Validación de test de flexión-relajación para definir un déficit lumbar con electrodos tetrapolares / Validation of the flexion-relaxation test to define a lumbar deficit with tetrapolar electrodes

Introducción y objetivo: Obtener un nuevo punto de corte (PC) para un test de flexión-relajación (FR) lumbar efectuado con electrodos (e.) tetrapolares, desde valores ya definidos con dispositivos bipolares.Materiales y métodosLa muestra del estudio consta de 47 pacientes en situación de incapacidad temporal por dolor lumbar (DL). Fueron evaluados mediante un test de dinamometría isométrica, una prueba cinemática y una valoración del fenómeno FR.Se plantean dos experimentos con curvas ROC. El primero, con 47 pacientes que efectuaron de modo consecutivo el test FR con ambos tipos de electrodos, utilizándose como variable de clasificación el punto de corte conocido para los e. bipolares (2,49uV). En el segundo, con los datos de la EMGs registrados con e. tetrapolares en 17 pacientes, se efectúa un test de DeLong que compara las 2 curvas ROC que construimos, por un lado, al clasificar la muestra desde pruebas de dinamometría y cinemática, y por el otro, al clasificarlos con los valores de la EMGs bipolar.ResultadosUn total de 34 pacientes completaron adecuadamente las valoraciones del primer experimento y 17 pacientes el segundo. El primer estudio arroja un punto de corte de 1,2uV, con un AUC del 87,7%; sensibilidad 84,2% y especificidad 80%. El segundo muestra un PC para los e. bipolares de 1,21uV (AUC 87,5%) y para los e. tetrapolares de 1,43 (AUC 82,5%) con un test de DeLong sin diferencias significativas entre ambas curvas (p>0,4065).ConclusionesLa metodología de validación con curvas ROC ha permitido obtener un nuevo PC para la prueba FR de modo práctico, simplemente simultaneando ambos test sobre el mismo grupo de pacientes hasta obtener una muestra significativa. (AU)

Introduction and objective: To obtain a new cut-off point (CP) for a lumbar flexion-relaxation (RF) test established with tetrapolar (e.) electrodes, from values already defined with bipolar devices.Materials and methodsThe study sample consists of 47 patients in a situation of temporary disability due to low back pain (DL). They were evaluated by means of an isometric dynamometry test, a kinematic test and an assessment of the FR phenomenon.Two experiments with ROC curves are proposed. The first, with 47 patients who consecutively performed the RF test with both types of electrodes, using the cut-off point (CP) known for the e. bipolar (2.49μV). In the second, with the EMG data recorded with e. tetrapolar in 17 patients, a DeLong test was performed that compares the 2 ROC curves that were constructed on the one hand, by classifying the sample from dynamometry and kinematic tests, and on the other, by classifying them with the bipolar EMG values.ResultsA total of 34 patients adequately completed the evaluations of the first experiment and 17 patients the second. The first study shows a cut-off point of 1.2μV, with an AUC of 87.7%; Sensitivity 84.2% and Specificity 80%. The second shows a PC for e. bipolars of 1.21μV (AUC 87.5%) and for e. tetrapolar values of 1.43 (AUC 82.5%) with a DeLong test without significant differences between both curves (p>0.4065).ConclusionsThe validation methodology with ROC curves has made it possible to obtain a new PC for the RF test in a practical way, simply by simultaneously performing both tests on the same group of patients until a significant sample is obtained. (AU)

