Low Back Pain Trials Research Articles

Manual therapy plus sexual advice compared with manual therapy or exercise therapy alone for lumbar radiculopathy: a randomized controlled trial.

The biopsychosocial approach to managing low back pain (LBP) has the potential to improve the quality of care for patients. However, LBP trials that have utilized the biopsychosocial approach to treatment have largely neglected sexual activity, which is an important social component of individuals with LBP. The objectives of the study are to determine the effects of manual therapy plus sexual advice (MT+SA) compared with manual therapy (MT) or exercise therapy (ET) alone in the management of individuals with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy (DHR) and to determine the best sexual positions for these individuals. This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Fifty-four participants diagnosed as having chronic DHR (>3 months) were randomly allocated into three groups with 18 participants each in the MT+SA, MT and ET groups. The participants in the MT+SA group received manual therapy (including Dowling's progressive inhibition of neuromuscular structures and Mulligan's spinal mobilization with leg movement) plus sexual advice, those in the MT group received manual therapy only and those in the ET group received exercise therapy only. Each group received treatment for 12 weeks and then followed up for additional 40 weeks. The primary outcomes were pain, activity limitation, sexual disability and kinesiophobia at 12 weeks post-randomization. The MT+SA group improved significantly better than the MT or ET group in all outcomes (except for nerve function), and at all timelines (6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization). These improvements were also clinically meaningful for back pain, leg pain, medication intake, and functional mobility at 6 and 12 weeks post-randomization and for sexual disability, activity limitation, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization (p<0.05). On the other hand, many preferred sexual positions for individuals with DHR emerged, with "side-lying" being the most practiced sexual position and "standing" being the least practiced sexual position by females. While "lying supine" was the most practiced sexual position and "sitting on a chair" was the least practiced sexual position by males. This study found that individuals with DHR demonstrated better improvements in all outcomes when treated with MT+SA than when treated with MT or ET alone. These improvements were also clinically meaningful for sexual disability, activity limitation, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia at long-term follow-up. There is also no one-size-fits-all to sexual positioning for individuals with DHR.

Can contextual factors improve clarity of the results from clinical trials of low back pain?

Can contextual factors improve clarity of the results from clinical trials of low back pain?

If You Build It, Will They Come? Patient and Provider Use of a Novel Hybrid Telehealth Care Pathway for Low Back Pain.

The purpose of this study was to describe the referrals and use of a hybrid care model for low back pain that includes on-site care by physical therapists, physical activity training, and psychologically informed practice (PiP) delivered by telehealth in the Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Low Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial. Data were collected from November 2020 through February 2023 from 5 Veteran Health Administration clinics participating in AIM-Back, a multisite, cluster-randomized embedded pragmatic trial. The authors extracted data from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse to describe referral and enrollment metrics, telehealth use (eg, distribution of physical activity and PiP calls), and treatments used by physical therapists and telehealth providers. Seven hundred one veterans were referred to the AIM-Back trial with 422 enrolling in the program (consult-to-enrollment rate = 60.2%). After travel restrictions were lifted, site visits resulted in a significant increase in referrals and a number of new referring providers. At initial evaluation by on-site physical therapists, 92.2% of veterans received pain modulation (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, manual therapy). Over 81% of enrollees completed at least 1 telehealth physical activity call, with a mean of 2.8 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of the 167 veterans who screened as medium to high risk of persistent disability, 74.9% completed at least 1 PiP call, with a mean of 2.5 (SD = 2.0) calls out of 6. Of those who completed at least 1 PiP call (n = 125), 100% received communication strategies, 97.6% received pain coping skills training, 89.6% received activity-based treatments, and 99.2% received education in a home program. In implementing a hybrid care pathway for low back pain, the authors observed consistency in the delivery of core components (ie, pain modulation, use of physical activity training, and risk stratification to PiP), notable variability in telehealth calls, high use of PiP components, and increased referrals with tailored provider engagement. These findings describe variability occurring within a hybrid care pathway and can inform future implementation efforts.

