Use of complementary alternative medicine for low back pain consulting in general practice: a cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although back pain is considered one of the most frequent reasons why patients seek complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies little is known on the extent patients are actually using CAM for back pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a post hoc analysis of a longitudinal prospective cohort study embedded in a RCT. General practitioners (GPs) recruited consecutively adult patients presenting with LBP. Data on physical function, on subjective mood, and on utilization of health services was collected at the first consultation and at follow-up telephone interviews for a period of twelve months</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 691 (51%) respectively 928 (69%) out of 1,342 patients received one form of CAM depending on the definition. Local heat, massage, and spinal manipulation were the forms of CAM most commonly offered. Using CAM was associated with specialist care, chronic LBP and treatment in a rehabilitation facility. Receiving spinal manipulation, acupuncture or TENS was associated with consulting a GP providing these services. Apart from chronicity disease related factors like functional capacity or pain only showed weak or no association with receiving CAM.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The frequent use of CAM for LBP demonstrates that CAM is popular in patients and doctors alike. The observed association with a treatment in a rehabilitation facility or with specialist consultations rather reflects professional preferences of the physicians than a clear medical indication. The observed dependence on providers and provider related services, as well as a significant proportion receiving CAM that did not meet the so far established selection criteria suggests some arbitrary use of CAM.</p

A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥18 years) population with chronic (≥12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP

Does a patient’s physical activity predict recovery from an episode of acute low back pain?: a prospective cohort study

Background Advice to remain active and normalisation of activity are commonly prescribed in the management of low back pain (LBP). However, no research has assessed whether objective measurements of physical activity predict outcome and recovery in acute low back pain. Method The aims of this study were to assess the predictive relationship between activity and disability at 3 months in a sub-acute LBP population. This prospective cohort study recruited 101 consenting patients with sub-acute LBP (< 6 weeks) who completed the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Visual Analogue Scale, and resumption of full ‘normal’ activity question (Y/N), at baseline and 3 months. Physical activity was measured for 7 days at both baseline and at 3 months with an RT3 accelerometer and a recall questionnaire. Results Observed and self-reported measures of physical activity at baseline and change in activity from baseline to 3 months were not independent predictors of RMDQ (p > 0.05) or RMDQ change (p > 0.05) over 3 months. A self-report of a return to full ‘normal’ activities was significantly associated with greater RMDQ change score at 3 months (p < 0.001). Paired t-tests found no significant change in activity levels measured with the RT3 (p = 0.57) or the recall questionnaire (p = 0.38) from baseline to 3 months. Conclusions These results question the predictive role of physical activity in LBP recovery, and the assumption that activity levels change as LBP symptoms resolve. The importance of a patient’s perception of activity limitation in recovery from acute LBP was also highlighted. Trial registration Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN1260900028228

Comparison of the intervertebral disc spaces between axial and anterior lean cervical traction

The insufficient investigations on the changes of spinal structures during traction prevent further exploring the possible therapeutic mechanism of cervical traction. A blind randomized crossover-design study was conducted to quantitatively compare the intervertebral disc spaces between axial and anterior lean cervical traction in sitting position. A total of 96 radiographic images from the baseline measurements, axial and anterior lean tractions in 32 asymptomatic subjects were digitized for further analysis. The intra- and inter-examiner reliabilities for measuring the intervertebral disc spaces were in good ranges (ICCs = 0.928–0.942). With the application of anterior lean traction, the statistical increases were detected both in anterior and in posterior disc spaces compared to the baseline (0.29 mm and 0.24 mm; both P < 0.01) and axial traction (0.16 mm and 0.35 mm; both P < 0.01). The greater intervertebral disc spaces obtained during anterior lean traction might be associated with the more even distribution of traction forces over the anterior and posterior neck structures. The neck extension moment through mandible that generally occurred in the axial traction could be counteracted by the downward force of head weight during anterior lean traction. This study quantitatively demonstrated that anterior lean traction in sitting position provided more intervertebral disc space enlargements in both anterior and posterior aspects than axial traction did. These findings may serve as a therapeutic reference when cervical traction is suggested