Evaluation of a specific home exercise program for low back pain. Mobility, strength, and fitness after a graded activity program for patients with subacute low back pain. A randomized prospective clinical study with a behavioral therapy approach. Intensive group training versus cognitive intervention in sub-acute low back pain: short-term results of a single-blind randomized controlled trial. A randomized, controlled trial of manual therapy and specific adjuvant exercise for chronic low back pain. Graded activity for low back pain in occupational health care: a randomized, controlled trial. Comparison of a functional restoration program with active individual physical therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. The use of a back class teaching extension exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain in primary care. Intensive physical and psychosocial training program for patients with chronic low back pain. A controlled clinical trial. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial. A randomized trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. Efficacy on sickness absence. Manual therapy and exercise therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. The secondary prevention of low back pain: a controlled study with follow-up. A randomized clinical trial of three active therapies for chronic low back pain. Intensive group training protocol versus guideline physiotherapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. Active exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent disabling low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Group outpatient physical and behavioral therapy for chronic low back pain. The effectiveness of exercise programmes after lumbar disc surgery: a randomized controlled study. In chronic low back pain, low level laser therapy combined with exercise is more beneficial than exercise alone in the long term: a randomised trial. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]. The efficacy of an aerobic exercise and health education program for treatment of chronic low back pain. Treating acute low back pain with continuous low-level heat wrap therapy and/or exercise: a randomized controlled trial. Individual active treatment combined with group exercise for acute and subacute low back pain. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Secondary prevention of work-related disability in nonspecific low back pain: does problem-solving therapy help? A randomized clinical trial. Efficiency and costs of medical exercise therapy, conventional physiotherapy, and self-exercise in patients with chronic low back pain. A pragmatic, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Physical performance, pain, pain behavior and subjective disability in patients with subacute low back pain. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. An open study of diflunisal, conservative and manipulative therapy in the management of acute mechanical low back pain. A randomized controlled clinical trial for low back pain treated by acupressure and physical therapy. Active treatment programs for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. The treatment of acute low back pain--bed rest, exercises, or ordinary activity? The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain: a randomized prospective clinical study with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach. A randomized-control study of active and passive treatments for chronic low back pain following L5 laminectomy. Multidisciplinary group rehabilitation versus individual physiotherapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized trial. The effectiveness of graded activity for low back pain in occupational healthcare. Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain. A randomized, observer-blind trial. Multidisciplinary intensive treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized, prospective study. The efficacy of active rehabilitation in chronic low back pain. Effect on pain intensity, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability. Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Increasing days at work using function-centered rehabilitation in nonacute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of cognitive-behavioral group treatment and an alternative non-psychological treatment for chronic low back pain. Manipulative therapy and clinical prediction criteria in treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain. Combined physiotherapy and education is efficacious for chronic low back pain. Effectiveness of behavioral therapy for chronic low back pain: a component analysis. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for the rehabilitation of low back pain: a randomized controlled trial evaluation. A randomized trial of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain. Conservative treatment in patients sick-listed for acute low-back pain: a prospective randomised study with 12 months' follow-up. Combined exercise and motivation program: effect on the compliance and level of disability of patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
The prescription of exercise as a conservative treatment for lumbar pain is frequent and seems effective for the chronic cases of nonspecific low back pain. However, there is no evidence favoring one type of exercise over another. Often, exercise programs are prescribed without adequate evaluation of the individual characteristics like posture, muscular force, and extensibility. Patients with totally different causes of low back pain will often be given the same type of exercises.
                Our objective was to compare the effectiveness of 2 home exercise programs in decreasing disability and pain related to subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. To do so we compared a specific (individualized) exercise program with a program of commonly prescribed exercises for low back pain.