Comparison of Effectiveness of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation and Conservative Therapy for Low Back Pain

The study is to describe the current evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation in comparison to the conservative intervention on Low Back Pain (LBP). The PubMed database was searched for randomised clinical trials of spinal manipulation and low back pain. Criteria for inclusion was subjects with low back pain treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation. Studies were excluded when participants were under the age of 18; conditions that were considered to be outside the discipline of manual therapy including systemic disease or malignancy, osteoporosis, pathological causes of LBP, LBP with radiculopathy; and contraindications to spinal manipulation. Data extraction included study design, number of participants, gestational age, spinal region, number of manipulations, manipulation technique details, profession of manipulator, active exercise reporting (Yes vs. No), type, and number of active exercises. Chiropractic care seems to be more effective than conservative intervention for LBP in reducing pain, increasing range of motion in lumbar spine, improving disability status, and enhancing general health. Furthermore, integrative care for LBP could be considered to improvise in the future treatment plan. The review of comparing different treatment approaches for LBP is still lacking and future research is needed to consider including a control group in order to provide accurate and persuasive outcomes.

"The Pain Left, I Was Off and Running": A Qualitative Analysis of Group Acupuncture and Yoga Therapy for Chronic Pain in a Low-Income and Ethnically Diverse Population.

Introduction: Chronic pain and the current opioid epidemic are pressing public health concerns, especially in low-income and ethnically diverse communities. Nonpharmacologic therapies that are safe, effective, and acceptable for the treatment of chronic pain conditions may provide a solution for addressing this issue. This qualitative analysis explores the experience of study participants who received combined acupuncture and yoga therapy (YT) to treat chronic pain delivered in a primary care setting. Methods: The group acupuncture with yoga therapy for chronic neck, low back, and osteoarthritic pain trial (GAPYOGA) assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of group acupuncture (GA) combined with YT in a low-income, racial, and ethnically diverse population. Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with a subset of patients in the trial. Nineteen participants were interviewed for qualitative analysis of their experience. Using the immersion and crystallization method, transcribed interviews were analyzed for themes meaningfully representing participant experience. Results: The combined GA and YT resulted in significant pain relief and transformative healing experiences. Three themes emerged from participant narratives: (1) transformative engagement with self in the healing process through pain relief, psychological well-being, and self-efficacy; (2) therapeutic relationship with acupuncture and yoga providers; and (3) fostering relationships with fellow participants in the group. Discussion: In this study of a low-income and ethnically diverse population, the combination of acupuncture and YT was found to alleviate pain, improve function, promote psychological well-being, and engage participants in self-care practices in a transformative healing process-resulting in physical and psychological benefits.

Compliance with telephone-based lifestyle weight loss programs improves low back pain but not knee pain outcomes: complier average causal effects analyses of 2 randomised trials.

We conducted a complier average causal effect (CACE) analyses for 2 pragmatic randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of telephone-based lifestyle weight loss interventions compared with usual care among compliers. Participants from 2 trials with low back pain (n = 160) and knee osteoarthritis (n = 120) with a body mass index ≥27 kg/m2 were included. We defined adherence to the telephone-based lifestyle weight loss program as completing 60% (6 from 10) of telephone health coaching calls. The primary outcomes for CACE analyses were pain intensity (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for knee osteoarthritis). Secondary outcomes were weight, physical activity, and diet. We used an instrumental variable approach to estimate CACE in compliers. From the intervention groups of the trials, 29% of those with low back pain (n = 23/80) and 34% of those with knee osteoarthritis (n = 20/60) complied. Complier average causal effect estimates showed potentially clinically meaningful effects, but with low certainty because of wide confidence intervals, for pain intensity (-1.4; 95% confidence interval, -3.1, 0.4) and small but also uncertain effects for disability (-2.1; 95% confidence interval, -8.6, 4.5) among compliers in the low back pain trial intervention compared with control but not in the knee osteoarthritis trial. Our findings showed that compliers of a telephone-based weight loss intervention in the low back pain trial generally had improved outcomes; however, there were inconsistent effects in compliers from the knee osteoarthritis trial. Complier average causal effect estimates were larger than intention-to-treat results but must be considered with caution.

