Moderate quality evidence that compared to advice to rest in bed, advice to remain active provides small improvements in pain and functional status in people with acute low back pain

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 171-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Koes
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Quality Evidence

Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute low back pain: systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Binny ◽  
Ngar Lok Joshua Wong ◽  
Shirali Garga ◽  
Chung-Wei Christine Lin ◽  
Chris G. Maher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Electric Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background and aims There has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute low back pain (LBP). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TENS for acute LBP. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (inception to May 2018) for randomised placebo controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was pain relief in the immediate term (within 2-weeks of administration) assessed using the 100 mm visual analogue scale. A mean difference of at least 10 points on the 100-point pain scale was considered clinically significant. Methodological quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the PEDro scale and overall quality assessment rating was assessed using GRADE. Results Three placebo controlled studies (n = 192) were included. One low quality trial (n = 63) provides low quality evidence that ~30 min treatment with TENS in an emergency-care setting provides clinically worthwhile pain relief for moderate to severe acute LBP in the immediate term compared with sham TENS [Mean Difference (MD) – 28.0 (95% CI – 32.7, −23.3)]. Two other studies which administered a course of TENS over 4–5 weeks, in more usual settings provide inconclusive evidence; MD −2.75 (95% CI −11.63, 6.13). There was limited data on adverse events or long term follow-up. Conclusions The current evidence is insufficient to support or dismiss the use of TENS for acute LBP. Implications There is insufficient evidence to guide the use of TENS for acute LBP. There is low quality evidence of moderate improvements in pain with a short course of TENS (~30 min) during emergency transport of patients to the hospital. Future research should evaluate whether TENS has an opioid sparing role in the management of acute LBP.

scholarly journals How common is imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? Systematic review and meta-analysis of over 4 million imaging requests across 21 years

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (11) ◽  
pp. 642-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aron Downie ◽  
Mark Hancock ◽  
Hazel Jenkins ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Ian Harris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Emergency Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relative Increase ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion.Data sourcesElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system.Results45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors.Summary/conclusionOne in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns.Trial registration numberCRD42016041987.

Emergency department interventions for adult patients with low back pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-68
Author(s):  
Crystian B Oliveira ◽  
Hugo E Amorim ◽  
Danielle M Coombs ◽  
Bethan Richards ◽  
Marco Reedyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Intravenous Paracetamol ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Quality Evidence

BackgroundMost low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit.MethodsLiterature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence.ResultsFifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) −15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) −21.0 to −9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD −15.7, 95% CI −19.8 to −11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD −11.4, 95% CI −21.6 to −1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI −0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD −6.8, 95% CI −24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence).ConclusionKetoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.

scholarly journals Prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2019-101436
Author(s):  
Tarcisio F de Campos ◽  
Chris G Maher ◽  
Joel T Fuller ◽  
Daniel Steffens ◽  
Stephanie Attwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Exercise Programme ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Prevention Strategies ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Prevention Programmes ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain (LBP), where impact is measured by LBP intensity and associated disability.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and The Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 22 October 2018.Eligibility criteriaRCTs evaluating any intervention aiming to prevent future impact of LBP, reporting an outcome measure of LBP intensity and/or disability measured at least 3 months post-randomisation, and the intervention group must be compared with a group that received no intervention/placebo or minimal intervention. Trials restricting recruitment to participants with current LBP were excluded.Results27 published reports of 25 different trials including a total of 8341 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled results, from three RCTs (612 participants), found moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme can prevent future LBP intensity (mean difference (MD) −4.50; 95% CI −7.26 to −1.74), and from 4 RCTs (471 participants) that an exercise and education programme can prevent future disability due to LBP (MD −6.28; 95% CI −9.51 to −3.06). It is uncertain whether prevention programmes improve future quality of life (QoL) and workability due to the overall low-quality and very low-quality available evidence.ConclusionsThis review provides moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme, and a programme combining exercise and education, are effective to reduce future LBP intensity and associated disability. It is uncertain whether prevention programmes can improve future QoL and workability. Further high-quality RCTs evaluating prevention programmes aiming to reduce future impact of LBP are needed.

Do Patients with Acute Low Back Pain in Emergency Departments Have More Severe Symptoms than Those in General Practice? ASystematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crystian B Oliveira ◽  
Melanie Hamilton ◽  
Adrian Traeger ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Bethan Richards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Introduction There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0–100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. Results We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0–100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0–100 scale). Conclusion Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

Low Back Pain in Commercial Airline Pilots

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (12) ◽  
pp. 940-947
Author(s):  
Matthias Albermann ◽  
Maria Lehmann ◽  
Christian Eiche ◽  
Joachim Schmidt ◽  
Johannes Prottengeier
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
German Population ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Airline Pilots ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Commercial Airline ◽  
Negative Effect

BACKGROUND: In their working life, airline pilots are exposed to particular risk factors that promote nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Because of the varying incidence internationally, we evaluated the point prevalences of acute, subacute, and chronic nonspecific LBP, as well as the current prevalences in German airline pilots. Furthermore, we compared the prevalence to the general German population and to European counterparts.METHODS: An anonymous online survey of 698 participating German airline pilots was evaluated. The impairment between groups was analyzed. Prevalences from our data were compared to existing data.RESULTS: The following point prevalences were found: 8.2% acute, 2.4% subacute, 82.7% chronic LBP; 74.1% of all individuals were suffering from current LBP when answered the questionnaire. A total time spent flying greater than 600 h within the last 12 mo was significantly related to acute nonspecific LBP. Individuals with any type of LBP were significantly impaired compared to those unaffected. It was found that German airline pilots suffer more often from current LBP than the general population and have a higher point prevalence of total LBP than their European counterparts.CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation showed a surprisingly high, previously unidentified, prevalence of nonspecific LBP in German airline pilots. Why German airline pilots suffer more often from LBP remains uncertain. The number of flying hours appears to have a negative effect on developing acute low back pain, but causation cannot be concluded. Other risk factors could not be confirmed.Albermann M, Lehmann M, Eiche C, Schmidt J, Prottengeier J. Low back pain in commercial airline pilots. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(12):940947.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document