Integrative care for the management of low back pain: use of a clinical care pathway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For the treatment of chronic back pain, it has been theorized that integrative care plans can lead to better outcomes than those achieved by monodisciplinary care alone, especially when using a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and non-hierarchical team approach. This paper describes the use of a care pathway designed to guide treatment by an integrative group of providers within a randomized controlled trial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A clinical care pathway was used by a multidisciplinary group of providers, which included acupuncturists, chiropractors, cognitive behavioral therapists, exercise therapists, massage therapists and primary care physicians. Treatment recommendations were based on an evidence-informed practice model, and reached by group consensus. Research study participants were empowered to select one of the treatment recommendations proposed by the integrative group. Common principles and benchmarks were established to guide treatment management throughout the study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirteen providers representing 5 healthcare professions collaborated to provide integrative care to study participants. On average, 3 to 4 treatment plans, each consisting of 2 to 3 modalities, were recommended to study participants. Exercise, massage, and acupuncture were both most commonly recommended by the team and selected by study participants. Changes to care commonly incorporated cognitive behavioral therapy into treatment plans.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This clinical care pathway was a useful tool for the consistent application of evidence-based care for low back pain in the context of an integrative setting.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p

A systematic review with procedural assessments and meta-analysis of Low Level Laser Therapy in lateral elbow tendinopathy (tennis elbow)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent reviews have indicated that low level level laser therapy (LLLT) is ineffective in lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) without assessing validity of treatment procedures and doses or the influence of prior steroid injections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review with meta-analysis, with primary outcome measures of pain relief and/or global improvement and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, wavelengths and treatment procedures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>18 randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified with 13 RCTs (730 patients) meeting the criteria for meta-analysis. 12 RCTs satisfied half or more of the methodological criteria. Publication bias was detected by Egger's graphical test, which showed a negative direction of bias. Ten of the trials included patients with poor prognosis caused by failed steroid injections or other treatment failures, or long symptom duration or severe baseline pain. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain relief was 10.2 mm [95% CI: 3.0 to 17.5] and the RR for global improvement was 1.36 [1.16 to 1.60]. Trials which targeted acupuncture points reported negative results, as did trials with wavelengths 820, 830 and 1064 nm. In a subgroup of five trials with 904 nm lasers and one trial with 632 nm wavelength where the lateral elbow tendon insertions were directly irradiated, WMD for pain relief was 17.2 mm [95% CI: 8.5 to 25.9] and 14.0 mm [95% CI: 7.4 to 20.6] respectively, while RR for global pain improvement was only reported for 904 nm at 1.53 [95% CI: 1.28 to 1.83]. LLLT doses in this subgroup ranged between 0.5 and 7.2 Joules. Secondary outcome measures of painfree grip strength, pain pressure threshold, sick leave and follow-up data from 3 to 8 weeks after the end of treatment, showed consistently significant results in favour of the same LLLT subgroup (p < 0.02). No serious side-effects were reported.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LLLT administered with optimal doses of 904 nm and possibly 632 nm wavelengths directly to the lateral elbow tendon insertions, seem to offer short-term pain relief and less disability in LET, both alone and in conjunction with an exercise regimen. This finding contradicts the conclusions of previous reviews which failed to assess treatment procedures, wavelengths and optimal doses.</p

Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.</p> <p>The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.</p> <p>Methods and Design</p> <p>This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p

Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.</p

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Expression of carbonic anhydrase II (CA II) promoter-reporter fusion genes in multiple tissues of transgenic mice does not replicate normal patterns of expression indicating complexity of CA II regulation in vivo

Although the proximal, 5′ 115 bp of the human carbonic anhydrase II (CA II) gene was sufficient for expression of a reporter gene in some transfected cell lines, we found previously that 1100 bp of this promoter (or 500 bp of the mouse CA II promoter) was not sufficient for expression in transgenic mice. We have now studied the expression of linked reporter genes in mice transgenic for either (1) 11 kb of the human 5′ promoter or (2) 8 kb of the human 5′ promoter with mouse sequences from the first exon, part of the first intron (since a CpG island spans this region), and the 3′ sequences of the gene. Expression was found in both cases, but the tissue specificity was not appropriate for CA II. Although there was a difference in the sensitivity of the assays used, the first construct led to expression in many tissues, while the second construct was expressed only in spleen. These findings indicate considerable complexity of DNA control regions for in vivo CA II expression.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44160/1/10528_2004_Article_BF00554600.pd

Acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment for low back pain in Chinese patients: a discrete choice experiment

Acupuncture is a popular but controversial treatment option for low back pain. In China, it is practised as traditional Chinese medicine; other treatment strategies for low back pain are commonly practised as Western medicine. Research on patient preference for low back-pain treatment options has been mainly conducted in Western countries and is limited to a willingness-to-pay approach. A stated-preference, discrete choice experiment was conducted to determine Chinese patient preferences and trade-offs for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment in low back pain from September 2011 to August 2012 after approval from the Department of Scientific Research in the study settings. Eight-six adult outpatients who visited the ‘traditional medicine department’ at a traditional Chinese medicine hospital and the ‘rehabilitation department’ at a Western medicine hospital in Guangdong Province of China for chronic low back pain during study period participated in an interview survey. A questionnaire containing 10 scenarios (5 attributes in each scenario) was used to ask participants' preference for acupuncture, low frequency infrared treatment or neither option. Validated responses were analysed using a nested-logit model. The decision on whether to receive a therapy was not associated with the expected utility of receiving therapy, female gender and higher out-of-pocket payment significantly decreased chance to receive treatments. Of the utility of receiving either acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment, the treatment sensation was the most important attribute as an indicator of treatment efficacy, followed by the maximum efficacy, maintenance duration and onset of efficacy, and the out-of-pocket payment. The willingness-to-pay for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment were about $618.6 and$592.4 USD per course respectively, demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. The treatment sensation was regarded as an indicator of treatment efficacy and the most important attribute for choosing acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment. The high willingness-to-pay demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. However, there may be other factors influencing patients' preference to receive treatments