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

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

Cryoneurolysis versus radiofrequency ablation outcome on pain experience in chronic low back pain (COPE): a single-blinded randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison of cryoneurolysis or radio frequency (RF) with placebo in patients with facetogenic chronic low back pain (LBP) for patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, function and quality of life, with 1-year follow-up. DESIGN: Single-centre, single-blinded placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single-centre study. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion from March 2020 to September 2022: consenting adults over 18 years of age, LBP>3 months, average Numeric Rating Scale LBP≥4 average last 14 days and a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block (>50% pain reduction after 60 min). INTERVENTIONS: 120 patients were block randomised 1:1:1 to cryoneurolysis, RF or placebo of the medial branch nerves. Physical therapy was added after 4 weeks for all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was PGIC 4 weeks after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), quality of life (Short Form 36, EQ-5D-5L), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), depression (Major Depression Inventory) and catastrophising (Pain Catastrophising Scale). Outcomes were measured at 4 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PGIC at 4 weeks between cryoneurolysis and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2; 95% CI 0.75 to 5.33, p=0.17) and RF and placebo (RR 1.6; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.49, p=0.37), except PGIC for cryoneurolysis at 6-month follow-up (RR 5.1; 95% CI 1.20 to 22.03, p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in secondary follow-up endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Denervation of the medial branch nerve by either cryoneurolysis or RF compared with placebo did not demonstrate significant improvement in PGIC, pain intensity, function and quality of life in patients with facetogenic chronic LBP at short-term or long-term follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04786145.

Implementation of an integrated primary care prevention and management program for chronic low back pain (LBP): patient-reported outcomes and predictors of pain interference after six months.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. METHODS: Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

BACK-to-MOVE: Machine learning and computer vision model automating clinical classification of non-specific low back pain for personalised management.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major global disability contributor with profound health and socio-economic implications. The predominant form is non-specific LBP (NSLBP), lacking treatable pathology. Active physical interventions tailored to individual needs and capabilities are crucial for its management. However, the intricate nature of NSLBP and complexity of clinical classification systems necessitating extensive clinical training, hinder customised treatment access. Recent advancements in machine learning and computer vision demonstrate promise in characterising NSLBP altered movement patters through wearable sensors and optical motion capture. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a machine learning model (i.e., 'BACK-to-MOVE') for NSLBP classification trained with expert clinical classification, spinal motion data from a standard video alongside patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Synchronised video and three-dimensional (3D) motion data was collected during forward spinal flexion from 83 NSLBP patients. Two physiotherapists independently classified them as motor control impairment (MCI) or movement impairment (MI), with conflicts resolved by a third expert. The Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) architecture, HigherHRNet, was chosen for effective pose estimation from video data. The model was validated against 3D motion data (subset of 62) and trained on the freely available MS-COCO dataset for feature extraction. The Back-to-Move classifier underwent fine-tuning through feed-forward neural networks using labelled examples from the training dataset. Evaluation utilised 5-fold cross-validation to assess accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and F1 measure. RESULTS: Pose estimation's Mean Square Error of 0.35 degrees against 3D motion data demonstrated strong criterion validity. Back-to-Move proficiently differentiated MI and MCI classes, yielding 93.98% accuracy, 96.49% sensitivity (MI detection), 88.46% specificity (MCI detection), and an F1 measure of .957. Incorporating PROMs curtailed classifier performance (accuracy: 68.67%, sensitivity: 91.23%, specificity: 18.52%, F1: .800). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate automated clinical classification of NSLBP using computer vision and machine learning with standard video data, achieving accuracy comparable to expert consensus. Automated classification of NSLBP based on altered movement patters video-recorded during routine clinical examination could expedite personalised NSLBP rehabilitation management, circumventing existing healthcare constraints. This advancement holds significant promise for patients and healthcare services alike.

Which patients with chronic low back pain respond favorably to multidisciplinary rehabilitation? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify prognostic variables at baseline associated with being responding favorably to multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A responder analysis was conducted based on data from a randomized controlled trial with 26-week follow-up including 165 patients with CLBP treated at a Danish multidisciplinary rehabilitation center. Patients were dichotomized into responders and non-responders based on the outcome of a minimal clinically important difference of six points on the Oswestry Disability Index. The associations between prognostic variables and responders were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients completed the study, of which 42% were classified as responders. Sex and employment status were statistically significant, with a decreased odds ratio (OR) of being a responder found for males compared to females (OR = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.02-0.48) and for being on temporary or permanent social benefits (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.10-0.75) compared to being self-supporting or receiving retirement benefits. Statistically significant interaction (OR = 8.84, 95% CI = 1.11-70.12) was found between males and being on temporary or permanent social benefits. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLBP, female patients as well as patients who were self-supporting or receiving retirement benefits were significantly more likely than male patients or patients on temporary or permanent social benefits to be a responder to multidisciplinary rehabilitation.

