Integration of subclassification strategies in randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating manual therapy treatment and exercise therapy for non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review

Background There is lack of evidence for specific treatment interventions for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) despite the substantial amount of randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating treatment outcome for this disorder. Hypothesis It has been hypothesised that this vacuum of evidence is caused by the lack of subclassification of the heterogeneous population of patients with chronic low back pain for outcome research.Methods A systematic review with a meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the integration of subclassification strategies with matched interventions in randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating manual therapy treatment and exercise therapy for NSCLBP. A structured search for relevant studies in Embase, Cinahl, Medline, PEDro and the Cochrane Trials Register database, followed by hand searching all relevant studies in English up to December 2008. Results Only 5 of 68 studies (7.4%) subclassified patients beyond applying general inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the few studies where classification and matched interventions have been used, our meta-analysis showed a statistical difference in favour of the classification-based intervention for reductions in pain (p=0.004) and disability (p=0.0005), both for short-term and long-term reduction in pain (p=0.001). Effect sizes ranged from moderate (0.43) for short term to minimal (0.14) for long term. Conclusion A better integration of subclassification strategies in NSCLBP outcome research is needed. We propose the development of explicit recommendations for the use of subclassification strategies and evaluation of targeted interventions in future research evaluating NSCLBP

Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background: Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. General exercise seems to be an effective option for management of chronic low back pain (LBP) but very little is known about the management of a sub-acute LBP within sub-groups. Recent research has developed clinical tests to identify a subgroup of patients with chronic non-specific LBP who have movement control dysfunction (MD). Method/Design: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effects of general exercise and specific movement control exercise (SMCE) on disability and function in patients with MD within recurrent sub-acute LBP. The main outcome measure is the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Discussion: European clinical guideline for management of chronic LBP recommends that more research is required to develop tools to improve the classification and identification of specific clinical sub-groups of chronic LBP patients. Good quality RCTs are then needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions aimed at these specific target groups. This RCT aims to test the hypothesis whether patients within a sub-group of MD benefit more through a specific individually tailored movement control exercise program than through general exercises

Movement control tests of the low back; evaluation of the difference between patients with low back pain and healthy controls

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine whether there is a difference between patients with low back pain and healthy controls in a test battery score for movement control of the lumbar spine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a case control study, carried out in five outpatient physiotherapy practices in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Twelve physiotherapists tested the ability of 210 subjects (108 patients with non-specific low back pain and 102 control subjects without back pain) to control their movements in the lumbar spine using a set of six tests. We observed the number of positive tests out of six (mean, standard deviation and 95% confidence interval of the mean). The significance of the differences between the groups was calculated with Mann-Whitney U test and <it>p </it>was set on <0.05. The effect size (d) between the groups was calculated and d>0.8 was considered a large difference.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>On average, patients with low back pain had 2.21(95%CI 1.94–2.48) positive tests and the healthy controls 0.75 (95%CI 0.55–0.95). The effect size was d = 1.18 (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between acute and chronic (p < 0.01), as well as between subacute and chronic patient groups (p < 0.03), but not between acute and subacute patient groups (p > 0.7).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This is the first study demonstrating a significant difference between patients with low back pain and subjects without back pain regarding their ability to actively control the movements of the low back. The effect size between patients with low back pain and healthy controls in movement control is large.</p

The differential effects of core stabilization exercise regime and conventional physiotherapy regime on postural control parameters during perturbation in patients with movement and control impairment chronic low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of the present study was to examine the differential effect of core stability exercise training and conventional physiotherapy regime on altered postural control parameters in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). As heterogeneity in CLBP population moderates the effect of intervention on outcomes, in this study, interventions approaches were used based on sub-groups of CLBP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was an allocation concealed, blinded, sequential and pragmatic control trial. Three groups of participants were investigated during postural perturbations: 1) CLBP patients with movement impairment (n = 15, MI group) randomized to conventional physiotherapy regime 2) fifteen CLBP patients with control impairment randomized to core stability group (CI group) and 3) fifteen healthy controls (HC).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The MI group did not show any significant changes in postural control parameters after the intervention period however they improved significantly in disability scores and fear avoidance belief questionnaire work score (P < 0.05). The CI group showed significant improvements in Fx, Fz, and My variables (p < 0.013, p < 0.006, and p < 0.002 respectively with larger effect sizes: Hedges's g > 0.8) after 8 weeks of core stability exercises for the adjusted p values. Postural control parameters of HC group were analyzed independently with pre and post postural control parameters of CI and MI group. This revealed the significant improvements in postural control parameters in CI group compared to MI group indicating the specific adaptation to the core stability exercises in CI group. Though the disability scores were reduced significantly in CI and MI groups (p < 0.001), the post intervention scores between groups were not found significant (p < 0.288). Twenty percentage absolute risk reduction in flare-up rates during intervention was found in CI group (95% CI: 0.69-0.98).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this study core stability exercise group demonstrated significant improvements after intervention in ground reaction forces (Fz, Mz; g > 0.8) indicating changes in load transfer patterns during perturbation similar to HC group.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>UTRN095032158-06012009423714</p

