Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Regular paracetamol is the recommended first-line analgesic for acute low-back pain; however, no high-quality evidence supports this recommendation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of paracetamol taken regularly or as-needed to improve time to recovery from pain, compared with placebo, in patients with low-back pain. We did a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, placebo controlled trial across 235 primary care centres in Sydney, Australia, from Nov 11, 2009, to March 5, 2013. We randomly allocated patients with acute low-back pain in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive up to 4 weeks of regular doses of paracetamol (three times per day; equivalent to 3990 mg paracetamol per day), as-needed doses of paracetamol (taken when needed for pain relief; maximum 4000 mg paracetamol per day), or placebo. Randomisation was done according to a centralised randomisation schedule prepared by a researcher who was not involved in patient recruitment or data collection. Patients and staff at all sites were masked to treatment allocation. All participants received best-evidence advice and were followed up for 3 months. The primary outcome was time until recovery from low-back pain, with recovery defined as a pain score of 0 or 1 (on a 0–10 pain scale) sustained for 7 consecutive days. All data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTN 12609000966291. 550 participants were assigned to the regular group (550 analysed), 549 were assigned to the as-needed group (546 analysed), and 553 were assigned to the placebo group (547 analysed). Median time to recovery was 17 days (95% CI 14–19) in the regular group, 17 days (15–20) in the as-needed group, and 16 days (14–20) in the placebo group (regular vs placebo hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·87–1·14; as-needed vs placebo 1·05, 0·92–1·19; regular vs as-needed 1·05, 0·92–1·20). We recorded no difference between treatment groups for time to recovery (adjusted p=0·79). Adherence to regular tablets (median tablets consumed per participant per day of maximum 6; 4·0 [IQR 1·6–5·7] in the regular group, 3·9 [1·5–5·6] in the as-needed group, and 4·0 [1·5–5·7] in the placebo group), and number of participants reporting adverse events (99 [18·5%] in the regular group, 99 [18·7%] in the as-needed group, and 98 [18·5%] in the placebo group) were similar between groups. Our findings suggest that regular or as-needed dosing with paracetamol does not affect recovery time compared with placebo in low-back pain, and question the universal endorsement of paracetamol in this patient group. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and GlaxoSmithKline Australia.

Low back pain (LBP) affects millions of people worldwide, and misconceptions about effective treatment options for this condition are very common. Websites sponsored by organizations recognized as trustworthy by the public, such as government agencies, hospitals, universities, professional associations, health care organizations and consumer organizations are an important source of health information for many people. However, the content of these websites regarding treatment recommendations for LBP has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to determine the credibility, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations for LBP in noncommercial, freely accessible websites. We conducted a systematic review of websites from government agencies, hospitals, universities, professional associations, health care organizations and consumer organizations. We conducted searches on Google. Treatment recommendations were coded based on the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the 2017 American College of Physicians guideline on LBP. Primary outcomes were credibility of the website (4-item Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark), accuracy (proportion of website treatment recommendations that were appropriate), and comprehensiveness of website treatment recommendations (proportion of guideline treatment recommendations that were appropriately covered by a website). We included 79 websites from 6 English-speaking countries. In terms of credibility, 31% (25/79) of the websites clearly disclosed that they had been updated after the publication of the NICE guidelines. Only 43.28% (487/1125) website treatment recommendations were judged as accurate. Comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations correctly covered by websites was very low across all types of LBP. For acute LBP, an average of 28% (4/14) guideline recommendations were correctly covered by websites. Websites for radicular LBP were the least comprehensive, correctly covering an average of 16% (2.3/14) recommendations. Noncommercial freely accessible websites demonstrated low credibility standards, provided mostly inaccurate information, and lacked comprehensiveness across all types of LBP.