Chiropractic spinal manipulation and likelihood of tramadol prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using US data.

OBJECTIVES: Patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) for low back pain (LBP) are less likely to receive any opioid prescription for subsequent pain management. However, the likelihood of specifically being prescribed tramadol, a less potent opioid, has not been explored. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSM for newly diagnosed radicular LBP would be less likely to receive a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up, compared with those receiving usual medical care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US medical records-based dataset including >115 million patients attending academic health centres (TriNetX, Inc), queried 9 November 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-naive adults aged 18-50 with a new diagnosis of radicular LBP were included. Patients with serious pathology and tramadol use contraindications were excluded. Variables associated with tramadol prescription were controlled via propensity matching. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into two cohorts dependent on treatment received on the index date of radicular LBP diagnosis (CSM or usual medical care). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratio (RR) for tramadol prescription (primary); markers of usual medical care utilisation (secondary). RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1171 patients per cohort (mean age 35 years). Tramadol prescription was significantly lower in the CSM cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an RR (95% CI) of 0.32 (0.18 to 0.57; p<0.0001). A cumulative incidence graph demonstrated that the reduced incidence of tramadol prescription in the CSM cohort relative to the usual medical care cohort was maintained throughout 1-year follow-up. Utilisation of NSAIDs, physical therapy evaluation and lumbar imaging was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that US adults initially receiving CSM for radicular LBP had a reduced likelihood of receiving a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up. These findings should be corroborated by a prospective study to minimise residual confounding.

Bacterial growth in patients with low back pain and Modic changes: protocol of a multicentre, case-control biopsy study.

INTRODUCTION: Bacterial infection and Modic changes (MCs) as causes of low back pain (LBP) are debated. Results diverged between two randomised controlled trials examining the effect of amoxicillin with and without clavulanic acid versus placebo on patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) and MCs. Previous biopsy studies have been criticised with regard to methods, few patients and controls, and insufficient measures to minimise perioperative contamination. In this study, we minimise contamination risk, include a control group and optimise statistical power. The main aim is to compare bacterial growth between patients with and without MCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, case-control study examines disc and vertebral body biopsies of patients with cLBP. Cases have MCs at the level of tissue sampling, controls do not. Previously operated patients are included as a subgroup. Tissue is sampled before antibiotic prophylaxis with separate instruments. We will apply microbiological methods and histology on biopsies, and predefine criteria for significant bacterial growth, possible contamination and no growth. Microbiologists, surgeons and pathologist are blinded to allocation of case or control. Primary analysis assesses significant growth in MC1 versus controls and MC2 versus controls separately. Bacterial disc growth in previously operated patients, patients with large MCs and growth from the vertebral body in the fusion group are all considered exploratory analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway (REC South East, reference number 2015/697) has approved the study. Study participation requires written informed consent. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03406624). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and patient fora. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03406624.

Understanding social determinants of health and physical therapy outcomes in patients with low back pain: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the number one cause of disability worldwide; however, it is not clear how social determinants of health (SDOH) impact care management and outcomes related to physical therapy (PT) services for patients with LBP. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this scoping review are to examine and assimilate the literature on how SDOH and PT care relate to non-specific LBP outcomes and identify gaps in the literature to target for future research. METHODS: Data were extracted from eight electronic databases from January 2011 to February 2022. Reviewers independently screened all studies using the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. Data related to study design, type of PT, type of non-specific LBP, patient demographics, PT intervention, SDOH, and PT outcomes were extracted from the articles. RESULTS: A total of 30,523 studies were screened, with 1961 articles undergoing full text review. Ultimately, 76 articles were identified for inclusion. Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined (88% and 78% respectively) followed by education level (18%). Approximately half of the studies that examined age, sex, and education level identified no effect on outcomes. The number of studies examining other factors was small and the types of outcomes evaluated were variable, which limited the ability to pool results. CONCLUSIONS: Sex and age were the most frequent SDOH examined followed by education level. Other factors were evaluated less frequently, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Study design and heterogeneity of determinants and outcomes were barriers to examining the potential impact on patients with LBP.