Movement control exercise versus general exercise to reduce disability in patients with low back pain and movement control impairment. A randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in subacute and chronic stages can be treated effectively with exercise therapy. Research guidelines recommend evaluating different treatments in defined subgroups of patients with NSLBP. A subgroup of patients with movement control impairment (MCI) improved significantly on patient specific function and disability in a previous case series after movement control exercises.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) we will compare the effectiveness of movement control and general exercise in patients with MCI. 106 participants aged 18 - 75 will be recruited in 5 outpatient hospital departments and 7 private practices.</p> <p>Patients randomly assigned to the movement control exercise group will be instructed to perform exercises according to their MCI. The general exercise group will follow an exercise protocol aimed at improving endurance and flexibility. Patients in both groups will receive 9 - 18 treatments and will be instructed to do additional exercises at home.</p> <p>The primary outcome is the level of disability assessed using the patient specific functional scale (PSFS) which links the perceived pain to functional situations and is measured before treatment and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes concern low back pain related disability (Roland Morris questionnaire, RMQ), graded chronic pain scale (GCPS), range of motion and tactile acuity.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge this study will be the first to compare two exercise programs for a specific subgroup of patients with NSLBP and MCI. Results of this study will provide insight into the effectiveness of movement control exercise and contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms behind MCI and its relation to NSLBP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN80064281">ISRCTN80064281</a></p

Inter-rater reliability of three standardized functional tests in patients with low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Of all patients with low back pain, 85% are diagnosed as "non-specific lumbar pain". Lumbar instability has been described as one specific diagnosis which several authors have described as delayed muscular responses, impaired postural control as well as impaired muscular coordination among these patients. This has mostly been measured and evaluated in a laboratory setting. There are few standardized and evaluated functional tests, examining functional muscular coordination which are also applicable in the non-laboratory setting. In ordinary clinical work, tests of functional muscular coordination should be easy to apply. The aim of this present study was to therefore standardize and examine the inter-rater reliability of three functional tests of muscular functional coordination of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nineteen consecutive individuals, ten men and nine women were included. (Mean age 42 years, SD ± 12 yrs). Two independent examiners assessed three tests: "single limb stance", "sitting on a Bobath ball with one leg lifted" and "unilateral pelvic lift" on the same occasion. The standardization procedure took altered positions of the spine or pelvis and compensatory movements of the free extremities into account. The inter-rater reliability was analyzed by Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) and by percentage agreement.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The inter-rater reliability for the right and the left leg respectively was: for the single limb stance very good (κ: 0.88–1.0), for sitting on a Bobath ball good (κ: 0.79) and very good (κ: 0.88) and for the unilateral pelvic lift: good (κ: 0.61) and moderate (κ: 0.47).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The present study showed good to very good inter-rater reliability for two standardized tests, that is, the single-limb stance and sitting on a Bobath-ball with one leg lifted. Inter-rater reliability for the unilateral pelvic lift test was moderate to good. Validation of the tests in their ability to evaluate lumbar stability is required.</p

Reliability of movement control tests in the lumbar spine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Movement control dysfunction [MCD] reduces active control of movements. Patients with MCD might form an important subgroup among patients with non specific low back pain. The diagnosis is based on the observation of active movements. Although widely used clinically, only a few studies have been performed to determine the test reliability. The aim of this study was to determine the inter- and intra-observer reliability of movement control dysfunction tests of the lumbar spine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We videoed patients performing a standardized test battery consisting of 10 active movement tests for motor control in 27 patients with non specific low back pain and 13 patients with other diagnoses but without back pain. Four physiotherapists independently rated test performances as correct or incorrect per observation, blinded to all other patient information and to each other. The study was conducted in a private physiotherapy outpatient practice in Reinach, Switzerland. Kappa coefficients, percentage agreements and confidence intervals for inter- and intra-rater results were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The kappa values for inter-tester reliability ranged between 0.24 – 0.71. Six tests out of ten showed a substantial reliability [k > 0.6]. Intra-tester reliability was between 0.51 – 0.96, all tests but one showed substantial reliability [k > 0.6].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physiotherapists were able to reliably rate most of the tests in this series of motor control tasks as being performed correctly or not, by viewing films of patients with and without back pain performing the task.</p

Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review

Background: Physiotherapy for people with low back pain frequently includes assessment and modification of lumbo-pelvic movement. Interventions commonly aim to restore normal movement and thereby reduce pain and improve activity limitation. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate: (i) the effect of movement-based interventions on movement patterns (muscle activation, lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural patterns) of people with low back pain (LBP), and (ii) the relationship between changes in movement patterns and subsequent changes in pain and activity limitation. Methods. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2012. Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of people with LBP were eligible for inclusion. The intervention must have been designed to influence (i) muscle activity patterns, (ii) lumbo-pelvic kinematic patterns or (iii) postural patterns, and included measurement of such deficits before and after treatment, to allow determination of the success of the intervention on the lumbo-pelvic movement. Twelve trials (25% of retrieved studies) met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently identified, assessed and extracted data. The PEDro scale was used to assess method quality. Intervention effects were described using standardised differences between group means and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The included trials showed inconsistent, mostly small to moderate intervention effects on targeted movement patterns. There was considerable heterogeneity in trial design, intervention type and outcome measures. A relationship between changes to movement patterns and improvements in pain or activity limitation was observed in one of six studies on muscle activation patterns, one of four studies that examined the flexion relaxation response pattern and in two of three studies that assessed lumbo-pelvic kinematics or postural characteristics. Conclusions: Movement-based interventions were infrequently effec tive for changing observable movement patterns. A relationship between changes in movement patterns and improvement in pain or activity limitation was also infrequently observed. No independent studies confirm any observed relationships. Challenges for future research include defining best methods for measuring (i) movement aberrations, (ii) improvements in movements, and (iii) the relationship between changes in how people move and associated changes in other health indicators such as activity limitation