Active exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent disabling low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Physical performance, pain, pain behavior and subjective disability in patients with subacute low back pain. Lack of effectiveness of bed rest for sciatica. Active treatment programs for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. Long-term effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low back pain. Comparison of short-term response to two spinal manipulation techniques for patients with low back pain in a military beneficiary population. A controlled study on the outcome of inpatient and outpatient treatment of low back pain. Part III. Long-term follow-up of pain, disability, and compliance. Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial.
A randomized controlled trial.
                To determine 1) whether, among patients with persistent disabling low back pain (LBP), a group program of exercise and education using a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approach, reduces pain and disability over a subsequent 12-month period; 2) the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and 3) whether a priori preference for type of treatment influences outcome.
                There is evidence that both exercise and CBT delivered in specialist settings is effective in improving LBP. There is a lack of evidence on whether such interventions, delivered by trained individuals in primary care, result in improved outcomes.
                The study was conducted in nine family medical practices in East Cheshire, UK. Patients 18 to 65 years of age, consulting with LBP, were recruited; those still reporting LBP 3 months after the initial consultation were randomized between the two trial arms. The intervention arm received a program of eight 2-hour group exercise session over 6 weeks comprising active exercise and education delivered by physiotherapists using a CBT approach. Both arms received an educational booklet and audio-cassette. The primary outcome measures were pain (0-100 Visual Analogue Scale) and disability (Roland and Morris Disability Scale; score 0-24).
                A total of 196 subjects (84%) completed follow-up 12 months after the completion of the intervention program. The intervention showed only a small and nonsignificant effect at reducing pain (-3.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, -8.5, 1.2 mm) and disability (-0.6 score; 95% confidence interval, -1.6, 0.4). The cost of the intervention was low with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5000 (U.S. $8650) per quality adjusted life year. In addition, patients allocated to the intervention that had expressed a preference for it had clinically important reductions in pain and disability.
                This intervention program produces only modest effects in reducing LBP and disability over a 1-year period. The observation that patient preference for treatment influences outcome warrants further investigation. The aim of this paper was to study the physical performance, pain, pain behavior and disability in patients with subacute low back pain (LBP). The patients were blue-collar workers and had been sick-listed for 8 weeks due to subacute low back pain. A total of 103 patients were randomized, 51 of them to the intervention group and the other to a control group. Recordings of physical performance and complaints of LBP were done before and after treatment in the intervention group. The proportion of patients with no complaints of LBP was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group at the one-year follow-up. The patients who intra-individually improved their physical performance also intra-individually decreased their complaints of LBP. The intra-individual improvements were suggested to be important for the individual return to work. Bed rest is widely advocated for sciatica, but its effectiveness has not been established. To study the effectiveness of bed rest in patients with a lumbosacral radicular syndrome of sufficient severity to justify treatment with bed rest for two weeks, we randomly assigned 183 subjects to either bed rest or watchful waiting for this period. The primary outcome measures were the investigator's and patient's global assessments of improvement after 2 and 12 weeks, and the secondary outcome measures were changes in functional status and in pain scores (after 2, 3, and 12 weeks), absenteeism from work, and the need for surgical intervention. Neither the investigators who assessed the outcomes nor those involved in data entry and analysis were aware of the patients' treatment assignments.
                After two weeks, 64 of the 92 patients in the bed-rest group (70 percent) reported improvement, as compared with 59 of the 91 patients in the control (watchful-waiting) group (65 percent) (adjusted odds ratio for improvement in the bed-rest group, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 2.3). After 12 weeks, 87 percent of the patients in both groups reported improvement. The results of assessments of the intensity of pain, the bothersomeness of symptoms, and functional status revealed no significant differences between the two groups. The extent of absenteeism from work and rates of surgical intervention were similar in the two groups.
                Among patients with symptoms and signs of a lumbosacral radicular syndrome, bed rest is not a more effective therapy than watchful waiting. Several new studies have indicated that an active approach to patients with chronic disabling low back pain (LBP) seems effective. Some of these studies emphasize the importance of dealing with the patient's total situation in comprehensive multidisciplinary programs--the bio-psycho-social model. However, these programs are expensive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rehabilitation outcome from three different active programs in terms of: (1) return-to-work rate, (2) days of sick leave, (3) health-care contacts, (4) pain and disability scores, and (5) staying physically active. The subjects included 132 patients randomized to the study, of whom 123 started one of the treatment programs. They had all had at least 6 months of chronic LBP. The patients were randomized into one of three programs: group 1--a full-time, intensive 3-week multidisciplinary program, including active physical and ergonomic training and psychological pain management, followed by 1 day weekly for the subsequent 3 weeks; group 2--active physical training, twice a week for 6 weeks, for a total of 24h; group 3--psychological pain management combined with active physical training, twice a week for 6 weeks, also for a total of 24h. The results presented here are based on data collected 4 months following treatment, which shows an 86% response rate. The initial examination and the follow-up evaluation were performed by a blinded observer. The results show that 4 months after treatment, the intensive multidisciplinary program is superior to the less intensive programs in terms of return-to-work rate, health-care contacts, pain and disability scores, and staying physically active.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) A randomized clinical trial with 1-year and 3-year telephone questionnaire follow-ups.
                To report a specific exercise intervention's long-term effects on recurrence rates in acute, first-episode low back pain patients.