The effect of long-term alendronic acid treatment on Modic changes in the lumbar spine: a gender and age-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the adult population. Potent anti-resorptive drugs such as intravenous zoledronic acid have been demonstrated to reduce Modic changes (MCs) upon magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine and concomitantly decrease associated LBP. It is uncertain whether oral alendronic acid has a similar effect. METHODS: 82 subjects were recruited in this case-control study. Treatment subjects (n = 41) received oral alendronic acid treatment for at least 1-year and were matched by gender and age (± 2) to control subjects (n = 41) not receiving any anti-osteoporotic medication. The prevalence, type, and extent of MCs were quantified upon T1 and T2-weighted MRIs of the lumbosacral spine. RESULTS: Treatment subjects received oral alendronic acid for 124.0 ± 62.1 weeks at the time of MRI assessment and exhibited a lower prevalence of MCs over the lumbosacral spine (18/41 vs. 30/41, p < 0.001) as compared to control subjects. Amongst both groups, type 2 MCs were predominant. Quantification of type 2 MCs in treatment subjects revealed a significant reduction in area (113 ± 106 mm2 vs. 231 ± 144 mm2, p < 0.01) and volume (453 ± 427 mm3 vs. 925 ± 575 mm3, p < 0.01) affected by type 2 MCs in comparison to matched controls. CONCLUSION: Oral alendronic acid may be useful in the treatment of MC-associated LBP in patients with concomitant osteoporosis.

Associations between pain intensity, pain sensitivity, demographics, psychological factors, disability, physical activity, pain phenotype and COVID-19 history in low back pain: An observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Knowledge of the factors affecting pain intensity and pain sensitivity can inform treatment targets and strategies aimed at personalizing the intervention, conceivably increasing its positive impact on patients. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the association between demographic factors (sex and age), body mass index (BMI), psychological factors (anxiety and depression, kinesiophobia and catastrophizing), self-reported physical activity, pain phenotype (symptoms of central sensitization, and nociceptive or neuropathic pain), history of COVID-19 and pain intensity and sensitivity in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional secondary analysis with 83 participants with chronic non-specific LBP recruited from the community between August 2021 and April 2022. BMI, pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale), pain sensitivity at the lower back and at a distant point [pressure pain threshold], catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), pain phenotype (Central Sensitization Inventory and PainDetect Questionnaire), physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) were assessed. Multiple linear regression analyses with pain intensity and sensitivity as the dependent variables were used. RESULTS: The model for pain intensity explained 34% of its variance (Adjusted R2 = -0.343, p < 0.001), with depression and anxiety (p = 0.008) and disability (p = 0.035) reaching statistical significance. The model for pain sensitivity at the lower back, also explained 34% of its variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.344, p < 0.001) at the lower back with sex, BMI, and kinesiophobia reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05) and 15% of the variance at a distant body site (Adjusted R2 = 0.148, p = 0.018) with sex and BMI reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: This study found that different factors are associated with pain intensity and pain sensitivity in individuals with LBP. Increased pain intensity was associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression and disability and increased pain sensitivity was associated with being a female, higher kinesiophobia, and lower BMI.

Efficacy of neuromobilization in the treatment of low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability. Neuromobilization (NM) as a physical therapy technique, offers some degree of symptom improvement. However, some studies have shown that NM can significantly reduce the symptoms of LBP, while others have failed to find similar positive effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of NM for LBP. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted across five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science) from their inception to December 2023. Study main measures assessed pain, disability, and straight leg raise angle to determine the degree of improvement in patients. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The findings indicated that NM interventions in patients with LBP were more effective than control groups in improving Visual Analog Scale scores (mean difference = 0.62, 95% CI (0.03, 1.21)) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference = 7.54, 95% CI (4.98, 10.10)). There was no significant difference in straight leg raise results (mean difference = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.08, 0.44)). CONCLUSIONS: NM demonstrated effectiveness in improving Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in patients with LBP, but straight leg raise outcomes are still uncertain and until more high-quality studies are included, the effectiveness of NM for SLR remains unknown.