Health literacy and health outcomes in patients with low back pain: a scoping review

BackgroundLow back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Health literacy has been associated with pain intensity and pain control. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding this association. In the field of low back pain research, inconsistent reporting of outcomes has been highlighted. To address this issue a Core Outcome Set has been developed.ObjectivesThe objectives of this scoping review were: (1) The health literacy measures currently employed for low back pain and the aspects of health literacy they include. (2) The low back pain health outcomes included in such work. (3) The extent to which these health outcomes reflect the Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Non-Specific Low Back Pain.MethodsThe search included thirteen bibliographic databases, using medical subject heading terms for low back pain and health literacy, and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The eligibility criteria were defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute PCC mnemonic. A thematic framework approach was used for analysis.ResultsThe search yielded ten relevant studies for inclusion, amongst which a total of nine health literacy measures and 50 health outcome measures were used. Most health literacy measures focused on functional health literacy, with few assessing communicative and critical health literacy. The health outcomes assessed by the included studies could be broadly categorised into: Pain, Disability, Behaviour, Knowledge and Beliefs, and Resource Utilisation. Most of these outcome measures studied (36 out of 50) did not directly reflect the Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Non-Specific Low Back Pain.ConclusionsTo allow for comparison across findings and the development of a rigorous evidence base, future work should include the Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Non-Specific Low Back Pain. There is an urgent need to broaden the evidence-base to include regions where low back pain morbidity is high, but data is lacking. Such work demands the incorporation of comprehensive measures of health literacy that have both generic and culturally sensitive components.

Impact of rescue medication in placebo-controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain and low back pain.

Rescue medication (RM) consumption is commonly used as a secondary outcome in placebo-controlled trials of chronic pain, but its validity has yet to be established. If participants randomized to placebo take more RM than those randomized to an active drug, the difference in pain between the 2 groups may be reduced, potentially masking effects of the active drug. This study assessed proportional RM consumption in the placebo and active groups according to results of 42 randomized controlled trials of neuropathic pain (NeP), and 29 trials of low back pain, which were included in 2 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Trial results were assessed based on effect size, statistical significance, and whether the drug was recommended as first-line treatment by the systematic reviews. In trials indicating effect of the investigational drug, RM consumption was generally higher in the placebo groups than in the active groups. In trials reporting a small or a medium effect size of the investigational drug, subjects receiving placebo consumed 17% to 30% more RM than subjects receiving active drug, potentially leading to underestimation of the effects of the investigational drugs. Few trials reported a large effect size. Differences in RM consumption between participants receiving placebo and those receiving active drug were seldom taken in account by the individual trials and not at all by the systemic reviews when making treatment recommendations for NeP or low back pain. Elaboration on analytical methods to assess treatment effects in chronic pain trials using RM is warranted.

Cannabidiol in low back pain: scientific rationale for clinical trials in low back pain

ABSTRACT Introduction The pooled worldwide prevalence of low-back pain-related presentations in primary care varies between 6.8% and 28.4% in the high-income countries rendering it a major healthcare/economy problem. To best manage this complex bio-psycho-social condition a 360-degree approach is needed, as the psycho-social components are often more important than the scant pathophysiology. Pattern analysis of cannabis users suggested that attempts to alleviate musculo-skeletal pain is often seen as a major drive to use cannabinoids. Areas covered Unlike NSAIDs/opioids, cannabidiol might directly affect more than one modality of pain signaling/perception. The 2019 guideline of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended further studies with cannabidiol in pain medicine because of its excellent safety profile and presumed therapeutic potential. Therefore, we have researched relevant databases for pharmaco-physiological papers published between 2000 and 2021 to collate evidence in a narrative fashion to determine the clinical rationale for this cannabinoid in low-back pain. Expert opinion Observational research reported good results with CBD in pain and fear reduction, which are both key factors in low-back pain. Given the paucity of high-quality evidence, further research is needed to determine the efficacy/non-inferiority of CBD in primary/emergency care setting, using multimodal assessment of various patient-reported outcomes.

