Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks' gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians' interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect. For low-back painResults from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two). For pelvic painResults from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two). For low-back and pelvic painResults from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two).The results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit.Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.Further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly.

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain (LBP) and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. Pain increases with advancing pregnancy and interferes with work, daily activities and sleep. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 July 2012), identified related studies and reviews from the Cochrane Back Review Group search strategy to July 2012, and checked reference lists from identified reviews and studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of pelvic or back pain in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Quality of the evidence for outcomes was assessed using the five criteria outlined by the GRADE Working Group. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 randomised trials examining 4093 pregnant women in this updated review. Eleven trials examined LBP (N = 1312), four examined pelvic pain (N = 661), and 11 trials examined lumbo-pelvic (LBP and pelvic) pain (N = 2120). Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to the results of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and unless noted, were compared to usual prenatal care. For LBP, there was low-quality evidence that in general, the addition of exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to -0.53; six RCTs, N = 543), and disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; two RCTs, N = 146); and water-based exercise significantly reduced LBP-related sick leave (risk ratio (RR) 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; one RCT, N = 241). Low-quality evidence from single trials suggested no significant difference in pain or function between two types of pelvic support belt, between osteopathic manipulation (OMT) and usual care or sham ultrasound (sham US). Very low-quality evidence suggested that a specially-designed pillow may relieve night pain better than a regular pillow. For pelvic pain, there was moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture significantly reduced evening pain better than exercise; both were better than usual care. Low-quality evidence from single trials suggested that adding a rigid belt to exercise improved average pain but not function; acupuncture was significantly better than sham acupuncture for improving evening pain and function, but not average pain; and evening pain relief was the same following either deep or superficial acupuncture. For lumbo-pelvic pain, there was moderate-quality evidence that an eight- to 20-week exercise program reduced the risk of women reporting lumbo-pelvic pain (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; four RCTs, N = 1344); but a 16- to 20-week training program was no more successful than usual care at preventing pelvic pain (one RCT, N = 257). Low-quality evidence suggested that exercise significantly reduced lumbo-pelvic-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94, two RCTs, N = 1062), and improved function. Low-quality evidence from single trials suggested that OMT significantly reduced pain and improved function; either a multi-modal intervention that included manual therapy, exercise and education (MOM) or usual care significantly reduced disability, but only MOM improved pain and physical function; acupuncture improved pain and function more than usual care or physiotherapy; pain and function improved more when acupuncture was started at 26- rather than 20- weeks' gestation; and auricular (ear) acupuncture significantly improved these outcomes more than sham acupuncture.When reported, adverse events were minor and transient. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggested that acupuncture or exercise, tailored to the stage of pregnancy, significantly reduced evening pelvic pain or lumbo-pelvic pain more than usual care alone, acupuncture was significantly more effective than exercise for reducing evening pelvic pain, and a 16- to 20-week training program was no more successful than usual prenatal care at preventing pelvic or LBP. Low-quality evidence suggested that exercise significantly reduced pain and disability from LBP.There was low-quality evidence from single trials for other outcomes because of high risk of bias and sparse data; clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.Physiotherapy, OMT, acupuncture, a multi-modal intervention, or the addition of a rigid pelvic belt to exercise seemed to relieve pelvic or back pain more than usual care alone. Acupuncture was more effective than physiotherapy at relieving evening lumbo-pelvic pain and disability and improving pain and function when it was started at 26- rather than 20-weeks' gestation, although the effects were small.There was no significant difference in LBP and function for different support belts, exercise, neuro emotional technique or spinal manipulation (SMT), or in evening pelvic pain between deep and superficial acupuncture.Very low-quality evidence suggested a specially-designed pillow may reduce night-time LBP.Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and is likely to change the estimates.  Future research would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to presenting symptoms.

Nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neurogenic claudication can significantly impact functional ability, quality of life, and independence in the elderly. METHODS.: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ICL databases up to January 2011 for randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least 1 arm provided data on nonoperative treatments. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using 12 criteria. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 were assessed and 21 trials with 1851 participants were selected. There is very low-quality evidence from 6 trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome. From single small trials, there is low-quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improve walking distance. There is very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improve pain, function, and quality of life up to 2 weeks compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There is low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There is low- and very low-quality evidence from 6 trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. CONCLUSION: Moderate- and high-GRADE evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibiting recommendations to guide clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE: To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS: The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS: The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION: Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders.

