Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).

Potential treatment effect modifiers for manipulative therapy for children complaining of spinal pain.Secondary analyses of a randomised controlled trial.

Background: In children, spinal pain is transitory for most, but up to 20% experience recurrent and bothersome complaints. It is generally acknowledged that interventions may be more effective for subgroups of those affected with low back pain. In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, we tested whether five indicators of a potential increased need for treatment might act as effect modifiers for manipulative therapy in the treatment of spinal pain in children. We hypothesized that the most severely affected children would benefit more from manipulative therapy. Method: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial comparing advice, exercises and soft tissue treatment with and without the addition of manipulative therapy in 238 Danish school children aged 9-15 years complaining of spinal pain. A text message system (SMS) and clinical examinations were used for data collection (February 2012 to April 2014).Five pre-specified potential effect modifiers were explored: Number of weeks with spinal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, number of weeks with co-occurring musculoskeletal pain 6 months prior to inclusion, expectations of the clinical course, pain intensity, and quality of life.Outcomes were number of recurrences of spinal pain, number of weeks with pain, length of episodes, global perceived effect, and change in pain intensity. To explore potential effect modification, various types of regression models were used depending on the type of outcome, including interaction tests. Results: We found that children with long duration of spinal pain or co-occurring musculoskeletal pain prior to inclusion as well as low quality of life at baseline tended to benefit from manipulative therapy over non-manipulative therapy, whereas the opposite was seen for children reporting high intensity of pain. However, most results were statistically insignificant. Conclusions: This secondary analysis indicates that children more effected by certain baseline characteristics, but not pain intensity, have a greater chance to benefit from treatment that include manipulative therapy. However, these analyses were both secondary and underpowered, and therefore merely exploratory. The results underline the need for a careful choice of inclusion criteria in future investigations of manipulative therapy in children. Trial registration: NCT01504698; results.

Conservative care with or without manipulative therapy in the management of back and/or neck pain in Danish children aged 9-15: a randomised controlled trial nested in a school-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of children experience spinal pain, that is, back and/or neck pain. Today, no 'gold-standard' treatment for spinal pain in children exists, but manipulative therapy is increasingly being used in spite of a lack of evidence of its effectiveness. This study investigates the effectiveness of adding manipulative therapy to other conservative care for spinal pain in a school-based cohort of Danish children aged 9-15 years. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The design was a two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial, nested in a longitudinal open cohort study in Danish public schools. 238 children from 13 public schools were randomised individually from February 2012 to April 2014. A text message system and clinical examinations were used for data collection. Interventions included either (1) advice, exercises and soft-tissue treatment or (2) advice, exercises and soft-tissue treatment plus manipulative therapy. The primary outcome was number of recurrences of spinal pain. Secondary outcomes were duration of spinal pain, change in pain intensity and Global Perceived Effect.We found no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome (control group median 1 (IQR 1-3) and intervention group 2 (IQR 0-4), p=0.07). Children in the group receiving manipulative therapy reported a higher Global Perceived Effect: OR 2.22, (95% CI 1.19 to 4.15). No adverse events were reported. Main limitations are the potential discrepancy between parental and child reporting and that the study population may not be comparable to a normal care-seeking population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding manipulative therapy to other conservative care in school children with spinal pain did not result in fewer recurrent episodes. The choice of treatment-if any-for spinal pain in children therefore relies on personal preferences, and could include conservative care with and without manipulative therapy. Participants in this trial may differ from a normal care-seeking population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01504698; Results.

Does Motor Development in Infancy Predict Spinal Pain in Later Childhood? A Cohort Study.

Study Design Longitudinal cohort study. Background Spinal pain is responsible for a huge personal and societal burden, but its etiology remains unclear. Deficits in motor control have been associated with spinal pain in adults, and delayed motor development is associated with a range of health problems and risks in children. Objective To assess whether there is an independent relationship between the age at which infants first sit and walk without support and spinal pain at 11 years of age. Methods Data from the Danish National Birth Cohort were analyzed, using the age at which children first sat and first walked without support as predictors. Parents reported the predictors when the children were 6 months and 18 months of age, and also provided information in response to a comprehensive list of covariates, including child sex, birth weight, and cognitive development; socioeconomic indicators; and parental health variables. Outcomes were measured at 11 years of age using the Young Spine Questionnaire, which assesses the presence and intensity of spinal pain. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models to estimate determinants of neck, thoracic, lumbar, and multisite pain. Results The analyses included data from approximately 23 000 children and their parents. There were no consistent independent associations between the age at first sitting or walking and spinal pain at the age of 11. Odds ratios were between 0.95 and 1.00 for the various pain sites. Conclusion The age at which a child first sits or walks without support does not influence the likelihood that he or she will experience spinal pain in later childhood. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(10):763-768. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7484.

Musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents

ABSTRACT Introduction Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain in children and adolescents is responsible for substantial personal impacts and societal costs, but it has not been intensively or systematically researched. This means our understanding of these conditions is limited, and healthcare professionals have little empirical evidence to underpin their clinical practice. In this article we summarise the state of the evidence concerning MSK pain in children and adolescents, and offer suggestions for future research. Results Rates of self-reported MSK pain in adolescents are similar to those in adult populations and they are typically higher in teenage girls than boys. Epidemiological research has identified conditions such as back and neck pain as major causes of disability in adolescents, and in up to a quarter of cases there are impacts on school or physical activities. A range of physical, psychological and social factors have been shown to be associated with MSK pain report, but the strength and direction of these relationships are unclear. There are few validated instruments available to quantify the nature and severity of MSK pain in children, but some show promise. Several national surveys have shown that adolescents with MSK pain commonly seek care and use medications for their condition. Some studies have revealed a link between MSK pain in adolescents and chronic pain in adults. Conclusion Musculoskeletal pain conditions are often recurrent in nature, occurring throughout the life-course. Attempts to understand these conditions at a time close to their initial onset may offer a better chance of developing effective prevention and treatment strategies.

Chiropractic care and public health: answering difficult questions about safety, care through the lifespan, and community action.

The purpose of this collaborative summary is to document current chiropractic involvement in the public health movement, reflect on social ecological levels of influence as a profession, and summarize the relationship of chiropractic to the current public health topics of: safety, health issues through the lifespan, and effective participation in community health issues. The questions that are addressed include: Is spinal manipulative therapy for neck and low-back pain a public health problem? What is the role of chiropractic care in prevention or reduction of musculoskeletal injuries in children? What ways can doctors of chiropractic stay updated on evidence-based information about vaccines and immunization throughout the lifespan? Can smoking cessation be a prevention strategy for back pain? Does chiropractic have relevance within the VA Health Care System for chronic pain and comorbid disorders? How can chiropractic use cognitive behavioral therapy to address chronic low back pain as a public health problem? What opportunities exist for doctors of chiropractic to more effectively serve the aging population? What is the role of ethics and the contribution of the chiropractic profession to public health? What public health roles can chiropractic interns perform for underserved communities in a collaborative environment? Can the chiropractic profession contribute to community health? What opportunities do doctors of chiropractic have to be involved in health care reform in the areas of prevention and public health? What role do citizen-doctors of chiropractic have in organizing community action on health-related matters? How can our future chiropractic graduates become socially responsible agents of change?

Does socioeconomic status in adolescence predict low back pain in adulthood? A repeated cross-sectional study of 4,771 Danish adolescents.

Social and economic disadvantage is associated with general poor physical health. This relationship has been recognised for centuries, but it is unknown whether socioeconomic factors have a specific influence on low back pain (LBP). Furthermore, it is unknown how social and economic disadvantages in youth affect adult health. Therefore, the specific objectives of this study are to explore (1) the cross-sectional association between socioeconomic status (SES) and LBP in adolescence and (2) the longitudinal association between SES in adolescence and LBP in early adulthood. A database containing LBP data from 4,771 twins was merged with their parents' social and economic data, available from Statistics Denmark. Low back pain data ['any low back pain' and 'persistent low back pain (more than 30 days)'] were collected in 1994, when the subjects were 12-18 years of age, and collected again eight years later. Socioeconomic data of the parents (education, income, social class and long-term illness, all for both mother and father) were collected in 1994. Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the associations between each parameter of parental SES in adolescence and LBP at baseline as well as at follow-up. Finally, the influence of a variable combining the different socioeconomic parameters was established. All estimates were controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption and body mass index at baseline. In the logistic regression models, only three of the 32 estimates were statistically significant. When merging the socioeconomic variables into a combined score, the results indicated that a good social background had a protective effect against the persistent LBP, while there was no association with any LBP. However, the statistical significance of this effect was unclear. We found no or very weak indications of possible relationships between social factors in adolescence and LBP at baseline and at follow-up.

Are lifestyle-factors in adolescence predictors for adult low back pain? A cross-sectional and prospective study of young twins.

INTRODUCTION: With more than half of the population experiencing low back pain (LBP) before the age of 20, research must focus on young populations. Lifestyle-factors might be important elements of prevention, since they are modifiable in nature. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to investigate the association between smoking, alcohol consumption and overweight in adolescence and 1) present LBP (cross-sectionally) and 2) the risk of future LBP (longitudinally). METHODS: Data from 9,600 twins, aged 12-22, were analysed cross-sectionally with respect to associations between the above-mentioned lifestyle-factors and LBP. Eight years later, a follow-up survey (n = 6,554) was conducted and LBP at follow-up was correlated to the lifestyle-factors at baseline. Finally, the associations found to be significant were tested in a twin-control study design. RESULTS: Our cross-sectional study demonstrated small, but statistically significant, positive associations between all three investigated life-style factors and LBP. In the longitudinal study, smoking at baseline showed a monotonic dose-response relationship with LBP at follow-up (OR up to 4.0 for those smoking >20 cig./day). There was also evidence of temporality (smoking preceding LBP). Adult LBP was negatively associated with adolescent alcohol consumption. We found no evidence of a dose-response relationship or temporality. There were no associations detected between adolescent overweight and adult LBP. In the twin-control study, the directions of associations were the same, but none of these associations attained statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Several of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality were fulfilled for smoking whereas the crucial aspect of temporality was missing for alcohol consumption and overweight. The twin-control study failed to confirm a statistically significant link between smoking and LBP.