Which Functional Outcomes Can be Measured in Low Back Pain Trials and Therapies?: A Prospective 2-Year Factor-, Cluster-, and Reliability-Multicenter Analysis on 42 Variables in 1049 Individuals.

Prospective 2-year factor-, cluster-, and reliability-multicenter analysis. To provide evidence on the uniqueness and usefulness of a set of potential relevant functional outcomes. A very high number of functional outcomes that can be utilized as variables in low back pain (LBP) trials exists. Participants (n = 1049) with and without current LBP were included. At 7 visits (baseline, 4 wk, 3 mo, 6 mo, 9 mo, 1 yr, and 2 yr), 42 different functional outcomes were assessed. Two exploratory factor analyses (for baseline-values and for changes scores to 3 mo post-baseline) were calculated (maximum likelihood extraction, varimax factor rotation). The strongest factor-loading outcomes were selected for the following hierarchical cluster analyses (average linkage, Euclidean distance measure). For each cluster, time point, and outcome, reliability analyses were subsequently calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurements and coefficients of variation. The factor analysis for the cross-sectional values revealed 9 factors with a cumulative variance explanation of 61.7% and 13 unique ones. The change-score factor analysis revealed nine factors with a total variance explanation of 61.8%, seven outcomes were unique. Ten outcomes were important for both cross-sectional and change-score analyses, 11 were most valuable for cross-sectional and four for the change scores. Patients with pain grades 1 to 3 show comparable patterns (cluster 2). Grade 0 (cluster 1) and grade 4 (cluster 3) are unique and cannot be cumulated with other grades. Most biomechanical outcomes were highly reliable and display low measurement errors. We found 25 potentially meaningful functional outcomes in the context of objective functional measurements (such as trunk range of motion, dynamic and static balance, strength, and muscle fatigue resistance) and body characteristics. The present framework may help to select appropriate functional outcomes and rate effects beyond the known core set of outcomes.Level of Evidence: 1.

Pain assessment for chronic lower back pain: performance of the PAL-S and PAL-I patient-reported measures for symptoms and impacts

Objective: The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Symptoms (PAL-S) and the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) were developed to incorporate patient perspective of treatment benefit in chronic low back pain (cLBP) trials. This study documents psychometric measurement properties of the PAL-S and PAL-I.Methods: In this multicenter, observational study, eligible participants clinically diagnosed with cLBP provided sociodemographic information and completed PAL measures and other patient-reported outcome measures of pain and/or disability. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), construct validity, and reliability were assessed.Results: The 104 participants were 61% female, 89% white, and mean age of 55 years; mean cLBP duration was 11.4 (range 0–47) years. Using painDETECT scores, 36.5% reported small likelihood of neuropathic pain, 30.8% reported unclear likelihood, and 32.7% reported definite likelihood. Persistent pain with pain attacks was reported by 38.5% of participants. CFA confirmed single components with adequate fit indices. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83 (PAL-S) and 0.87 (PAL-I), indicating reliable scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients (test-retest reproducibility, n = 44) were 0.81 (PAL-S) and 0.85 (PAL-I). PAL-S score correlation was 0.49 with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and 0.77 with Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). PAL-I correlated at 0.73 with RMDQ and −0.60 with Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)−36 Bodily Pain. Both measures significantly differentiated between pain intensity levels (based on numeric response scale) and painDETECT groups.Conclusion: The PAL-S and PAL-I generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. Routine use of these measures in treatment trials will enhance comparability of LBP-related symptom and impact results, including patient perspective of treatment benefit.

Rescue and concomitant analgesics in placebo-controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain and low back pain.

