Randomized Clinical-Trial of Manipulative Therapy and Physiotherapy for Persistent Back and Neck Complaints - Results of One Year Follow-Up

Objective - To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints. Design - Randomised clinical trial. Setting-Primary health care in the Netherlands. Patients-256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years. Interventions - At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes). Main outcome measures - Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients. Results - Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4·5) than with physiotherapy (3·8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0·9; 95% confidence interval 0·1 to 1·7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0·6; -0·1 to 1·3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments. Conclusions - Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months

Measuring sick leave: a comparison of self-reported data on sick leave and data from company records

The objective of this study was to compare sick leave data obtained from questionnaires with data from company records. During a period of 12 months, questionnaires were completed monthly for 6 months and then at 9 and 12 months. The sensitivity and specificity of questionnaires for detecting an episode of sick leave were determined, using the company records as a reference standard. In addition, the duration of sick leave episodes reported in the two data sets was compared. In this analysis, company records were not assumed to be superior, and agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The sensitivity of questionnaires for detecting an episode of sick leave was 55% (95% CI = 0.50-0.60) and the specificity 83% (95% CI = 0.72-0.94). The ICC for all episodes was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.47-0.67). The only satisfactory ICC (0.87; 95% CI = 0.74-0.93) was found for the questionnaires at 9 and 12 months. No large systematic differences were found between the duration of episodes reported in the two data sets. In conclusion, in our study, the sensitivity of questionnaires for detecting an episode of sick leave was very low. Furthermore, when episodes were recalled, there was little agreement on the duration of the episode between questionnaire data and data in the company records. Based on these results and considering the risk of missing questionnaires, data on sick leave gathered from company records are clearly preferable as an outcome measure in research

Physical load during work and leisure time as risk factors for back pain [review]

systematic review assessed aspects of physical load during work and leisure time as risk factors for back pain. It is based on a strict systematic approach to identify and summarize the evidence, comparable with that applied in the clinical literature on the efficacy of intervention for back pain. A computerized bibliographical search was made of several databases for studies with a cohort or case-referent design. Cross-sectional studies were excluded. A rating system was used to assess the strength of the evidence, based on the methodological quality of 28 cohort and 3 case-referent studies and the consistency of the findings. Strong evidence exists for manual materials handling, bending and twisting, and whole-body vibration as risk factors for back pain. The evidence was moderate for patient handling and heavy physical work, and no evidence was found for standing or walking, sitting, sports, and total leisure-time physical activity. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Lumbar supports and education for the prevention of low back pain in industry - A randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT Low back pain is a frequent and costly health problem. Prevention of low back pain is important both for the individual patient and from an economic perspective. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of lumbar supports and education in the prevention of low back pain in industry. DESIGN A randomized controlled trial with a factorial design. SETTING The cargo department of an airline company in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS A total of 312 workers were randomized, of whom 282 were available for the 6-month follow-up. INTERVENTIONS Subjects were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) education (lifting instructions) and lumbar support, (2) education, (3) lumbar support, and (4) no intervention. Education consisted of 3 group sessions on lifting techniques with a total duration of 5 hours. Lumbar supports were recommended to be used during working hours for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Low back pain incidence and sick leave because of back pain during the 6-month intervention period. RESULTS Compliance with wearing the lumbar support at least half the time was 43%. In the 282 subjects for whom data were available, no statistically significant differences in back pain incidence (48 [36%] of 134 with lumbar support vs 51 [34%] of 148 without, P=.81) or in sick leave because of low back pain (mean, 0.4 days per month with lumbar support vs 0.4 days without, P=.52) were found among the intervention groups. In a subgroup of subjects with low back pain at baseline, lumbar supports reduced the number of days with low back pain per month (median, 1.2 vs 6.5 days per month; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS Overall, lumbar supports or education did not lead to a reduction in low back pain incidence or sick leave. The results of the subgroup analysis need to be confirmed by future research. Based on our results, the use of education or lumbar supports cannot be recommended in the prevention of low back pain in industry