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Globally it is responsible for the most years lived with disability. The most problematic type of LBP is chronic LBP (pain lasting longer than 3 mo); it has a poor prognosis and is costly, and interventions are only moderately effective. Targeting interventions according to risk profile is a promising approach to prevent the onset of chronic LBP. Developing accurate prognostic models is the first step. No validated prognostic models are available to accurately predict the onset of chronic LBP. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate the risk of chronic LBP. We used the PROGRESS framework to specify a priori methods, which we published in a study protocol. Data from 2,758 patients with acute LBP attending primary care in Australia between 5 November 2003 and 15 July 2005 (development sample, n = 1,230) and between 10 November 2009 and 5 February 2013 (external validation sample, n = 1,528) were used to develop and externally validate the model. The primary outcome was chronic LBP (ongoing pain at 3 mo). In all, 30% of the development sample and 19% of the external validation sample developed chronic LBP. In the external validation sample, the primary model (PICKUP) discriminated between those who did and did not develop chronic LBP with acceptable performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.69]). Although model calibration was also acceptable in the external validation sample (intercept = -0.55, slope = 0.89), some miscalibration was observed for high-risk groups. The decision curve analysis estimated that, if decisions to recommend further intervention were based on risk scores, screening could lead to a net reduction of 40 unnecessary interventions for every 100 patients presenting to primary care compared to a \"treat all\" approach. Limitations of the method include the model being restricted to using prognostic factors measured in existing studies and using stepwise methods to specify the model. Limitations of the model include modest discrimination performance. The model also requires recalibration for local settings. Based on its performance in these cohorts, this five-item prognostic model for patients with acute LBP may be a useful tool for estimating risk of chronic LBP. Further validation is required to determine whether screening with this model leads to a net reduction in unnecessary interventions provided to low-risk patients.

The impact of the relationship (therapeutic alliance) between patients and physical therapists on treatment outcome in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) has not been previously investigated. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the therapeutic alliance between physical therapists and patients with chronic LBP predicts clinical outcomes. This was a retrospective observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial. One hundred eighty-two patients with chronic LBP who volunteered for a randomized controlled trial that compared the efficacy of exercises and spinal manipulative therapy rated their alliance with physical therapists by completing the Working Alliance Inventory at the second treatment session. The primary outcomes of function, global perceived effect of treatment, pain, and disability were assessed before and after 8 weeks of treatment. Linear regression models were used to investigate whether the alliance was a predictor of outcome or moderated the effect of treatment. The therapeutic alliance was consistently a predictor of outcome for all the measures of treatment outcome. The therapeutic alliance moderated the effect of treatment on global perceived effect for 2 of 3 treatment contrasts (general exercise versus motor control exercise, spinal manipulative therapy versus motor control exercise). There was no treatment effect modification when outcome was measured with function, pain, and disability measures. Therapeutic alliance was measured at the second treatment session, which might have biased the interaction during initial stages of treatment. Data analysis was restricted to primary outcomes at 8 weeks. Positive therapeutic alliance ratings between physical therapists and patients are associated with improvements of outcomes in LBP. Future research should investigate the factors explaining this relationship and the impact of training interventions aimed at optimizing the alliance.

The working alliance, or collaborative bond, between client and psychotherapist has been found to be related to outcome in psychotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the working alliance is related to outcome in physical rehabilitation settings. A sensitive search of 6 databases identified a total of 1,600 titles. Prospective studies of patients undergoing physical rehabilitation were selected for this systematic review. For each included study, descriptive data regarding participants, interventions, and measures of alliance and outcome-as well as correlation data for alliance and outcomes-were extracted. Thirteen studies including patients with brain injury, musculoskeletal conditions, cardiac conditions, or multiple pathologies were retrieved. Various outcomes were measured, including pain, disability, quality of life, depression, adherence, and satisfaction with treatment. The alliance was most commonly measured with the Working Alliance Inventory, which was rated by both patient and therapist during the third or fourth treatment session. The results indicate that the alliance is positively associated with: (1) treatment adherence in patients with brain injury and patients with multiple pathologies seeking physical therapy, (2) depressive symptoms in patients with cardiac conditions and those with brain injury, (3) treatment satisfaction in patients with musculoskeletal conditions, and (4) physical function in geriatric patients and those with chronic low back pain. Among homogenous studies, there were insufficient reported data to allow pooling of results. From this review, the alliance between therapist and patient appears to have a positive effect on treatment outcome in physical rehabilitation settings; however, more research is needed to determine the strength of this association.

