Management of Low Back Pain: Do Physiotherapists Know the Evidence-Based Guidelines?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines promote bio-psychosocial management of patients suffering from low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to examine the current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of physiotherapists about a guideline-adherent approach to LBP and to assess the ability of physiotherapists to recognise signs of a specific LBP in a clinical vignette. METHODS: Physiotherapists were recruited to participate in an online study. They were asked to indicate whether they were familiar with evidence-based guidelines and then to fill in the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), as well as questions related to two clinical vignettes. RESULTS: In total, 527 physiotherapists participated in this study. Only 38% reported being familiar with guidelines for the management of LBP. Sixty-three percent of the physiotherapists gave guideline-inconsistent recommendations regarding work. Only half of the physiotherapists recognised the signs of a specific LBP. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of physiotherapists unfamiliar with guidelines and demonstrating attitudes and beliefs not in line with evidence-based management of LBP is concerning. It is crucial to develop efficient strategies to enhance knowledge of guidelines among physiotherapists and increase their implementation in clinical practice.

How Do Physiotherapists Explain Influencing Factors to Chronic Low Back Pain? A Qualitative Study Using a Fictive Case of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: While pain is influenced by multiple factors including psychosocial factors, previous research has shown that physiotherapists still favour a biomedical approach. PURPOSE: To evaluate: (1) how physiotherapists explain the patient's chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP); (2) whether physiotherapists use one or multiple influencing factors, and (3) whether these factors are framed in a biopsychosocial or biomedical approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study uses a vignette depicting chronic non-specific LBP and employs a flexible framework analysis. Physiotherapists were asked to mention contributing factors to the pain based on this vignette. Five themes were predefined ("Beliefs", "Previous experiences", "Emotions", "Patients behaviour", "Contextual factors") and explored. RESULTS: Physiotherapists use very brief explanations when reporting contributing factors to chronic pain (median 13 words). Out of 670 physiotherapists, only 40% mentioned more than two different themes and 2/3rds did not see any link between the patients' misbeliefs and pain. Only a quarter of the participants mentioned the patient's worries about pain and movement, which is considered to be an important influencing factor. CONCLUSION: The lack of a multifactorial approach and the persistent biomedical beliefs suggest that it remains a challenge for physiotherapists to fully integrate the biopsychosocial framework into their management of chronic LBP.

Auto-Targeted Neurostimulation Is Not Superior to Placebo in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Fourfold Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) are common in people with musculoskeletal pain and may play a role in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CLBP). One of the potential treatments of MTrPs is the Nervomatrix Soleve® auto-targeted neurostimulation device, providing targeted transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to MTrPs in the lower back muscles. To date, no controlled studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this device for the pain management of this population. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the Nervomatrix Soleve® auto-targeted neurostimulation device is superior over placebo for the treatment of CLBP. STUDY DESIGN: A fourfold-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. SETTING: Brussels University Hospital, health care centers and pharmacies around Belgium. METHODS: Participants with CLBP for at least 3 months were randomly assigned to the experimental (the Nervomatrix Soleve® auto-targeted neurostimulation device providing TENS-stimulation and mechanical pressure) or placebo group (the Nervomatrix Soleve® auto-targeted neurostimulation device providing mechanical pressure alone without current). The treatment protocol in both groups consisted of 6 treatment sessions per patient. Participants were evaluated at baseline prior to the intervention, immediately following treatment, and at one month follow-up. Pain and pain behavior (steps climbed) were assessed as primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures were pain functioning, health beliefs, symptoms of central sensitization, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia. RESULTS: In total, 39 participants were included in the study. Participants in both groups improved significantly for pain and functioning, but no significant differences were observed between groups. These improvements were not clinically meaningful for any of the reported measures. The health beliefs changed significantly in both groups (P < 0.05), with superior results at follow-up in the placebo group. LIMITATIONS: The follow-up period is limited to one month. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of MTrPs with the Nervomatrix Soleve® auto-targeted neurostimulation device in patients with CLBP does not result in a better outcome than placebo-treatment in terms of pain, pain behavior, functioning, central sensitization, pain catastrophizing, and health beliefs.

Prevalence, Incidence, Localization, and Pathophysiology of Myofascial Trigger Points in Patients With Spinal Pain: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was performed to evaluate the existing evidence related to the prevalence, incidence, localization, and pathophysiology of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in patients with spinal (back and neck) pain. METHODS: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed in 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) using predefined keywords regarding MTrPs and spinal pain. A "PICOS" questionnaire was used to set up the search strategies and inclusion criteria. Full-text reports concerning MTrPs in patients with back or neck pain, which described their prevalence, incidence, location, or underlying physiopathology were included and screened for methodological quality by 3 independent researchers. Each study was assessed for risk of bias using a checklist derived from the Web site of the Dutch Cochrane Centre. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were retrieved for quality assessment and data extraction. Studies reporting the incidence of MTrPs in patients with spinal pain were lacking. Within spinal pain, patients with neck pain were found to have the highest prevalence rates of MTrPs. The trapezius descendens, levator scapulae, and suboccipitales muscles were the most prevalent locations for active MTrPs in patients with neck pain. Latent MTrPs were present in asymptomatic people, but no significant differences were found in the prevalence rate of latent MTrPs between patients with spinal (neck) pain and healthy controls. The only study investigating prevalence of MTrPs in different localizations of the same muscle reported no significant differences in prevalence between active and latent MTrPs within the trapezius descendens muscle. Studies examining pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MTrPs demonstrated an acidic environment, high concentration of algogenic/inflammatory substances, stiffer muscle tissue, retrograde diastolic blood flows, spontaneous muscle activity at rest, and loss of muscle contractibility in muscles with MTrPs. Altered central processing was also found to play a role in the development of MTrPs. CONCLUSIONS: Myofascial trigger points are a prevalent clinical entity, especially in patients with neck pain. Evidence was not found to support or deny the role of MTrPs in other spinal pain. Compelling evidence supports local mechanisms underlying MTrPs. Future research should unravel the relevance of central mechanisms and investigate the incidence of MTrPs in patients with spinal pain.