Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010.MethodThe searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines.ResultsWe identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).Results24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference −12.1 (95% confidence interval −23.6 to −0.5)) and short term (−11.7 (−18.6 to −4.7)), and small at medium term (−6.5 (−11.0 to −2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (−2.3 (−4.5 to −0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).ConclusionVery low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021269997.

BackgroundTo describe the diagnoses of people who present to the emergency department (ED) with low back pain (LBP), the proportion of people with a lumbar spine condition who arrived by ambulance, received imaging, opioids and were admitted to hospital; and to explore factors associated with these four outcomes.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analysed electronic medical records for all adults presenting with LBP at three Australian EDs from January 2016 to June 2018. Outcomes included discharge diagnoses and key aspects of care (ambulance transport, lumbar spine imaging, provision of opioids, admission). We explored factors associated with these care outcomes using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models and reported data as ORs.ResultsThere were 14 024 presentations with a ‘visit reason’ for low back pain, of which 6393 (45.6%) had a diagnosis of a lumbar spine condition. Of these, 31.4% arrived by ambulance, 23.6% received lumbar imaging, 69.6% received opioids and 17.6% were admitted to hospital. Older patients (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.04) were more likely to be imaged. Opioids were less used during working hours (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) and in patients with non-serious LBP compared with patients with serious spinal pathology (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55). Hospital admission was more likely to occur during working hours (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.05) and for those who arrived by ambulance (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.53 to 3.51).ConclusionMany ED presentations of LBP were not due to a lumbar spine condition. Of those that were, we noted relatively high rates of lumbar imaging, opioid use and hospital admission.

ObjectivesThis study aims to estimate the rate of recruitment of participants.DesignThis is a pilot, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial of oral oxycodone and sublingual placebo vs sublingual buprenorphine and oral placebo for postoperative pain management for 7 days after pelvic exenteration.SettingPatients will be recruited from three metropolitan quaternary referral centres that offer advanced gastrointestinal surgery in Australia.ParticipantsThe inclusion criteria will be patients over the age of 18 years undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery and exclusion criteria are previous adverse events related to the study drugs, currently requiring monoamine oxidase inhibitor medications and if epidural analgesia is planned in the perioperative period.InterventionsEnrolled patients will undergo pelvic exenteration surgery and be initiated postoperatively on patient-controlled analgesia. In the postoperative period, when clinically appropriate to take oral medications, patients will be commenced on trial analgesia for 7 days. Participants will be randomised to receive either oral active oxycodone 5–10 mg up to 3 hourly as required (with sublingual placebo) or sublingual active buprenorphine 200–400 mcg 3 hourly as required (with oral placebo).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure is the rate of recruitment over a 6-month period. Secondary outcomes include an assessment of missing data, protocol adherence and acceptability of the trial to participants.Ethics and disseminationThe trial received ethics approval from Sydney Local Health District, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (No: X25-0128 & 2025/ETH01058). The results of the study will be disseminated by publication and presentation at local annual scientific meetings in Australia.Trial registration numberThe study protocol is prospectively registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (www.anzctr.org.au; ACTRN12625000901404).

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.Results33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference −5.30, 95% confidence interval −7.31 to −3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (−9.72, −12.75 to −6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (−18.60, −31.87 to −5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (−17.50, −42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (−7.55, −18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (−15.95, −31.52 to −0.39) and 3-12 months (−27.0, −36.11 to −17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (−3.55, −5.22 to −1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (−5.10, −7.31 to −2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (−6.07, −8.13 to −4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.ConclusionModerate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020158521.

ObjectiveTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific neck pain and low back pain.DesignSystematic review of economic evaluations.Data sourcesThe search was performed in 5 clinical and 3 economic electronic databases.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included economic evaluations performed alongside randomised controlled trials. Differences in costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, if possible, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were descriptively analysed.ResultsTwenty-two studies were included. On average, exercise therapy was associated with lower costs and larger effects for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective (based on ICUR). Exercise therapy had similar costs and effect for QALY in comparison with other interventions for neck pain from a societal perspective, and subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective. There was limited or inconsistent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with usual care for neck pain and acute low back pain, other interventions for acute low back pain and different types of exercise therapy for neck pain and low back pain.ConclusionsExercise therapy seems to be cost-effective compared with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was not (more) cost-effective compared with other interventions for neck pain and low back pain. The cost-utility estimates are rather uncertain, indicating that more economic evaluations are needed.RegistrationPROSPERO, CRD42017059025.

The aim of this study was to reanalyze and reinterpret data obtained in Paracetamol in Acute Low Back Pain (PACE), the first large randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of paracetamol in acute low back pain, to assess the inferential reproducibility of the original conclusions. Mixed effects models were used to reanalyze pain intensity (primary outcome; 11-point Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and time until recovery (as secondary outcomes), according to the intention-to-treat principle. The original authors of the PACE study were not involved in the development of the methods for this reanalysis. The reproduction analyses indicated no effect of treatment on pain intensity and confidence intervals excluded clinically worthwhile effects (adjusted main effect for regular paracetamol vs. placebo 0.00 [−0.02, 0.01; P = 0.85]; adjusted main effect for paracetamol as-needed vs. placebo 0.00 [−0.02, 0.01; P = 0.92]). Similar results were obtained for all secondary outcomes. This study indicates that the conclusions of the PACE trial are inferentially reproducible, even when using a different analytical approach. This reinforces the notion that the management of acute low back pain should focus on providing patients advice and reassurance without the addition of paracetamol.

BackgroundChronic prescription opioid use is a major international public health issue associated with significant harms, including increased risk of hospitalisation, morbidity and death. Guidance for healthcare professionals on when and how to deprescribe or reduce opioids is required. A key step for guideline development for deprescribing pharmacotherapy is to understand the perspectives of stakeholders. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of healthcare professional stakeholders on the challenges associated with opioid deprescribing and factors to be considered in the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines.MethodsA qualitative study was undertaken with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals including prescribers, pharmacists and nurses. An initial cohort of participants was identified at the 2018 Australian Deprescribing Network annual meeting and two focus groups were conducted (n=20). Individual interviews were conducted with a further 11 healthcare professionals. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data underwent inductive thematic analysis using a phenomenological perspective.ResultsHealthcare professionals viewed opioid deprescribing as a challenge and identified several key barriers to deprescribing in clinical practice. Medication, patient, prescriber and health system level challenges were identified. Participants requested evidence-based guidance on the withdrawal of opioid therapies and suggested that prospective opioid deprescribing guidelines require a multitarget, multimodal intervention strategy that addresses patient psychosocial factors and incorporates behavioural change techniques.ConclusionOpioid deprescribing was perceived as a complex and challenging practice with continued prescribing the default behaviour. Evidence-based opioid deprescribing guidelines may be a valuable resource for clinicians to support clinical decision-making and reduce suboptimal opioid use.