In a randomized trial involving patients with sciatica, the antiepileptic drug pregabalin, at a dose of up to 600 mg per day, was no more effective than placebo in reducing pain or disability over the course of 8 weeks and resulted in a higher incidence of adverse events. Sciatica is characterized by radiating posterior or posterolateral leg pain, which is sometimes accompanied by back pain, sensory loss, weakness, or reflex abnormalities. 1 – 3 Few clinical guidelines for the treatment of sciatica exist, and evidence regarding effective medical treatments is limited. 2 , 3 Treatment with pregabalin (Lyrica, Pfizer) has been shown to be effective in reducing some types of neuropathic pain, including postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic peripheral neuropathy, 4 , 5 as well as allodynia and hyperalgesia from several conditions, 6 – 8 and some guidelines recommend pregabalin for the treatment of pain with neuropathic features. 5 Pregabalin therefore represents a potential treatment for sciatica. Its . . .

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.

Background Although “non-specific” in 90% of cases, low back pain (LBP) is often treated as an independent entity, even though comorbidities are commonly associated with it. There is evidence that some LBP may be related to chronic conditions or be a symptom of poor health. The purpose of this study was to clarify the extent of comorbidities amongst a cohort of Australian adults with LBP and examine if having concurrent conditions has any association with appropriateness of care for LBP. Methods A population-based sample of patients with one or more of 22 common conditions was recruited by telephone; consents were obtained to review their medical records. Trained surveyors extracted information from their medical records to examine the care patients received for their LBP with respect to ten indicators of appropriate care, ratified by LBP experts. Using LBP as the index condition, lists of self-reported comorbidities and those that were documented in medical records were compared. Medical records were reviewed and analysed with respect to appropriateness of care to identify any significant differences in care received between patients with LBP only and those with LBP plus comorbidities. Results One hundred and sixty four LBP patients were included in the analysis. Over 60% of adults with LBP in Australia had one of 17 comorbidities documented, with females being more likely than males to have comorbid conditions (63% vs 37%, p  = 0.012). The more comorbidities, the poorer their reported health status (63% vs 30%, p  = 0.006). Patients with comorbidities were significantly less likely to receive appropriate LBP care on nine of the ten LBP indicators ( p  < 0.05). Conclusions This study established that the presence of comorbidities is associated with poorer care for LBP. Understanding why this is so is an important direction for future research. Further studies using a larger cohort are needed to explore the association between comorbidities and appropriateness of care for LBP, to better inform guidelines and practice in this area.

ObjectivesTo determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international databases. Studies investigating admitted patients aged >18 years with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal low back pain and/or lumbosacral radicular pain were included.ResultsThere was high heterogeneity in admission rates for low back pain from the ED, with a median of 9.6% (IQR 3.3–25.2; 9 countries). The median percentage of all hospital admissions that were due to low back pain was 0.9% (IQR 0.6–1.5; 30 countries). The median hospital LOS across 39 countries was 6.2 days for ‘dorsalgia’ (IQR 4.4–8.6) and 5.4 days for ‘intervertebral disc disorders’ (IQR 4.1–8.4). Low back pain admissions per 100 000 population had a median of 159.1 (IQR 82.6–313.8). The overall quality of the evidence was moderate.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review with meta-analysis summarising the global prevalence of hospital admissions and hospital LOS for low back pain. There was relatively sparse data from rural and regional regions and low-income countries, as well as high heterogeneity in the results.