Adherence to radiography guidelines for low back pain: a survey of chiropractic schools worldwide.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes instruction provided at chiropractic schools worldwide on the use of spine radiography and compares instruction with evidence-based guidelines for low back pain. METHODS: Individuals responsible for radiology instruction at accredited chiropractic schools throughout the world were contacted and invited to participate in a Web-based survey. The survey included questions on the role of conventional radiography in chiropractic practice and instruction given to students for its use in patients with acute low back pain. RESULTS: Of the 33 chiropractic schools identified worldwide, 32 (97%) participated in the survey. Consistent with the guidelines, 25 (78%) respondents disagreed that "routine radiography should be used prior to spinal manipulative therapy," 29 (91%) disagreed that there "was a role for full spine radiography for assessing patients with low back pain," and 29 (91%) disagreed that "oblique views should be part of a standard radiographic series for low back pain." However, only 14 (44%) respondents concurred with the guidelines and disagreed with the statement that there "is a role for radiography in acute low back pain in the absence of 'red flags' for serious disease." CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests that many aspects of radiology instruction provided by accredited chiropractic schools appear to be evidence based. However, there appears to be a disparity between some schools and existing evidence with respect to the role of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without "red flags" for serious disease. This may contribute to chiropractic overutilization of radiography for low back pain.

Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To describe challenges when extracting and presenting relevant, consistent, and accessible information from systematic reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically selected comparisons and outcomes from 18 Cochrane reviews, evaluated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE system, and developed standardized patient information. We evaluated the information using patient, review author, researcher, and clinician feedback. RESULTS: Challenges included large numbers of comparisons and outcomes; missing information about treatments and adverse effects; and variations in how effect was measured and presented. By selecting comparisons and outcomes based on patient-relevance, quality, and nonredundancy, we halved the number of outcomes. We prepared information about treatments and adverse effects using other sources. We framed outcomes consistently and standardized the presentation of magnitude of effect. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of summary of findings tables in reviews could address these challenges. Problems could also be reduced if review groups agreed upon standard outcomes; excluded less relevant outcomes; incorporated more information about interventions and adverse effects; and implemented clearer guidelines for the presentation of results.

Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodologic quality of existing guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Guidelines are playing an increasingly important role in evidence-based practice. After publication of the Quebec Task Force in Canada in 1987 and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines in the United States in 1994, guidelines for acute low back pain were developed in many other countries. However, little is known about the methodologic quality of these guidelines. METHODS: Guidelines were selected by electronically searching MEDLINE and the Internet and through personal communication with experts in the field of low back pain research in primary care. The methodologic quality of the guidelines was assessed by two authors independently using the AGREE instrument. RESULTS: A total of 17 guidelines were included. Overall, the quality of reporting of guidelines was disappointing. Most guidelines clearly described the aim of the guideline and its target population, and most guideline development committees were multiprofessional. However, many other methodologic flaws were identified. More than half of the guidelines did not take patients' preferences into account, did not perform a pilot test among target users, did not clearly describe the methods of study identification and selection, did not include an external review, did not provide a procedure for updating, were not supported with tools for application, did not consider potential organizational barriers and cost implications, did not provide criteria for monitoring and audit, did not include recommendations for implementation strategies, and did not adequately record editorial independence and conflict of interest of the members. The diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the guidelines were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: The quality and transparency of the development process and the consistency in the reporting of primary care guidelines for low back pain need to be improved.

Implementing evidence-based guidelines for radiography in acute low back pain: a pilot study in a chiropractic community.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of a systematic educational intervention strategy to change the plain radiography ordering behavior of chiropractors toward evidence-based practice for patients with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: A quasi-experimental method was used comparing outcomes before and after the intervention with those of a control community. SETTING: Two communities in southern Ontario. DATA SOURCE: Mailed survey data on the management of acute LBP. Outcome Measures Plain radiography use rates for acute LBP based on responses to mailed surveys. RESULTS: Following the intervention, there was a 42% reduction in the self-report need for plain radiography for uncomplicated acute LBP (P <.025) and a 50% reduction for patients with acute LBP < 1 month (P <.025) in the intervention community. There was no significant change in the self-report need for plain radiography in the control community (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: The educational intervention strategy used in this study appeared to have an effect in reducing the perceived need for plain radiography in acute LBP.