the study population, characteristics of the interventions and the final results for each outcome measure. The author compared these findings to data regarding the same characteristics of the same studies published already in other reviews. The methodological quality was independently assessed by two authors. Because it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis, a qualitative meta-analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports was classified as being strong, moderate, limited or conflicting, and no evidence. Five randomized and two nonrandomized controlled preventive trials and six randomized therapeutic trials were included in our review. Overall the methodological quality of the studies included in our review was rather low. Only four of the thirteen studies scored positive on 50% or more of the the internal validity items. There was moderate evidence that for primary prevention lumbar supports are not more effective than other types of treatment or no intervention. No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention. The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment, while it is still unclear if lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain. There is still a need for high quality randomised trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realisation of an adequate compliance.

Effect of education on non-specific neck and low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Low back pain

Managing Nontraumatic Acute Back Pain

Low back pain

Low back pain

Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain patients to make the impairment and disability vanish or decrease. Lumbar supports are also used to prevent the onset of low back pain (primary prevention) or to prevent recurrences of a low back pain episode (secondary prevention). The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of non-specific low back pain. We searched the Medline, Cinahl and Current Contents databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999, and the Embase database up to September 1998. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified controlled trials, and used Science Citation Index to identify additional controlled trials. Controlled clinical trials that reported on any type of lumbar supports as preventive or therapeutic intervention for non-specific low back pain were included. One reviewer extracted data from the trials considering characteristics of the study population, characteristics of the interventions and the final results for each outcome measure. The reviewer compared these findings to data regarding the same characteristics of the same studies published already in other reviews. The methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. Because it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis, a qualitative meta-analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports was classified as being strong, moderate, limited or conflicting, and no evidence. Five randomized and two nonrandomized controlled preventive trials and six randomized therapeutic trials were included in our review. Overall the methodological quality of the studies included in our review was rather low. Only four of the thirteen studies scored positive on 50% or more of the the internal validity items. There was moderate evidence that for primary prevention lumbar supports are not more effective than other types of treatment or no intervention. No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention. The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment, while it is still unclear if lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain. There is still a need for high quality randomised trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realisation of an adequate compliance.

Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low-back pain patients, to prevent the onset of low-back pain (primary prevention) or to prevent recurrences of a low-back pain episode (secondary prevention). To assess the effects of lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of non-specific low-back pain. We updated the search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL to December 2006. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials, and contacted experts to identify additional RCTs. Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of lumbar supports as preventive or therapeutic intervention for non-specific low-back pain. One review author generated the electronic search. Two review authors independently identified trials that met the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data on the study population, interventions, and final results. The methodological quality and the clinical relevance were independently assessed by two review authors. Because it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis, we performed a qualitative analysis in which the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of lumbar supports was classified as strong, moderate, limited, conflicting, or no evidence. Seven preventive studies (14,437 people) and eight treatment studies (1361 people) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was rather low. Only five of the fifteen studies met 50% or more of the internal validity items. There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether lumbar supports are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It is still unclear if lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for the treatment of low-back pain. There is moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not more effective than no intervention or training in preventing low-back pain, and conflicting evidence whether they are effective supplements to other preventive interventions. It remains unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than no or other interventions for treating low-back pain. There is still a need for high quality randomized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports. One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of an adequate compliance. Special attention should be paid to different outcome measures, types of patients and types of lumbar support.

Effect of education on non-specific neck and low back pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effect of education on non-specific neck and low back pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The efficacy of interventions for low back pain in nurses: A systematic review

ObjectivesTo investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or...

Implementation of Exercise Programmes for Prevention and Treatment of Low Back Pain

Low back pain is the most common complaint experienced by the majority of people at some point in their lifetime. Physical therapy has been in favor of effective treatment and prevention of low back pain. However, there is a lack of agreement on the best exercise treatment and abundant studies are in progress. Categorical studies are lacking particularly in this part of the world. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of two specific exercises, core stability exercises with Williams’ flexion exercises, in patients with non-specific low back pain. Objective:The objective of this study was to find out the most effective treatment for patients with non-specific low back pain Methods: This study is a single-blinded randomized clinical trial that was conducted in the physiotherapy outdoor patient department of the public hospital, Jinnah Hospital Lahore (JHL). 20 patients with non-specific low back pain were randomly allocated in two treatment groups, 10 in A (core stability exercises) and 10 in B (Williams’ flexion exercises), after giving informed consent. The conventional treatment of low back pain. e.g. Hot or cold pack, electrotherapeutic modalities was given to the patients of both groups along with their specialized group treatment. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were used before treatment and after the third treatment session during the period of one to two weeks to measure outcomes. The independent samples T-test was used for data analysis. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant Results: The results of this study illustrated that there is a significant difference between the two groups in clinical and therapeutic effect in the reduction of pain as the P-value is <0.05. While the results in the reduction of pain-related disability, measured by the Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, were not significant as P-value >0.05(P= 0.184). Conclusions: The study indicates that core stability exercises are more effective than Williams’ flexion exercises for the reduction of non-specific low back pain except for a reduction in pain-related disability.

There is lack of theoretical and clinical knowledge of the use of insoles for prevention or treatment of back pain. The high incidence of back pain and the popularity of shoe insoles call for a systematic review of this practice. To determine the effectiveness of shoe insoles in the prevention and treatment of non-specific back pain compared to placebo, no intervention, or other interventions. We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Back Group Trials Register and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to March 2005, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to February 2007; reviewed reference lists in review articles, guidelines and in the included trials; conducted citation tracking; contacted individuals with expertise in this domain. We included randomized controlled trials that examined the use of customized or non-customized insoles, for the prevention or treatment of back pain, compared to placebo, no intervention or other interventions. Study outcomes had to include at least one of the following: self-reported incidence or physician diagnosis of back pain; pain intensity; duration of back pain; absenteeism; functional status. Studies of insoles designed to treat limb length inequality were excluded. One review author conducted the searches and blinded the retrieved references for authors, institution and journal. Two review authors independently selected the relevant articles. Two different review authors independently assessed the methodological quality and clinical relevance and extracted the data from each trial using a standardized form. Six randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria: Three examined prevention of back pain (2061 participants) and three examined mixed populations (256 participants) without being clear whether they were aimed at primary or secondary prevention or treatment. No treatment trials were found. There is strong evidence that the use of insoles does not prevent back pain. There is limited evidence that insoles alleviate back pain or adversely shift the pain to the lower extremities. This review largely reflects limitations of the literature, including low quality studies with heterogeneous interventions and outcome measures, poor blinding and poor reporting. There is strong evidence that insoles are not effective for the prevention of back pain. The current evidence on insoles as treatment for low-back pain does not allow any conclusions.High quality trials are required for stronger conclusions.