Efficacy of “therapist-selected” versus “randomly selected” mobilisation techniques for the treatment of low back pain: A randomised controlled trial

The aim of this study was to establish whether the mobilisation technique selected by the treating physiotherapist is more effective in relieving low back pain than a randomly selected mobilisation technique. Two manipulative physiotherapists and 140 subjects suffering non-specific low back pain participated. Baseline measurements were taken before treatment allocation; the therapist then assessed subjects and nominated the preferred treatment grade, spinal level to be treated and mobilisation technique to be used. The subjects were then randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received the preferred mobilisation technique as selected by the therapist; the other group received a randomly assigned mobilisation technique. All mobilisation treatments were applied to the nominated spinal level using the nominated treatment grade. Follow-up measures were taken immediately after intervention. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyse the data; the first factor was the treatment group and the second factor was the direction of the patient's most painful movement. The choice of mobilisation treatment had no effect on any outcome measure investigated in this study; however, post hoc tests revealed that mobilisation treatment applied to the lower lumbar levels had a greater analgesic effect than when applied to upper lumbar levels. The results of this study confirm that lumbar mobilisation treatment has an immediate effect in relieving low back pain, however the specific technique used seems unimportant

Low back pain research priorities: a survey of primary care practitioners

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the large amount of time and money which has been devoted to low back pain research, successful management remains an elusive goal and low back pain continues to place a large burden on the primary care setting. One reason for this may be that the priorities for research are often developed by researchers and funding bodies, with little consideration of the needs of primary care practitioners. This study aimed to determine the research priorities of primary care practitioners who manage low back pain on a day-to-day basis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A modified-Delphi survey of primary care practitioners was conducted, consisting of three rounds of questionnaires. In the first round, 70 practitioners who treat low back pain were each asked to provide up to five questions which they would like answered with respect to low back pain in primary care. The results were collated into a second round questionnaire consisting of 39 priorities, which were rated for importance by each practitioner on a likert-scale. The third round consisted of asking the practitioners to rank the top ten priorities in order of importance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Response rates for the modified-Delphi remained above 70% throughout the three rounds. The ten highest ranked priorities included the identification of sub-groups of patients that respond optimally to different treatments, evaluation of different exercise approaches in the management of low back pain, self-management of low back pain, and comparison of different treatment approaches by primary care professions treating low back pain.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Practitioners identified a need for more information on a variety of topics, including diagnosis, the effectiveness of treatments, and identification of patient characteristics which affect treatment and recovery.</p

Antibody profiling of patients with prostate cancer reveals differences in antibody signatures among disease stages

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of prostate cancer autoantibodies have largely focused on diagnostic applications. So far, there have been no reports attempting to more comprehensively profile the landscape of prostate cancer-associated antibodies. Specifically, it is unknown whether the quantity of antibodies or the types of proteins recognized change with disease progression. METHODS: A peptide microarray spanning the amino acid sequences of the gene products of 1611 prostate cancer-associated genes was synthesized. Serum samples from healthy male volunteers (n=15) and patients with prostate cancer (n=85) were used to probe the array. These samples included patients with various clinical stages of disease: newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer (n=15), castration-sensitive non-metastatic prostate cancer (nmCSPC, n=40), castration-resistant non-metastatic prostate cancer (n=15) and castration-resistant metastatic disease (n=15). The patients with nmCSPC received treatment with either standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or an antitumor DNA vaccine encoding prostatic acid phosphatase. Serial sera samples from these individuals were also used to probe the array, to secondarily determine whether this approach could be used to detect treatment-related changes. RESULTS: We demonstrated that this peptide array yielded highly reproducible measurements of serum IgG levels. We found that the overall number of antibody responses did not increase with disease burden. However, the composition of recognized proteins shifted with clinical stage of disease. Our analysis revealed that the largest difference was between patients with castration-sensitive and castration-resistant disease. Patients with castration-resistant disease recognized more proteins associated with nucleic acid binding and gene regulation compared with men in other groups. Our longitudinal data showed that treatments can elicit antibodies detectable by this array, and notably vaccine-treated patients developed increased responses to more proteins over the course of treatment than did ADT-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest survey of prostate cancer-associated antibodies to date. We have been able to characterize the classes of proteins recognized by patients and determine how they change with disease burden. Our findings further demonstrate the potential of this platform for measuring antigen spread and studying responses to immunomodulatory therapies

Are Musculoskeletal Conditions Neglected in National Health Surveys?

Concise report[Abstract] Objective: To describe the proportion of national health surveys that contain questions on the prevalence and consequences of musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: We used a comprehensive search strategy to obtain national health surveys from the 218 countries listed by the World Bank. Two authors independently extracted information from each national health survey. Outcomes were the proportion of surveys that contained questions on the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using the Global Burden of Disease categorization of RA, OA, low back pain, neck pain, gout and other and contained condition-specific questions about activity limitation, severity of pain and work absence. We also measured how frequently the prevalence of low back pain was measured using a consensus-based standard definition for low back pain prevalence studies. Results: We identified national health surveys from 170 countries. Sixty-two (36.4%), the majority from high-income countries (n = 43), measured the prevalence of at least one musculoskeletal condition. OA [53 (85.4%)], low back pain [39 (62.9%)] and neck pain [37 (59.7%)] were most commonly measured, while RA and gout prevalence were only measured in 10 (5.9%) and 3 (1.8%) surveys, respectively. A minority of surveys assessed condition-specific activity limitations [6 (3.6%)], pain severity [5 (2.9%)] and work absence [1 (0.6%)]. Only one survey used the consensus-based standard definition for low back pain. Conclusion: Musculoskeletal conditions are neglected in the majority of national health surveys. Monitoring musculoskeletal conditions through ongoing surveys is crucial for the development and evaluation of health policies to reduce their burden

An Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for the Management of Low Back Pain in Community Pharmacy: Development and Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

Background People with low back pain (LBP) in the community often do not receive evidence-based advice and management. Community pharmacists can play an important role in supporting people with LBP as pharmacists are easily accessible to provide first-line care. However, previous research suggests that pharmacists may not consistently deliver advice that is concordant with guideline recommendations and may demonstrate difficulty determining which patients require prompt medical review. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) may enhance first-line care of LBP, but none exists to support the community pharmacist–client consultation. Objective This study aimed to develop a CDSS to guide first-line care of LBP in the community pharmacy setting and to evaluate the pharmacist-reported usability and acceptance of the prototype system. Methods A cross-platform Web app for the Apple iPad was developed in conjunction with academic and clinical experts using an iterative user-centered design process during interface design, clinical reasoning, program development, and evaluation. The CDSS was evaluated via one-to-one user-testing with 5 community pharmacists (5 case vignettes each). Data were collected via video recording, screen capture, survey instrument (system usability scale), and direct observation. Results Pharmacists’ agreement with CDSS-generated self-care recommendations was 90% (18/20), with medicines recommendations was 100% (25/25), and with referral advice was 88% (22/25; total 70 recommendations). Pharmacists expressed uncertainty when screening for serious pathology in 40% (10/25) of cases. Pharmacists requested more direction from the CDSS in relation to automated prompts for user input and page navigation. Overall system usability was rated as excellent (mean score 92/100, SD 6.5; 90th percentile compared with similar systems), with acceptance rated as good to excellent. Conclusions A novel CDSS (high-fidelity prototype) to enhance pharmacist care of LBP was developed, underpinned by clinical practice guidelines and informed by a multidisciplinary team of experts. User-testing revealed a high level of usability and acceptance of the prototype system, with suggestions to improve interface prompts and information delivery. The small study sample limits the generalizability of the findings but offers important insights to inform the next stage of system development. </jats:sec

Manipulative therapy and/or NSAIDs for acute low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial [ACTRN012605000036617]

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain is a common condition resulting in pain and disability. Current national and international guidelines advocate general practitioner care including advice and paracetamol (4 g daily in otherwise well adults) as the first line of care for people with acute low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are advocated in many guidelines as second line management options for patients with acute low back pain who are not recovering. No studies have explored the role of NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to first line management for acute low back pain. The primary aim of this study is to investigate if NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to general practitioner advice and paracetamol results in shorter recovery times for patients with acute low back pain. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether the addition of SMT and/or NSAIDs influences pain, disability and global perceived effect at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks after onset of therapy for patients with significant acute low back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial examining the addition of NSAIDs and/or SMT in 240 people who present to their general practitioner with significant acute low back pain

Paracetamol, NSAIDS and opioid analgesics for chronic low back pain: A network meta-analysis (Protocol)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To answer the clinical question: ‘what analgesic medicine shall I prescribe this patient with chronic low back pain to reduce their pain?’. The objectives are to determine the analgesic effects, safety, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety and effect on function of a single course of opioid analgesics, NSAIDs or paracetamol or combinations of these medicines

Match injuries in amateur Rugby Union: a prospective cohort study - FICS Biennial Symposium Second Prize Research Award

Background: The majority of Rugby Union (rugby) players participate at the amateur level. Knowledge of player characteristics and injury risks is predominantly ascertained from studies on professional or junior athletes in rugby. The objectives of the current study are to: (1) describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and physical characteristics of a cohort of amateur rugby players; (2) describe the incidence, severity and mechanism of match injuries in amateur rugby, and; (3) explore factors associated with rates of match injury in this population. Methods: Participants (n = 125) from one amateur men’s rugby club were followed in a one-season (2012) prospective cohort study. Match injury and match time exposure data were collected. A participant match exposure log was maintained. Baseline variables collected include: participant’s age, playing experience, position of play, the SF-36v2 health survey, height and weight. Injury incidence rates (IIRs) per 1000 match-hours exposure were calculated. Injury sub-groups were compared by calculating rate ratios of two IIRs. Poisson mixed-effects generalised linear modelling was used to explore relationships between IIRs and baseline predictors. Results: A total of 129 injuries occurred during a combined period of 2465 match-hours of exposure. The overall IIR was 52.3 (43.7–62.2) /1000 match-hours exposure. Moderate-severe injuries (>1 week time-loss from play) comprised 36 % of all injuries. Tackling was the most common mechanism of injury, the head/face was the most common body region of injury and sprain/ligament injuries were the most common injury type. Fewer years of rugby participation, lower BMI and lower SF-36v2 mental component summary score were associated with higher IIR in amateur rugby. Age, player position i.e., backs versus forwards and SF-36v2 physical component summary score were not associated with injury incidence. Conclusion: Amateur rugby players report similar HRQoL as the general population. We found amateur players had a higher rate of injury and lower injury severity than previous amateur studies, but location, type, and mechanism were similar. In this study pre-season HRQoL and BMI were weakly associated with higher injury rate when controlling for other factors; a finding that should be interpreted with caution and clarified with future research