                In a control group study, 20 patients with chronic or subacute nonspecific low back pain participated after giving their informed consent. All subjects were evaluated (physical evaluation of lumbar and pelvic muscles [1] force and [2] extensibility, [3] trunk range of motion) and then divided in 2 groups: 10 patients received specific exercises (experimental group) based on their evaluation, and 10 patients received a commonly prescribed exercise program for low back pain (control group). Six weeks later a second physical evaluation was conducted. Pain (visual analog pain scale) and disability (modified Oswestry) questionnaires were also completed by each subject at both evaluations.
                This was a randomized experimental study.
                Both groups had similar age, weight, and sex characteristics. The experimental group showed significant improvements for some components targeted by the program. The control group significantly had improvement of some physical characteristics not related to their initial deficits. Even if both groups showed some improvements in muscular force and extensibility, only the members of the group who received specific exercises significantly reduced their level of pain and disability. Both groups showed a similar rate of participation in the program.
                The results of this study suggest that applying a specific physical evaluation and exercise prescription is an appropriate treatment for people having subacute or chronic nonspecific pain. Thus clinicians should prescribe exercise programs based on individual muscular deficits rather than most commonly prescribed exercise programs. Patients with nonspecific mechanical low back pain (n = 103), examined by an orthopaedic surgeon and a social worker, were randomized to an activity group (n = 51) and a control group (n = 52). Patients with defined orthopaedic, medical, or psychiatric diagnoses were excluded before randomization. No patients were excluded due to place of birth or difficulties in speaking or understanding the Swedish language. The purpose of the study was to compare mobility, strength and fitness after traditional care and after traditional care plus a graded activity program with a behavioral therapy approach. A graded activity program, with a behavioral therapy approach was given under the guidance of a physical therapist. The endpoint of the graded activity program was return to work. This program significantly increased mobility, strength, and fitness more than could be explained by only a time recovery effect, especially in males. The patients in the activity group returned to work earlier than did the patients in the control group. Spinal rotation, abdominal muscle endurance time and lifting capacity were significantly correlated to rate of return to work. Traditional care plus a graded activity program were superior to only traditional care, evaluated in terms of mobility, strength and fitness. The graded activity program proved to be a successful method of restoring occupational function and facilitating return to work in subacute low back pain patients. The patients in the graded activity program learned that it is safe to move, while regaining function. To evaluate the short-term effect of physical exercise and a cognitive intervention in low back pain.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Ninety-three patients sick-listed for 8-12 weeks for sub-acute low back pain were randomized to an exercise regime (n = 30), a cognitive intervention (n = 34) or a control group (n = 29).
                Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, sick-listing and satisfaction with care. Secondary outcome measures were self-efficacy for pain and for function, fear-avoidance beliefs, emotional distress, generic health status and life satisfaction.
                Eighteen percent of subjects dropped out. Drop-out was most frequent in the exercise group. At 18 weeks after inclusion fear-avoidance beliefs were reduced in both intervention groups. The cognitive group demonstrated significant improvement in disability, self-efficacy for pain, emotional distress, general health and life satisfaction. Patients in the exercise group were significantly more satisfied with the treatment, and patients following the exercise protocol reduced pain significantly. No effect on sick-listing was seen.
                Cognitive intervention improved disability and may be feasible for most patients sick-listed in the sub-acute phase. Physical exercise reduced patients' symptoms, but requires high motivation by patients. Despite positive effects in intervention groups on variables considered as negative prognostic factors for long-term disability and sickness absence, interventions had no effect on sick-listing. This article examines the effectiveness of manual therapy with specific adjuvant exercise for treating chronic low back pain and disability.
                A single blind, randomized, controlled trial was employed. Patients were prescribed an exercise program that was tailored to treat their musculoskeletal dysfunctions or given a nonspecific program of general stretching and aerobic conditioning. In addition, patients received manual therapy or sham manual therapy. Participants were seen for 6 weekly sessions and were asked to perform their exercise program twice daily.