Rescue medication is commonly offered to participants in placebo-controlled trials of analgesic drugs. The use of pain medication in addition to the placebo or experimental drug may complicate the interpretation of effects and tolerability, but this issue has received little methodological attention. This study examined the handling and reporting of rescue and concomitant analgesic use in trials of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain and low back pain. We based our review on 265 trials included in 2 recent systematic reviews: 83 trials of low back pain and 182 of neuropathic pain. In total, 117 (44%) trials permitted rescue medication and 126 (48%) allowed participants to continue all or some of their usual analgesics. The utilization of rescue medication increased over time, occurring in 18% of trials before 2000 compared with 55% after 2000. Forty-one trials (16%) permitted both rescue analgesics and continued use of prestudy analgesics. More than one-third of the trials permitting rescue medication did not report the actual rescue drug consumption, and over half of the trials allowing concomitant analgesics did not report whether intake changed during the trial. Only 22 (19%) of the trials permitting rescue medication included complete information about whether rescue medication was used as an outcome, specified the drugs used, specified how consumption was assessed and measured, and reported and analyzed the use of rescue medication in each trial arm. Our findings suggest that poorly described procedures and incomplete reporting are likely to hinder the interpretation, critical appraisal, and replication of trial results.

Paracetamol is ineffective for acute low back pain even for patients who comply with treatment: complier average causal effect analysis of a randomized controlled trial

In 2014, the Paracetamol for Acute Low Back Pain (PACE) trial demonstrated that paracetamol had no effect compared with placebo in acute low back pain (LBP). However, noncompliance was a potential limitation of this trial. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of paracetamol in acute LBP among compliers. Using individual participant data from the PACE trial (ACTN12609000966291), complier average causal effect (CACE), intention-to-treat, and per protocol estimates were calculated for pain intensity (primary), disability, global rating of symptom change, and function (all secondary) after 2 weeks of follow-up. Compliance was defined as intake of an average of at least 4 of the prescribed 6 tablets of regular paracetamol per day (2660 mg in total) during the first 2 weeks after enrolment. Exploratory analyses using alternative time points and definitions of compliance were conducted. Mean between-group differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale using the primary time point and definition of compliance were not clinically relevant (propensity-weighted CACE 0.07 [-0.37 to 0.50] P = 0.76; joint modelling CACE 0.23 [-0.16 to 0.62] P = 0.24; intention-to-treat 0.11 [-0.20 to 0.42] P = 0.49; per protocol 0.29 [-0.07 to 0.65] P = 0.12); results for secondary outcomes and for exploratory analyses were similar. Paracetamol is ineffective for acute LBP even for patients who comply with treatment. This reinforces the notion that management of acute LBP should focus on providing patients advice and reassurance without the addition of paracetamol.

Integrating Mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial

BackgroundLow back pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions and the highest contributor to disability in the world. It is characterized by frequent relapses leading to additional care-seeking. Engagement in leisure physical activity is associated with lower recurrences and better prognosis and potentially reduced care-seeking. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a patient-centred physical activity intervention, supported by health coaching and mobile health, to reduce care-seeking, pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain after treatment discharge.MethodsWe conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Sixty-eight participants were recruited from four public outpatient physiotherapy departments and the general community in Sydney. The intervention group received a physical activity information booklet, plus one face-to-face and 12 telephone-based health coaching sessions. The intervention was supported by an internet-based application and an activity tracker (Fitbit). Control group (standard care) received the physical activity information booklet and advice to stay active. Feasibility measures included recruitment rate, intervention compliance, data completeness, and participant satisfaction. Primary outcomes were care-seeking, pain levels and activity limitation. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6-month follow-up and weekly for 6 months.ResultsNinety potential participants were invited over 15 months, with 68 agreeing to take part (75%). Overall, 903 weekly questionnaires were answered by participants from a total of 1107 sent (89%). Participants were largely satisfied with the intervention (mean = 8.7 out of 10 on satisfaction scale). Intervention group participants had a 38% reduced rate of care-seeking (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.18, p = 0.14, using multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression analysis) compared to standard care, although none of the estimates was statistically significant. No between groups differences were found for pain levels or activity limitation.ConclusionThe health coaching physical activity approach trialed here is feasible and well accepted by participants and may reduce care-seeking in patients with low back pain after treatment discharge, although further evaluation with an adequately powered trial is needed.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Trial Registry ACTRN12615000189527. Registered prospectively on 26–02–2015.

