The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain. METHODS: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry. RESULTS: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts (n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain. INTERPRETATION: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.

Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

Photobiomodulation Therapy is Able to Modulate PGE2 Levels in Patients With Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is responsible for triggering increased biomarkers levels. In this way, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) may be an interesting alternative to treat these patients. One of the possible biological mechanisms of PBMT involved to decrease pain intensity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders is modulation of the inflammatory mediators' levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PBMT compared with placebo on inflammatory mediators' levels and pain intensity in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively registered, randomized triple-blinded (volunteers, therapists, and assessors), placebo-controlled trial was performed. Eighteen patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited and treated with a single session of active PBMT or placebo PBMT. The primary outcome of the study was serum prostaglandin E2 levels and the secondary outcomes were tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6 levels, and pain intensity. All outcomes were measured before and after 15 minutes of treatment session. RESULTS: PBMT was able to decrease prostaglandin E2 levels at post-treatment compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -1470 pg/ml, 95% confidence interval -2906 to -33.67 in patients with LBP. There was no difference between groups in the other measured outcomes. Patients did not report any adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PBMT was able to modulate prostaglandin E2 levels, indicating that this may be one of the mechanisms involved in the analgesic effects of PBMT in patients with LBP. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03859505. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed. DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise. METHODS: In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers. RESULTS: We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese. DATA EXTRACTION: Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score. DATA SYNTHESIS: The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation). MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

Pilates for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used. MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomisation) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.

Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain.

PURPOSE: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. METHODS: An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions. RESULTS: A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45%. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity' and 'health-related quality of life'. Consensus on 'physical functioning' and 'pain intensity' was consistent across all stakeholders, 'health-related quality of life' was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain 'number of deaths'. CONCLUSIONS: The following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity', 'health-related quality of life' and 'number of deaths'. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.

Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery.

BACKGROUND: Several rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether active rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is more effective than no treatment, and to describe which type of active rehabilitation is most effective. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002.First, we clustered treatments according to the start of treatment.1. Active rehabilitation that starts immediately postsurgery.2. Active rehabilitation that starts four to six weeks postsurgery.3. Active rehabilitation that starts longer than 12 months postsurgery.For every cluster, the following comparisons were investigated.A. Active rehabilitation versus no treatment, placebo or waiting list control.B. Active rehabilitation versus other kinds of active rehabilitation.C. Specific intervention in addition to active rehabilitation versus active rehabilitation alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO to May 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed if studies were clinically homogeneous. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight-week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13-week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low- to very low-quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low-quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co-ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high- versus low-intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low-quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.24), and low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (SMD -0.67; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long-term follow-up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high-intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low-intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30), and low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36). Very low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short-term pain relief (SMD -0.76;  95% CI -2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.15). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high- or moderate-quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high-intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low-intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. High-quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.

Effectiveness of interferential current in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interferential current (IC) in patients with low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of IC in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: The databases PUBMED, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and SCIELO were searched. Randomized controlled trials reporting pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain, in which IC was applied were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were considered eligible for this systematic review (pooled n = 1367). Main results showed moderate-quality evidence and moderate effect sizes that IC probably reduces pain intensity and disability compared to placebo immediately post-treatment (Pain: MD = -1.57 points; 95% CI -2.17, -0.98; Disability: MD = -1.51 points; 95% CI -2.57, -0.46), but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence with small effect size showed that IC may reduce pain intensity (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI -0.61, -0.03, p = 0.03) compared to TENS immediately post-treatment, but not for disability. There is very low-quality evidence that IC combined with other interventions (massage or exercises) may not further reduce pain intensity and disability compared to the other interventions provided in isolation immediately post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Moderate-quality evidence shows that IC is probably better than placebo for reducing pain intensity and disability immediately post-treatment in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although low-back pain is a highly prevalent condition, its clinical course remains uncertain. Our main objective was to systematically review the literature on the clinical course of pain and disability in patients with acute and persistent low-back pain. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether pain and disability have similar courses. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of inception cohort studies. We identified eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We included prospective studies that enrolled an episode-inception cohort of patients with acute or persistent low-back pain and that measured pain, disability or recovery. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality. We used mixed models to determine pooled estimates of pain and disability over time. RESULTS: Data from 33 discrete cohorts (11 166 participants) were included in the review. The variance-weighted mean pain score (out of a maximum score of 100) was 52 (95% CI 48-57) at baseline, 23 (95% CI 21-25) at 6 weeks, 12 (95% CI 9-15) at 26 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3-10) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain for cohorts with acute pain. Among cohorts with persistent pain, the variance-weighted mean pain score (out of 100) was 51 (95% CI 44-59) at baseline, 33 (95% CI 29-38) at 6 weeks, 26 (95% CI 20-33) at 26 weeks and 23 (95% CI 16-30) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain. The course of disability outcomes was similar to the time course of pain outcomes in the acute pain cohorts, but the pain outcomes were slightly worse than disability outcomes in the persistent pain cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Patients who presented with acute or persistent low-back pain improved markedly in the first six weeks. After that time improvement slowed. Low to moderate levels of pain and disability were still present at one year, especially in the cohorts with persistent pain.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the psychosomatic questionnaire for children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain into Brazilian-Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: Psychosomatic symptoms seem to influence both the onset and development of pain. There is lack of Brazilian-Portuguese questionnaires that measure psychosomatic symptoms in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents into Brazilian-Portuguese and English and test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation (from Dutch to Brazilian-Portuguese and English) followed six steps. Interviews were conducted in 33 Brazilian children and adolescents. We also recruited 107 children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain from schools to test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. The questionnaire was completed twice with a 7-day interval. Ceiling and floor effects, missing data, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: We recruited 140 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the cross-cultural adaptation process, no major difficulty answering and understanding the questionnaire were reported by children and adolescents. The questionnaire did not show ceiling or floor effects and had minimal missing data (0.37%). Internal consistency by the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.69. Test-retest reliability by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.84). The smallest detectable change was 6.5 points out of 18 points. We observed a moderate correlation of 0.54 (p<0.01) with the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, consistent with our a-priori hypothesis. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents has acceptable measurement properties and is a good option for assessing psychosomatic symptoms in clinical practice and research.

Meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine the effectiveness of meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of meditation in adults with non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers rated risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. RESULTS: We included eight trials with a total of 1,234 participants. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that meditation is better than usual care for disability at short-term (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.42 to -0.02). We also found that meditation is better than usual care for pain intensity at long-term (SMD = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.02). There is no significant difference for pain intensity between meditation and minimal intervention or usual care at short and intermediate-term. We did not find differences between meditation and minimal intervention for disability at intermediate-term or usual care in any follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: We found small effect sizes and moderate-certainty evidence that meditation is slightly better than minimal intervention in the short-term for disability. Low-certainty of evidence suggests that meditation is slightly better than usual care for pain in the long-term. Meditation appears to be safe with most trials reporting no serious adverse events.

The patient-specific functional scale is more responsive than the Roland Morris disability questionnaire when activity limitation is low.

The primary objective of this study was to determine which questionnaire, the Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) or the patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), was better at detecting change in activity limitation in a large cohort of patients with low back pain undergoing rehabilitation. A secondary aim was to determine if the responsiveness of the questionnaires was influenced by the patient's level of activity limitation at baseline. Responsiveness statistics, including effect size statistics, Pearson's r correlations and receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to determine ability to detect change in activity limitation on 831 patients with low back pain. Data were analysed at two time points; directly after treatment (termed short-term) and several weeks post-treatment (termed mid-term). The data were subsequently re-analysed on sub-sets of the full cohort according to the level of activity limitation from RMDQ baseline scores. In the total cohort we found that the PSFS was more responsive than the RMDQ; however, in the subgroup with high activity limitation this pattern was not observed. This is true for time points up to 6 months post-treatment. In conclusion, the RMDQ and PSFS both demonstrate good responsiveness according to the definitions given in previous guidelines. The PSFS is more responsive than the RMDQ for patients with low levels of activity limitation but not for patients with high levels of activity limitation.

Effectiveness of the back school and mckenzie techniques in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a highly prevalent condition, which is associated with high direct and indirect costs to the society. Although this condition is highly prevalent, it is still extremely difficult to treat. Two potentially useful treatments for patients with chronic low back pain are called the McKenzie and Back School treatment programs. These programs have good biological plausibility, are widely available and have a modest cost. Although these treatments are already available for patients, the evidence that supports their use is largely based on low quality methodological studies. Therefore, a high-quality randomised controlled trial is required to compare, for the first time, the effectiveness of these treatments in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: One hundred and forty-eight patients will be randomly allocated to a four-week treatment program based upon the McKenzie or Back School principles. Clinical outcomes (pain intensity, disability, quality of life, and trunk flexion range of motion) will be obtained at follow-up appointments at 1, 3 and 6 months after randomisation. The data will be collected by an assessor who will be blinded to the group allocation. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study aimed to compare the McKenzie and Back School approaches in patients with chronic low back pain. The results of this trial may help in the decision-making process of allied health providers for the treatment of chronic low back pain and reduce the health-related costs of this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12610000435088.

Smell tests to distinguish Parkinson's disease from other neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Olfactory impairment has been considered for differential diagnosis in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. The authors aimed to identify the tests used to assess the olfactory function in PD patients and examine these tests' ability to distinguish them from other neurological disorders.Areas covered: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 comparing the olfactory function of PD patients to other neurological disorders were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment. Five thousand three hundred and four studies were screened, and 35 were included in the systematic review. Six smell tests that evaluated a total of 1,544 PD patients were identified. Data of 1,144 patients included in the meta-analyses revealed worse smell performance than individuals with other neurological disorders, such as progressive supranuclear palsy and essential tremor, but not with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder.Expert opinion: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test was the most used test to assess the olfactory function of PD. Smell loss was worse in PD than in some neurological disorders. The smell tests' ability in differentiating PD from other neurological disorders still deserves more attention in future studies. Protocol register (PROSPERO/2018-CRD42018107009).

Smell tests can discriminate Parkinson's disease patients from healthy individuals: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory impairment is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The authors aimed to identify the clinical tests used to assess olfactory function and examine their ability to distinguish PD with different disease duration from healthy individuals with physiological aging. METHODS: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 that assessed the olfaction of individuals with PD using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: Twelve smell tests were identified from the reviewed studies (n = 125) that assessed 8776 individuals with PD. Data of 6593 individuals with PD and 8731 healthy individuals were included in the meta-analyses. Individuals with PD presented worse performance than healthy individuals, regardless of the smell test used. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was used by most studies (n = 2310 individuals with PD) and presented smaller heterogeneity. When the studies were subclassified according to the years of PD duration, there were no significant differences. CONCLUSION: All smell tests were able to discriminate the olfactory function of PD from that of healthy individuals, although the UPSIT was widely used. The abnormal olfaction was not related to the disease duration. Systematic review protocol registration (PROSPERO/2020-CRD42020160878).