The effectiveness of the McKenzie method in addition to first-line care for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain is a highly prevalent and disabling condition worldwide. Clinical guidelines for the management of patients with acute low back pain recommend first-line treatment consisting of advice, reassurance and simple analgesics. Exercise is also commonly prescribed to these patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of adding the McKenzie method to the first-line care of patients with acute low back pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multi-centre randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up was conducted between September 2005 and June 2008. Patients seeking care for acute non-specific low back pain from primary care medical practices were screened. Eligible participants were assigned to receive a treatment programme based on the McKenzie method and first-line care (advice, reassurance and time-contingent acetaminophen) or first-line care alone, for 3 weeks. Primary outcome measures included pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) over the first seven days, pain at 1 week, pain at 3 weeks and global perceived effect (-5 to 5 scale) at 3 weeks. Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and forty-eight participants were randomized into study groups, of whom 138 (93%) completed the last follow-up. The addition of the McKenzie method to first-line care produced statistically significant but small reductions in pain when compared to first-line care alone: mean of -0.4 points (95% confidence interval, -0.8 to -0.1) at 1 week, -0.7 points (95% confidence interval, -1.2 to -0.1) at 3 weeks, and -0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.0) over the first 7 days. Patients receiving the McKenzie method did not show additional effects on global perceived effect, disability, function or on the risk of persistent symptoms. These patients sought less additional health care than those receiving only first-line care (<it>P </it>= 0.002).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>When added to the currently recommended first-line care of acute low back pain, a treatment programme based on the McKenzie method does not produce appreciable additional short-term improvements in pain, disability, function or global perceived effect. However, the McKenzie method seems to reduce health utilization although it does not reduce patient's risk of developing persistent symptoms.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12605000032651</p

The McKenzie method for the management of acute non-specific low back pain: design of a randomised controlled trial [ACTRN012605000032651]

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Effective treatment of acute LBP is important because it prevents patients from developing chronic LBP, the stage of LBP that requires costly and more complex treatment. Physiotherapists commonly use a system of diagnosis and exercise prescription called the McKenzie Method to manage patients with LBP. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of the McKenzie Method for these patients. We have designed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether the addition of the McKenzie Method to general practitioner care results in better outcomes than general practitioner care alone for patients with acute LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the protocol for a trial examining the effects of the McKenzie Method in the treatment of acute non-specific LBP. One hundred and forty eight participants who present to general medical practitioners with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP will be randomised to receive general practitioner care or general practitioner care plus a program of care based on the McKenzie Method. The primary outcomes are average pain during week 1, pain at week 1 and 3 and global perceived effect at week 3. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the first rigorous test of the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method for acute non-specific LBP

Is a history of work-related low back injury associated with prevalent low back pain and depression in the general population?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about the role of prior occupational low back injury in future episodes of low back pain and disability in the general population. We conducted a study to determine if a lifetime history of work-related low back injury is associated with prevalent severity-graded low back pain, depressive symptoms, or both, in the general population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used data from the Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey – a population-based cross-sectional survey mailed to a random, stratified sample of 2,184 Saskatchewan adults 20 to 69 years of age in 1995. Information on the main independent variable was gathered by asking respondents whether they had ever injured their low back at work. Our outcomes, the 6-month period prevalence of severity-graded low back pain and depressive symptoms during the past week, were measured with valid and reliable questionnaires. The associations between prior work-related low back injury and our outcomes were estimated through multinomial and binary multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for age, gender, and other important covariates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-five percent of the eligible population participated. Of the 1,086 participants who responded to the question about the main independent variable, 38.0% reported a history of work-related low back injury. A history of work-related low back injury was positively associated with low intensity/low disability low back pain (OR, 3.66; 95%CI, 2.48–5.42), with high intensity/low disability low back pain (OR, 4.03; 95%CI, 2.41–6.76), and with high disability low back pain (OR, 6.76; 95%CI, 3.80–12.01). No association was found between a history of work-related low back injury and depression (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.55–1.30).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our analysis shows an association between past occupational low back injury and increasing severity of prevalent low back pain, but not depression. These results suggest that past work-related low back injury may be an important risk factor for future episodes of low back pain and disability in the general population.</p

Can group-based reassuring information alter low back pain behavior? A cluster-randomized controlled trial?

Background Low back pain (LBP) is common in the population and multifactorial in nature, often involving negative consequences. Reassuring information to improve coping is recommended for reducing the negative consequences of LBP. Adding a simple non-threatening explanation for the pain (temporary muscular dysfunction) has been successful at altering beliefs and behavior when delivered with other intervention elements. This study investigates the isolated effect of this specific information on future occupational behavior outcomes when delivered to the workforce. Design A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Methods Publically employed workers (n=505) from 11 Danish municipality centers were randomized at center-level (cluster) to either intervention (two 1-hour group-based talks at the workplace) or control. The talks provided reassuring information together with a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP - the ‘functional-disturbance’-model. Data collections took place monthly over a 1-year period using text message tracking (SMS). Primary outcomes were self-reported days of cutting down usual activities and work participation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported back beliefs, work ability, number of healthcare visits, bothersomeness, restricted activity, use of pain medication, and sadness/depression. Results There was no between-group difference in the development of LBP during follow-up. Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no between-group difference on days of cutting down activities, but increased odds for more days of work participation in the intervention group (OR=1.83 95% CI: 1.08-3.12). Furthermore, the intervention group was more likely to report: higher work ability, reduced visits to healthcare professionals, lower bothersomeness, lower levels of sadness/depression, and positive back beliefs. Conclusion Reassuring information involving a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP significantly increased the odds for days of work participation and higher work ability among workers who went on to experience LBP during the 12-month follow-up. Our results confirm the potential for public-health education for LBP, and add to the discussion of simple versus multidisciplinary interventions

Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review

Background: Physiotherapy for people with low back pain frequently includes assessment and modification of lumbo-pelvic movement. Interventions commonly aim to restore normal movement and thereby reduce pain and improve activity limitation. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate: (i) the effect of movement-based interventions on movement patterns (muscle activation, lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural patterns) of people with low back pain (LBP), and (ii) the relationship between changes in movement patterns and subsequent changes in pain and activity limitation. Methods. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2012. Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of people with LBP were eligible for inclusion. The intervention must have been designed to influence (i) muscle activity patterns, (ii) lumbo-pelvic kinematic patterns or (iii) postural patterns, and included measurement of such deficits before and after treatment, to allow determination of the success of the intervention on the lumbo-pelvic movement. Twelve trials (25% of retrieved studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently identified, assessed and extracted data. The PEDro scale was used to assess method quality. Intervention effects were described using standardised differences between group means and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The included trials showed inconsistent, mostly small to moderate intervention effects on targeted movement patterns. There was considerable heterogeneity in trial design, intervention type and outcome measures. A relationship between changes to movement patterns and improvements in pain or activity limitation was observed in one of six studies on muscle activation patterns, one of four studies that examined the flexion relaxation response pattern and in two of three studies that assessed lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural characteristics. Conclusions: Movement-based interventions were infrequently effec tive for changing observable movement patterns. A relationship between changes in movement patterns and improvement in pain or activity limitation was also infrequently observed. No independent studies confirm any observed relationships. Challenges for future research include defining best methods for measuring (i) movement aberrations, (ii) improvements in movements, and (iii) the relationship between changes in how people move and associated changes in other health indicators such as activity limitation