Description of low back pain clinical trials in physical therapy: a cross sectional study

ObjectiveTo describe the main characteristics of low back pain randomized controlled trials on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and to rank the journals where these trials were published according to their Impact Factor. MethodsThis is a cross sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. A random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015 were selected from Physiotherapy Evidence Database in February 2016. We collected the following main characteristics of trials: 2015 journal Impact Factor; if the paper was published as open access; CONSORT recommendations endorsement by the journal; methodological quality and statistical reporting measured by the 0–10 items Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data was analyzed descriptively. ResultsTrials were published in journals with a mean Impact Factor of 2.5 (SD 2.5), from which 55.5% endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. The methodological quality was moderate with 5.8 points (SD 1.6). The top 3 journals according to Impact Factor were: (1) British Medical Journal; (2) Annals of Internal Medicine; and (3) BMC Medicine. Only 6 out of 97 journals publishing low back pain trials combined the following factors: journal Impact Factor higher than 2.0, mean trial methodological quality higher than 6.0 points, endorse CONSORT recommendations and offering papers as open access. ConclusionClinicians interested in low back pain trials must look for a wide variety of healthcare journals. A substantial number of low back pain randomized controlled trials did not follow adequate reporting and methodological recommendations.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in non-specific low back pain trials: a review of randomised controlled trials published between 2006 and 2012

BackgroundLow back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP.MethodsA systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category.ResultsWe included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n = 8, 5%), while low back pain (n = 150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n = 27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n = 84, 50%), pregnancy (n = 81, 48%), malignancy (n = 78, 46%), trauma (n = 63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n = 58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n = 44, 26%), neurological signs (n = 34, 20%) or disc herniation (n = 30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n = 35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n = 31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n = 27, 16%).ConclusionRCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria.

A recursive partitioning approach for subgroup identification in individual patient data meta-analysis.

BackgroundMotivated by the setting of clinical trials in low back pain, this work investigated statistical methods to identify patient subgroups for which there is a large treatment effect (treatment by subgroup interaction). Statistical tests for interaction are often underpowered. Individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analyses provide a framework with improved statistical power to investigate subgroups. However, conventional approaches to subgroup analyses applied in both a single trial setting and an IPD setting have a number of issues, one of them being that factors used to define subgroups are investigated one at a time. As individuals have multiple characteristics that may be related to response to treatment, alternative exploratory statistical methods are required.MethodsTree‐based methods are a promising alternative that systematically searches the covariate space to identify subgroups defined by multiple characteristics. A tree method in particular, SIDES, is described and extended for application in an IPD meta‐analyses setting by incorporating fixed‐effects and random‐effects models to account for between‐trial variation. The performance of the proposed extension was assessed using simulation studies. The proposed method was then applied to an IPD low back pain dataset.ResultsThe simulation studies found that the extended IPD‐SIDES method performed well in detecting subgroups especially in the presence of large between‐trial variation. The IPD‐SIDES method identified subgroups with enhanced treatment effect when applied to the low back pain data.ConclusionsThis work proposes an exploratory statistical approach for subgroup analyses applicable in any research discipline where subgroup analyses in an IPD meta‐analysis setting are of interest.

