Long-term trajectories of patients with neck pain and low back pain presenting to chiropractic care: A latent class growth analysis.

BACKGROUND: Information on the course of neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) typically relies on data collected at few time intervals during a period of up to 1 year. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre practice-based cohort study, patients consulting a chiropractor responded weekly for 52 weeks to text messages on their cell phones. Data from 448 patients (153 NP, 295 LBP) who had returned at least one set of answers in the first 26 weeks were used. Outcome measures were pain intensity (VAS) and functional outcome, assessed using four different questions: pain intensity, limitation in activities of daily living (ADL), number of days with pain in the previous week and number of days limited in ADL. Distinct patterns of pain were analysed with quadratic latent class growth analysis. RESULTS: The final model was a 4-class model for NP and LBP. The 'recovering from mild baseline pain' is most common (76.3% of NP patients/58.3% of LBP patients) followed by the 'recovering from severe baseline pain' class (16.3% NP/29.8% LBP). They follow similar trajectories when considered over a period of 6 months. Pain at baseline, duration of complaints, functional status, limitations in ADL and the score on psychosocial scales were the variables that most contributed to distinguish between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with NP or LBP presenting in chiropractic care show a trajectory of symptoms characterized by persistent or fluctuating pain of low or medium intensity. Only a minority either experience a rapid complete recovery or develop chronic severe pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Ninety percentage of patients with neck pain or low back pain presenting to chiropractors have a 30% improvement within 6 weeks and then show a trajectory of symptoms characterized by persistent or fluctuating pain of low or medium intensity. Only a minority either experience a rapid complete recovery or develop chronic severe pain.

Cost-effectiveness of manual therapy versus physiotherapy in patients with sub-acute and chronic neck pain: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy according to the Utrecht School (MTU) in comparison with physiotherapy (PT) in sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain patients from a societal perspective. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 52-week randomized controlled trial, in which 90 patients were randomized to the MTU group and 91 to the PT group. Clinical outcomes included perceived recovery (yes/no), functional status (continuous and yes/no), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. To estimate statistical uncertainty, bootstrapping techniques were used. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. During follow-up, intervention costs (ß:€-32; 95 %CI: -54 to -10) and healthcare costs (ß:€-126; 95 %CI: -235 to -32) were significantly lower in the MTU group than in the PT group, whereas unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher (ß:€186; 95 %CI:19-557). Societal costs did not significantly differ between groups (ß:€-96; 95 %CI:-1975-2022). For QALYs and functional status (yes/no), the maximum probability of MTU being cost-effective in comparison with PT was low (≤0.54). For perceived recovery (yes/no) and functional status (continuous), a large amount of money must be paid per additional unit of effect to reach a reasonable probability of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, MTU was not cost-effective in comparison with PT in patients with sub-acute and chronic non-specific neck pain for perceived recovery, functional status, and QALYs. As no clear total societal cost and effect differences were found between MTU and PT, the decision about what intervention to administer, reimburse, and/or implement can be based on the preferences of the patient and the decision-maker at hand. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00713843.

Somatization is associated with worse outcome in a chiropractic patient population with neck pain and low back pain.

AIM: To determine if psychosocial factors are associated with outcome in patients with neck pain or low back pain. METHODS: In a prospective, multi-center chiropractic practice-based cohort study in Belgium and The Netherlands, 917 patients, of which 326 with neck pain and 591 with low back pain, completed self-administered questionnaires at baseline, following the second visit, and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Psychosocial factors assessed at baseline were: distress, depression, anxiety and somatization via the Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire, patient's beliefs regarding the effect of physical activity and work on their complaint via the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and social support via the Feij social support scale. Primary outcome measures were perceived recovery, pain intensity, and functional status which was measured with the Neck Disability Index and Oswestry Disability Index. A univariable regression analysis to estimate the relation between each psychological variable and outcome was followed by a multivariable multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline patient characteristics between the patient population from Belgium and the Netherlands. Somatization scores are consistently associated with perceived recovery, functional status and pain for both neck pain and low-back pain. Depression was associated with poorer functioning in patients with LBP. There was a small association between fear and function and pain for patients with neck pain or low-back pain. CONCLUSION: Somatization was the only variable consistently found to be associated with diminished perceived recovery, higher degree of neck or low back disability, and increased neck or low back pain.

Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Although low-back pain is usually a self-limiting and benign disease that tends to improve spontaneously over time, a large variety of therapeutic interventions are available for its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of acupuncture for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain and dry-needling for myofascial pain syndrome in the low-back region. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the searches from 1996 to February 2003 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also searched the Chinese Cochrane Centre database of clinical trials and Japanese databases to February 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of acupuncture (that involves needling) for adults with non-specific (sub)acute or chronic low-back pain, or dry-needling for myofascial pain syndrome in the low-back region. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality (using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group) and extracted data. The trials were combined using meta-analyses methods or levels of evidence when the data reported did not allow statistical pooling. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs were included; 20 were published in English, seven in Japanese, five in Chinese and one each in Norwegian, Polish and German. There were only three trials of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. They did not justify firm conclusions, because of small sample sizes and low methodological quality of the studies. For chronic low-back pain there is evidence of pain relief and functional improvement for acupuncture, compared to no treatment or sham therapy. These effects were only observed immediately after the end of the sessions and at short-term follow-up. There is evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, effects are only small. Dry-needling appears to be a useful adjunct to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. No clear recommendations could be made about the most effective acupuncture technique. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area.

Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.

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.

Conservative treatment for repetitive strain injury.

Various conservative treatment options for repetitive strain injury are widely used, despite questionable evidence of their effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of these treatment options for relieving symptoms of repetitive strain injury and improving activities of daily living. Searches in Medline and Embase, with additional reference checking resulted in 15 eligible trials for this review. Methodological quality was assessed, and data-extraction was performed. With the use of a "best-evidence synthesis", no strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of any of the treatment options. There is limited evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation, ergonomic intervention measures, exercises, and spinal manipulation combined with soft tissue therapy are effective in providing symptom relief or improving activities of daily living. There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral therapy. In conclusion, little is known about the effectiveness of conservative treatment options for repetitive strain injury. To establish strong evidence, more high-quality trials are needed.

Biopsychosocial rehabilitation for repetitive-strain injuries among working-age adults.

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for upper-limb repetitive-strain injuries among working-age adults. Studies were identified from electronic bibliographic databases, reference checks, and consultations with experts in rehabilitation. Four blinded reviewers selected randomized controlled and controlled trials. Two experts evaluated the clinical relevance of the findings. Two other reviewers extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed. Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria. They were both considered to be low-quality trials. The clinical relevance of the included studies was also unsatisfactory. The level of scientific evidence was limited, showing that hypnosis as a supplement to comprehensive treatment can decrease the pain intensity of acute repetitive-strain injury in short follow-ups. There appears to be little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of biopsychosocial rehabilitation with respect to repetitive-strain injuries.

Chiropractic patients in the Netherlands: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the worldwide popularity of chiropractic, there is still relatively little known about the patients who visit chiropractors in the Netherlands and other European countries. OBJECTIVE: To describe in-depth the patient population of new patients to chiropractors in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Study population consisted of 10 consecutive new patients per participating chiropractor. A retrospective-type questionnaire was used. SETTING: Private practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of referral, area, and nature of the complaints; related to the chief complaint: previous treatments, examinations, type of referral, days lost at work, level of pain, and treatment expectations. RESULTS: Of the 130 chiropractors registered with the Netherlands Chiropractors'Association, 94 chiropractors(78%) participated. Eight hundred thirty-three patients (89%) returned questionnaires. By far, the greatest reason that patients visit chiropractors in the Netherlands is for neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) complaints. At the time of examination, 86% of the patients had spinal-related complaints, of which 12% involved multiple areas of the spine. Non-NMS complaints are minimal (<2%). Seventy-seven percent of patients with NMS complaints have chronic complaints (>12 weeks). Three-quarters of these patients have undergone previous conservative therapy for their complaint, which includes physical and manual therapy, postural correction, and exercise therapy. Despite the chronic nature of their complaints, patients have high expectations that their treatment will be effective. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who see chiropractors in the Netherlands have chronic NMS-related complaints. Chiropractors are not a part of the normal referral system in this country, with the result that the patients have rather long histories, including previous evaluations by medical specialists and other previous forms of (conservative) care.

The effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of acute and chronic low back pain. A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of acupuncture for the management of nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acupuncture is one of the oldest forms of therapy, but little is known about the effectiveness of acupuncture for low back pain. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were done to assess the effectiveness of all types of acupuncture treatment, which involves needling for subjects with nonspecific low back pain. Two reviewers blinded with respect to authors, institution, and journal independently assessed the methodologic quality of the studies. Because data were statistically and clinically too heterogeneous, a qualitative review was performed. The evidence was classified into four levels: strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials were included. Overall, the methodologic quality was low. Only two studies met the preset "high quality" level for this review. No study clearly evaluated acupuncture for acute low back pain. The results indicate that there was no evidence showing acupuncture to be more effective than no treatment. There was moderate evidence indicating that acupuncture is not more effective than trigger-point injection or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and there was limited evidence that acupuncture is not more effective than placebo or sham acupuncture for the management of chronic low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Because this systematic review did not clearly indicate that acupuncture is effective in the management of back pain, the authors would not recommend acupuncture as a regular treatment for patients with low back pain. There clearly is a need for more high-quality randomized controlled trials.