/pdf/chapter-4-european-guidelines-for-the-management-of-chronic-4lrtve55lo.pdf

Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of the most common conservative types of treatment for patients with acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many treatment options for acute and chronic low back pain are available, but little is known about the optimal treatment strategy. METHODS: A rating system was used to assess the strength of the evidence, based on the methodologic quality of the randomized controlled trials, the relevance of the outcome measures, and the consistency of the results. RESULTS: The number of randomized controlled trials identified varied widely with regard to the interventions involved. The scores ranged from 20 to 79 points for acute low back pain and from 19 to 79 points for chronic low back pain on a 100-point scale, indicating the overall poor quality of the trials. Overall, only 28 (35%) randomized controlled trials on acute low back pain and 20 (25%) on chronic low back pain had a methodologic score of 50 or more points, and were considered to be of high quality. Various methodologic flaws were identified. Strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of muscle relaxants and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the ineffectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain; strong evidence also was found for the effectiveness of manipulation, back schools, and exercise therapy for chronic low back pain, especially for short-term effects. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the design, execution, and reporting of randomized controlled trials should be improved, to establish strong evidence for the effectiveness of the various therapeutic interventions for acute and chronic low back pain.

/pdf/conservative-treatment-of-acute-and-chronic-nonspecific-low-49mg162whr.pdf

Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions.

Research has demonstrated the importance of psychological factors in coping, quality of life, and disability in chronic pain. Furthermore, the contributions of psychology in the effectiveness of treatment of chronic pain patients have received empirical support. The authors describe a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain and provide an update on research implicating the importance of people’s appraisals of their symptoms, their ability to self-manage pain and related problems, and their fears about pain and injury that motivate efforts to avoid exacerbation of symptoms and further injury or reinjury. They provide a selected review to illustrate treatment outcome research, methodological issues, practical, and clinical issues to identify promising directions. Although there remain obstacles, there are also opportunities for psychologists to contribute to improved understanding of pain and treatment of people who suffer from chronic pain. The authors conclude by noting that pain has received a tremendous amount of attention culminating in the passage of a law by the U.S. Congress designating the period 2001–2011 as the “The Decade of Pain Control and Research.”

Psychological factors in chronic pain: Evolution and revolution.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural treatment, commonly used in the treatment of chronic low-back pain (CLBP), is primarily focused at reducing disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. In general, three behavioural treatment approaches are distinguished: operant, cognitive and respondent. OBJECTIVES: To determine if behavioural therapy is more effective than reference treatments for CLBP, and which type of behavioural treatment is most effective. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycLIT databases up to October 2003. References of identified randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised trials on behavioural treatment for non-specific CLBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for post-treatment and long-term results for each comparison, for each domain (i.e., behavioural outcomes, overall improvement, back pain specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (33%) were considered high quality. Comparing behavioural treatment to waiting list control (WLC) revealed strong evidence (4 trials, 134 people) in favour of a combined respondent-cognitive therapy for a medium positive effect on pain, and moderate evidence (2 trials, 39 people) in favour of progressive relaxation for a large positive effect on pain and behavioural outcomes (short-term only). When comparing operant treatment to WLC no significant differences could be detected on general functional status (strong evidence: 2 trials, 87 people) or on behavioural outcomes (moderate evidence; 3 trials, 153 people) (short-term only). There is limited evidence (1 trial, 98 people) that a graded activity program in an industrial setting is more effective than usual care for early return to work and reduced long-term sick leave. There is limited evidence (1 trail, 39 people) that there are no differences between behavioural treatment and exercises. Finally, there is moderate evidence (6 trials, 210 people) that there are no significant differences in short-term and long-term effectiveness when behavioural components are added to usual treatment programs for CLBP (i.e. physiotherapy, back education) on pain, generic functional status and behavioural outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combined respondent-cognitive therapy and progressive relaxation therapy are more effective than WLC on short-term pain relief. However, it is unknown whether these results sustain in the long term. No significant differences could be detected between behavioural treatment and exercise therapy. Whether clinicians should refer patients with CLBP to behavioural treatment programs or to active conservative treatment cannot be concluded from this review.

/pdf/behavioural-treatment-for-chronic-low-back-pain-rk8b65p0vf.pdf

Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain

Behavioral Methods for Chronic Pain and Illness

The current investigation studied the effectiveness of a secondary prevention program for nurses with back pain who were deemed at risk for developing a chronic problem. A 2 X 3 repeated measures design was employed with 2 groups and 3 assessment periods. The treatment group received an intervention designed to reduce current problems, but above all to prevent reinjury and minor pains from becoming chronic medical problems, and it included a physical and behavioral therapy package. The control group was placed on a waiting-list. Results indicated that the treatment group had significantly greater improvements than the control group for pain intensity, anxiety, sleep quality and fatigue ratings, observed pain behavior, activities, mood, and helplessness. These differences were generally maintained at the 6 month follow-up. In addition, the treatment group broke a trend for increasing amounts of pain-related absenteeism, while the control group did not. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that a secondary prevention program aimed at altering life style factors may represent an effective method for dealing with musculoskeletal pain problems.

Lennart Sundell

Papers

The secondary prevention of low back pain: a controlled study with follow-up.