The efficacy of a multimodal physical activity intervention with supervised exercises, health coaching and an activity monitor on physical activity levels of patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain (Physical Activity for Back Pain (PAyBACK) trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundPhysical activity plays an important role in the management of chronic low back pain (LBP). Engaging in an active lifestyle is associated with a better prognosis. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that patients with chronic LBP are less likely to meet recommended physical activity levels. Furthermore, while exercise therapy has been endorsed by recent clinical practice guidelines, evidence from systematic reviews suggests that its effect on pain and disability are at best moderate and not sustained over time. A limitation of current exercises programmes for chronic LBP is that these programmes are not designed to change patients’ behaviour toward an active lifestyle. Therefore, we will investigate the short- and long-term efficacy of a multimodal intervention, consisting of supervised exercises, health coaching and use of an activity monitor (i.e. Fitbit Flex) compared to supervised exercises plus sham coaching and a sham activity monitor on physical activity levels, pain intensity and disability, in patients with chronic, nonspecific LBP.MethodsThis study will be a two-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. One hundred and sixty adults with chronic, nonspecific LBP will be recruited. Participants allocated to both groups will receive a group exercise programme. In addition, the intervention group will receive health coaching sessions (i.e. assisting the participants to achieve their physical activity goals) and an activity monitor (i.e. Fitbit Flex). The participants allocated to the control group will receive sham health coaching (i.e. encouraged to talk about their LBP or other problems, but without any therapeutic advice from the physiotherapist) and a sham activity monitor. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcomes will be physical activity, measured objectively with an accelerometer, as well as pain intensity and disability at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be physical activity, pain intensity and disability at 6 and 12 months post randomisation as well as other self-report measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour, depression, quality of life, pain self-efficacy and weight-related outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months post randomisation.DiscussionThis study is significant as it will be the first study to investigate whether a multimodal intervention designed to increase physical activity levels reduces pain and disability, and increases physical activity levels compared to a control intervention in patients with chronic LBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03200509. Registered on 28 June 2017.

La démarche hypothético-déductive, une compétence indispensable au kinésithérapeute

To describe the main characteristics of low back pain randomized controlled trials on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and to rank the journals where these trials were published according to their Impact Factor.This is a cross sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. A random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015 were selected from Physiotherapy Evidence Database in February 2016. We collected the following main characteristics of trials: 2015 journal Impact Factor; if the paper was published as open access; CONSORT recommendations endorsement by the journal; methodological quality and statistical reporting measured by the 0–10 items Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data was analyzed descriptively.Trials were published in journals with a mean Impact Factor of 2.5 (SD 2.5), from which 55.5% endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. The methodological quality was moderate with 5.8 points (SD 1.6). The top 3 journals according to Impact Factor were: (1) British Medical Journal; (2) Annals of Internal Medicine; and (3) BMC Medicine. Only 6 out of 97 journals publishing low back pain trials combined the following factors: journal Impact Factor higher than 2.0, mean trial methodological quality higher than 6.0 points, endorse CONSORT recommendations and offering papers as open access.Clinicians interested in low back pain trials must look for a wide variety of healthcare journals. A substantial number of low back pain randomized controlled trials did not follow adequate reporting and methodological recommendations.

Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain.

To standardize outcome reporting in clinical trials of patients with nonspecific low back pain, an international multidisciplinary panel recommended physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as core outcome domains. Given the lack of a consensus on measurement instruments for these 3 domains in patients with low back pain, this study aimed to generate such consensus. The measurement properties of 17 patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning, 3 for pain intensity, and 5 for HRQoL were appraised in 3 systematic reviews following the COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 207) were invited in a 2-round Delphi survey to generate consensus (≥67% agreement among participants) on which instruments to endorse. Response rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. In round 1, consensus was achieved on the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a for physical functioning (78% agreement) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (75% agreement). No consensus was achieved on any HRQoL instrument, although the Short Form 12 (SF12) approached the consensus threshold (64% agreement). In round 2, a consensus was reached on an NRS version with a 1-week recall period (96% agreement). Various participants requested 1 free-to-use instrument per domain. Considering all issues together, recommendations on core instruments were formulated: Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a or 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, and SF12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health form for HRQoL. Further studies need to fill the evidence gaps on the measurement properties of these and other instruments.