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

Oral health-related quality of life of children with oral clefts and their families

Abstract Oral health problems can influence people's Quality of Life (QoL) because of pain, discomfort, limitations, and other esthetics problems, affecting their social life, feeding, daily activities, and the individual's well-being. Objective: To compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of children with and without oral clefts and their families. Materials and Methods: 121 children aged from 2 to 6 years, from both sexes, enrolled in the treatment routine of the Pediatric Dentistry Clinics of a Dental School and a Hospital for Cleft Treatment were divided into two groups: Group 1 - children with cleft lip and palate; Group 2 - children without cleft lip and palate. The OHRQoL was assessed using the validated Portuguese version of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (B-ECOHIS). The questionnaire was answered individually, only once, at a private place. Mann-Whitney U test was used to verify differences between groups. Spearman's Rho test was used to associate sex and age with quality of life. The level of significance was set at 5% (p<0.05). Results: According to the parents’ perception on the OHRQoL of children with and without cleft lip and palate, oral health of children with oral clefts (Group 1) had a statistically significant impact on OHRQoL. The correlation of sex with impact on OHRQoL did not show statistically significant differences. On the other hand, the higher the age the higher the impact on QoL. Conclusions: The group comparison revealed that the cleft lip and palate negatively impacted on OHRQoL of 2 to 6-year-old children and their parents