                The pain and disability associated with an initial episode of acute low back pain (LBP) is known to resolve spontaneously in the short-term in the majority of cases. However, the recurrence rate is high, and recurrent disabling episodes remain one of the most costly problems in LBP. A deficit in the multifidus muscle has been identified in acute LBP patients, and does not resolve spontaneously on resolution of painful symptoms and resumption of normal activity. Any relation between this deficit and recurrence rate was investigated in the long-term.
                Thirty-nine patients with acute, first-episode LBP were medically managed and randomly allocated to either a control group or specific exercise group. Medical management included advice and use of medications. Intervention consisted of exercises aimed at rehabilitating the multifidus in cocontraction with the transversus abdominis muscle. One year and three years after treatment, telephone questionnaires were conducted with patients.
                Questionnaire results revealed that patients from the specific exercise group experienced fewer recurrences of LBP than patients from the control group. One year after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 30%, and control group recurrence was 84% (P < 0.001). Two to three years after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 35%, and control group recurrence was 75% (P < 0.01).
                Long-term results suggest that specific exercise therapy in addition to medical management and resumption of normal activity may be more effective in reducing low back pain recurrences than medical management and normal activity alone. To determine whether military health care beneficiaries with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to respond successfully to spinal manipulation experience a difference in short-term clinical outcomes based on the manipulation technique that is used.
                Sixty patients with LBP identified as likely responders to manipulation underwent a standardized clinical examination and were randomized to receive a lumbopelvic (LP) or lumbar neutral gap (NG) manipulation technique. Outcome measures were a numeric pain rating scale and the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
                Both the LP and NG groups experienced statistically significant reductions in pain and disability at 48 hours postmanipulation. The improvements seen in each group were small because of the short follow-up. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in pain or disability between the two groups.
                The two manipulation techniques used in this study were equally effective at reducing pain and disability when compared at 48 hours posttreatment. Clinicians may employ either technique for the treatment of LBP and can expect similar outcomes in those who satisfy the clinical prediction rule (CPR). Further research is required to determine whether differences exist at longer-term follow-up periods, after multiple treatment sessions, or in different clinical populations. The long-term outcome results of inpatient and outpatient treatment of low back pain (LBP) were studied in 476 subjects (aged 35-54, 63% men) randomly assigned to three study groups: inpatients (n = 157), outpatients (n = 159), and controls (n = 160). The study included changes in the severity of low back pain, grade and disability, compliance with self-care, data on disability pensions, and days of sickness allowance during a 2.5-year follow-up period. These variables were used as outcome criteria. Pain and disability had decreased significantly in the two treated groups up to the 3-month follow-up. LBP was still a little slighter in the inpatients at the 1.5-year and 22-month follow-ups, but there were no significant differences between the groups in disability caused by LBP. The refresher programme carried out 1.5 years after the first one did not bring about as clear short-term improvement in pain and disability as the first treatment. During the whole 2.5-year follow-up compliance with self-care was better in the two treated groups, especially in the inpatients. Days of sickness allowance had increased somewhat more in the controls than in the inpatients during the follow-up. No differences between the groups were found in the number of disability pensions granted. A single blind randomized controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with acute simple low back pain.
                To compare two research-based models of care for acute low back pain and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention.
                National guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of acute low back pain. The guidelines suggest two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these approaches to the management of acute low back pain.
                Among 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an "assess/advise/treat" group or an "assess/advise/wait" group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (Visual Analogue Scale), functional disability (the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), mood (Modified Zung Self Rated Depression Score, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), general health (Euroqol), and quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
                At 6 weeks, the assess/advise/treat group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health, and quality of life than patients in the assess/advise/wait group (P < 0.05). Disability and pain were not significantly different between the groups at long-term follow up (P > 0.05). However, mood, general health, and quality of life remained significantly better in the assess/advise/treat group (P < 0.05).
                At short-term, intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and general health. The timing of intervention affects the development of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore, an assess/advise/treat model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an assess/advise/wait model of care. Population-based randomized controlled trial.
                To assess the effectiveness of workplace intervention and graded activity, separately and combined, for multidisciplinary rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP).
                Effective components for multidisciplinary rehabilitation of LBP are not yet established.
                Participants sick-listed 2 to 6 weeks due to nonspecific LBP were randomized to workplace intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 100). Workplace intervention consisted of workplace assessment, work modifications, and case management involving all stakeholders. Participants still sick-listed at 8 weeks were randomized for graded activity (n = 55) or usual care (n = 57). Graded activity comprised biweekly 1-hour exercise sessions based on operant-conditioning principles. Outcomes were lasting return to work, pain intensity and functional status, assessed at baseline, and at 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the start of sick leave.
                Time until return to work for workers with workplace intervention was 77 versus 104 days (median) for workers without this intervention (P = 0.02). Workplace intervention was effective on return to work (hazard ratio = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3; P = 0.002). Graded activity had a negative effect on return to work (hazard ratio = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.6; P < 0.001) and functional status. Combined intervention had no effect.
                Workplace intervention is advised for multidisciplinary rehabilitation of subacute LBP. Graded activity or combined intervention is not advised.
Moderate quality evidence shows that patients with acute LBP may experience small benefits in pain relief and functional improvement from advice to stay active compared to advice to rest in bed; patients with sciatica experience little or no difference between the two approaches. Low quality evidence suggests little or no difference between those who received advice to stay active, exercises or physiotherapy. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change our confidence in it.