Coccydynia: A Review of Anatomy, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

¼ Coccydynia is a painful condition affecting many patients at the terminal caudal end of the spine.¼ An understanding of coccyx anatomy and variations of morphology is necessary for proper diagnosis. A multifactorial etiology for pain may be responsible for this clinical entity.¼ Several treatment options exist. Successful outcomes for patients depend on individual patient characteristics and the etiology of pain.

Extravertebral low back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for consultation in general practice. Currently, LBP is categorised into specific and non-specific causes. However, extravertebral causes, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm or pancreatitis, are not being considered. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library, complemented by a handsearch. Studies conducted between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2020, where LBP was the main symptom, were included. RESULTS: The literature search identified 6040 studies, from which duplicates were removed, leaving 4105 studies for title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 265 publications were selected for inclusion, with an additional 197 publications identified through the handsearch. The majority of the studies were case reports and case series, predominantly originating from specialised care settings. A clear distinction between vertebral or rare causes of LBP was not always possible. A range of diseases were identified as potential extravertebral causes of LBP, encompassing gynaecological, urological, vascular, systemic, and gastrointestinal diseases. Notably, guidelines exhibited inconsistencies in addressing extravertebral causes. DISCUSSION: Prior to this review, there has been no systematic investigation into extravertebral causes of LBP. Although these causes are rare, the absence of robust and reliable epidemiological data hinders a comprehensive understanding, as well as the lack of standardised protocols, which contributes to a lack of accurate description of indicative symptoms. While there are certain disease-specific characteristics, such as non-mechanical or cyclical LBP, and atypical accompanying symptoms like fever, abdominal pain, or leg swelling, that may suggest extravertebral causes, it is important to recognise that these features are not universally present in every patient. CONCLUSION: The differential diagnosis of extravertebral LBP is extensive with relatively low prevalence rates dependent on the clinical setting. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for extravertebral aetiologies, especially in patients presenting with atypical accompanying symptoms.

Recent clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain: a global comparison.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant health problem worldwide, with a lifetime prevalence of 84% in the general adult population. To rationalise the management of LBP, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been issued in various countries around the world. This study aims to identify and compare the recommendations of recent CPGs for the management of LBP across the world. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and major guideline databases were searched from 2017 to 2022 to identify CPGs. CPGs focusing on information regarding the management and/or treatment of non-specific LBP were considered eligible. The quality of included guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a total of 22 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria, and were of middle and high methodological quality as assessed by the AGREE II tool. The guidelines exhibited heterogeneity in their recommendations, particularly in the approach to different stages of LBP. For acute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For subacute LBP, the guidelines recommended the use of NSAIDs, therapeutic exercise, staying active, and spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP, the guidelines recommended therapeutic exercise, the use of NSAIDs, spinal manipulation, and acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: Current CPGs provide recommendations for almost all major aspects of the management of LBP, but there is marked heterogeneity between them. Some recommendations lack clarity and overlap with other treatments within the guidelines.