                Seventy-two out of 100 patients completed the study. Multivariate tests conducted for measures of pain and disability revealed a significant group by time interaction (P = 0.04 and P = 0.05, respectively), indicating differential change in these measures pretreatment to posttreatment as a function of the treatment received. When controlling for pretreatment scores, patients receiving manual therapy with specific adjuvant exercise reported significant reductions in pain. No change in perceived disability was observed, with the exception that patients receiving sham manual therapy with specific adjuvant exercise reported significantly greater disability at posttreatment.
                Manual therapy with specific adjuvant exercise appears to be beneficial in treating chronic low back pain. Despite changes in pain, perceived function did not improve. It is possible that impacting chronic low back pain alone does not address psychosocial or other factors that may contribute to disability. Further studies are needed to examine the long-term effects of these interventions and to address what adjuncts are beneficial in improving function in this population. Low back pain is a common medical and social problem frequently associated with disability and absence from work. However, data on effective return to work after interventions for low back pain are scarce.
                To determine the effectiveness of a behavior-oriented graded activity program compared with usual care.
                Randomized, controlled trial.
                Occupational health services department of an airline company in the Netherlands.
                134 workers who were absent from work because of low back pain were randomly assigned to either graded activity (n = 67) or usual care (n = 67).
                Graded activity, a physical exercise program based on operant-conditioning behavioral principles, to stimulate a rapid return to work.
                Outcomes were the number of days of absence from work because of low back pain, functional status (Roland Disability Questionnaire), and severity of pain (11-point numerical scale).
                The median number of days of absence from work over 6 months of follow-up was 58 days in the graded activity group and 87 days in the usual care group. From randomization onward, graded activity was effective after 50 days of absence from work (hazard ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2 to 3.2]; P = 0.009). The graded activity group was more effective in improving functional status and pain than the usual care group. The effects, however, were small and not statistically significant.
                Graded activity was more effective than usual care in reducing the number of days of absence from work because of low back pain. To compare the short-term outcomes of active individual therapy (AIT) with those of a functional restoration program (FRP).
                Prospective randomized controlled study.
                Two rehabilitation centers and private ambulatory physiotherapy facilities.
                One hundred thirty-two adults with chronic low back pain. Fifty-one percent of patients on sick leave or out of work (mean duration, 180d in the 2y before treatment).
                For 5 weeks, FRP (at 25h/wk) or AIT (at 3h/wk).
                Trunk flexibility, back flexor, and extensor endurance (Ito and Sorensen tests), general endurance, pain intensity, Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) scores, daily activities, anxiety depression, social interest, and work and leisure activities, and self-reported improvement (work ability, resumption of sport and leisure activities).
                All outcome measures improved after treatment except endurance in AIT. There was no between-group difference for pain intensity or DPQ daily activities or work and leisure activities scores. Better results were observed in FRP for all other outcome measures. There was a significant effect of treatment and the initial value for the gain of the Sorensen score with a treatment or initial value interaction; a significant effect of treatment and initial value on the gains of Ito, endurance, and DPQ social interest and anxiety depression scores, with no treatment or initial value interaction; and a significant effect of initial value but not treatment for the gains of DPQ daily activities and work and leisure activities scores.
                Low-cost ambulatory AIT is effective. The main advantage of FRP is improved endurance. We speculate that this may be linked to better self-reported work ability and more frequent resumption of sports and leisure activities. To evaluate effectiveness of an exercise programme in a community setting for patients with low back pain to encourage a return to normal activities.
                Randomised controlled trial of progressive exercise programme compared with usual primary care management. Patients' preferences for type of management were elicited independently of randomisation.
                187 patients aged 18-60 years with mechanical low back pain of 4 weeks to 6 months' duration.
                Exercise classes led by a physiotherapist that included strengthening exercises for all main muscle groups, stretching exercises, relaxation session, and brief education on back care. A cognitive-behavioural approach was used.
                Assessments of debilitating effects of back pain before and after intervention and at 6 months and 1 year later. Measures included Roland disability questionnaire, Aberdeen back pain scale, pain diaries, and use of healthcare services.
