Evaluating the STarTBack stratified treatment approach for low back pain: exploring study-level factors potentially explaining differences in results of studies - a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results. DESIGN: A literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

Swimming for low back pain: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend exercise for treatment of chronic low back pain and prevention, but the amount and quality of evidence for different exercise modes is highly variable. Swimming is commonly recommended by health professionals, but the extent and quality of research supporting its relationship with back pain is not clear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to map the extent, characteristics and findings of research investigating the relationship between swimming and low back pain. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHOD: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORT Discus) were searched from inception to February 2023. We included primary studies and reviews that reported an association between swimming and low back pain. Hydrotherapy studies were excluded. RESULTS: 3093 articles were identified, and 44 studies included. Only one randomised controlled trial and one longitudinal cohort study were included. Most studies were cross-sectional (37/44; 84.1%), included competitive athletes (23/39; 59.0%), and did not primarily focus on the association between swimming and low back pain in the aims (41/44; 93.2%). Instead, most data available were largely incidentally collected or a secondary outcome. The reported associations between swimming and low back pain were highly variable regardless of whether the comparison was to other sports (odds ratio: 0.17 to 17.92) or no sport (odds ratio: 0.54 to 3.01). CONCLUSION: Most available literature investigating swimming and low back pain is cross-sectional in design. We did not identify any clear pattern of association between swimming and low back pain, based on the available literature.

A content analysis of the interventions for low back pain promoted on the websites of Australian pain clinics.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is a widely used source of health information, yet the accuracy of online information can be low. This is the case for low back pain (LBP), where much of the information about LBP treatment is poor. METHODS: This research conducted a content analysis to explore what pain treatments for LBP are presented to the public on websites of Australian pain clinics listed in the PainAustralia National Pain Services Directory. Websites providing information relevant to the treatment of LBP were included. Details of the treatments for LBP offered by each pain service were extracted. RESULTS: In total, 173 pain services were included, with these services linking to 100 unique websites. Services were predominantly under private ownership and located in urban areas, with limited services in non-urban locations. Websites provided detail on a median of six (IQR 3-8) treatments, with detail on a higher number of treatments provided by services in the private sector. Physical, psychological and educational treatments were offered by the majority of pain services, whereas surgical and workplace-focused treatments were offered by relatively few services. Most services provided details on multidisciplinary care; however, interdisciplinary, coordinated care characterised by case-conferencing was infrequently mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Most websites provided details on treatments that were largely in-line with recommended care for LBP, but some were not, especially in private clinics. However, whether the information provided online is a true reflection of the services offered in clinics remains to be investigated.