Pain control and functional recovery as therapeutic goals in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: two experiences with tapentadol hydrochloride.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate pain control, functioning, and quality of life (QoL) recovery in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) or post-traumatic osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the ankle/foot area, treated with tapentadol prolonged release and unresponsive to other treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two observational retrospective studies were conducted using clinical practice datasets of patients with chronic pain in cLBP and OA foot/ankle at different time points (total follow-up=60-90 days). The studies assessed pain intensity by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scale (patients were classified as responder in case of ≥30% pain reduction), QoL by the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, patient satisfaction by the 7-point Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale; cLBP health status by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); foot and ankle functional status by European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) score; and treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: For the cLBP setting, 37 patients were enrolled, of which 86.50% were classified as responders (n=32; CI: 75.5% ÷ 97.5%). For the foot/ankle OA pain setting, 21 patients were enrolled. Pain assessment at final follow-up was available only for 11 patients, of which 72.73% (n=8; CI: 39.0% ÷ 94.0%) were classified as responders. Statistically significant improvements were seen in the RMDQ, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC scores in cLBP. Improvements in the EFAS, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC scores were seen in OA as well. The incidence of treatment-related adverse reactions was low in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: In the study population, tapentadol prolonged release was effective and well tolerated in treating cLBP and post-traumatic foot/ankle OA chronic pain when used in a multimodal manner. The reduction in pain was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in patients' functionality and QoL.

Effects of hand-press pellet on pain and daily life of elders with chronic lower back pain: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For elderly people with chronic lower back pain who need long-term management, there is a need for a nursing intervention study that is effective, is easy to perform, and applies complementary and alternative therapies to manage pain without repulsion. Hand pressure therapy is a treatment indigenous to Korea used to reduce pain and improve functions of daily life by applying acupuncture, pressure sticks, and moxibustion to parts of the hand as they relate to parts of the body. This research is to identify the effects of pellet pressed on the hand on pain and the daily lives of elders with chronic lower back pain (CLBP). METHODS: The hand pressed-pellet intervention period was six weeks long. Twenty-seven patients in the intervention group and twenty-four patients in the placebo control group were recruited from elderly over sixty-five who used welfare centers. In the intervention group, hand pressed-pellet therapy was conducted in eleven acupressure response zones related to CLBP, and the placebo control group was provided with similar therapy and zones, but unrelated to CLBP. The research tool measured the intensity of CLBP using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Korean Owestry Disability Index (K-ODI), which are subjective indicators, and the Compact Digital Algometer, which is an objective indicator. RESULT: The pain intensity (VAS) measured after six weeks of hand pressed-pellet therapy showed significant difference between the two groups compared to their pain before the experiment (F = 60.522, p < .001). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the pain pressure threshold using pressure statistics (F = 8.940, p < .001), and in CLBP dysfunction evaluation index (K-ODI) after applying pressed pellet to the hand (Z = - 3.540, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Subjective indicators were measured to verify the effect of hand pressed-pellet therapy on CLBP, and the result confirmed that the hand pressed-pellet therapy was effective in alleviating CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively with reference number KCT0008024 on 23/12/2022.

Disability reduction following a lumbar stabilization exercise program for low back pain: large vs. small improvement subgroup analyses of physical and psychological variables.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about why patients with low back pain (LBP) respond differently to treatment, and more specifically, to a lumbar stabilization exercise program. As a first step toward answering this question, the present study evaluates how subgroups of patients who demonstrate large and small clinical improvements differ in terms of physical and psychological changes during treatment. METHODS: Participants (n = 110) performed the exercise program (clinical sessions and home exercises) over eight weeks, with 100 retained at six-month follow-up. Physical measures (lumbar segmental instability, motor control impairments, range of motion, trunk muscle endurance and physical performance tests) were collected twice (baseline, end of treatment), while psychological measures (fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, psychological distress, illness perceptions, outcome expectations) were collected at four time points (baseline, mid-treatment, end of treatment, follow-up). The participants were divided into three subgroups (large, moderate and small clinical improvements) based on the change of perceived disability scores. ANOVA for repeated measure compared well-contrasted subgroups (large vs. small improvement) at different times to test for SUBGROUP × TIME interactions. RESULTS: Statistically significant interactions were observed for several physical and psychological measures. In all these interactions, the large- and small-improvement subgroups were equivalent at baseline, but the large-improvement subgroup showed more improvements over time compared to the small-improvement subgroup. For psychological measures only (fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, illness perceptions), between-group differences reached moderate to strong effect sizes, at the end of treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The large-improvement subgroup showed more improvement than the small-improvement subgroup with regard to physical factors typically targeted by this specific exercise program as well as for psychological factors that are known to influence clinical outcomes.