                At 6 weeks after randomisation, the intervention group improved marginally more than the control group on the disability questionnaire and reported less distressing pain. At 6 months and 1 year, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in the disability questionnaire score (mean difference in changes 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 2.57). At 1 year, the intervention group also showed significantly greater improvement in the Aberdeen back pain scale (4.44, 1.01 to 7.87) and reported only 378 days off work compared with 607 in the control group. The intervention group used fewer healthcare resources. Outcome was not influenced by patients' preferences.
                The exercise class was more clinically effective than traditional general practitioner management, regardless of patient preference, and was cost effective. To assess the efficacy of exercise therapy for acute low back pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 40 Dutch general practices. Patients received either exercise instruction with advice for daily life by a physiotherapist; placebo ultrasound therapy by a physiotherapist; or usual care by the general practitioner. All patients received analgesic agents and information on low back pain before randomization. Four hundred seventy-three patients were included. No differences in number of recurrences, functional health status, or medical care usage could be found among the three groups. In the exercise group, duration of recurrences was shorter and patients were less tired during the first 3 months than in the usual care group, but no differences were found between the exercise and placebo groups. It was concluded that exercise therapy for patients with acute low back pain has no advantage over usual care from the general practitioner. Back extension exercises are commonly recommended to treat acute low back pain. Evidence of their beneficial effect is, however, weak.
                We aimed to demonstrate a benefit of teaching back extension exercises in addition to usual GP care for acute low back pain.
                Patients with acute simple low back pain of less than 28 days duration, presenting to a GP, were randomized either to attend a back class or to receive conventional management. Outcome was measured using changes in the Oswestry disability score and visual analogue pain scale (VAS) on six occasions during 1 year and also a VAS and patient assessment of degree of disability during the previous 6 months at 1 year.
                Seventy-five patients were recruited. The principal outcome measures showed no difference between the two groups. The treatment group reported less chronic disability at 1 year (50% versus 14%, P < 0.007).
                A treatment effect has not been demonstrated, but some patients who would otherwise have reported mild pain were pain free after 1 year. This approach to treating back pain has not been shown to be effective. More much larger studies, with more intensive treatment, are required in order to decide whether physical therapy in primary care is beneficial as treatment for acute back pain. The authors conducted a controlled clinical trial with 1-year follow-up to define the effectiveness of an intensive physical and psychosocial training program on patients with low back pain.
                The intervention group included 152 patients (mean age 40.5 yr, Million index 45.1/100), and the reference group included 141 patients (mean age 40.4 yr, Million-index 44.5/100).
                The progressive intervention program consisted of intensive physical training and psychosocial activation. The outcomes were physical and psychosocial measures, the pain and disability index (Million), sick leaves, and occupational handicap.
                The intervention was more efficient with respect to physical measures and pain and disability index. There were only mild or no differences in changes between the study groups in psychologic variables, sick leaves, or retirement.
                The intervention program could improve physical disability, but to improve occupational handicap, activities of the whole society (social legislation, labor market policy) are needed. 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. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which patients received either usual care by a general practitioner (information and analgesics), or placebo physiotherapy given by a physiotherapist, or exercise therapy given by a physiotherapist.
                To assess the efficacy of exercise therapy on sickness absence from work in patients with acute low back pain.
                Exercise therapy during the nonchronic phase of back pain is considered to reduce sickness absence, but this opinion is controversial.
                Patients with acute nonspecific low back pain and a paid job were included for analysis. Sickness absence (number of days) was checked monthly during the 1-year follow-up period and compliance was also assessed.
                From 40 general practices 363 patients who were gainfully employed were included. In the exercise therapy group the percentage of patients with sickness absence was higher and the duration of absence was longer than in the placebo and usual care groups, but these differences were not significant. Indications of more absence in the exercise therapy group appeared to be based largely on a greater number of patients with absences during the first 3 months. Patients in the exercise group who had not reported sick at entry had more sickness absences during the follow-up year than patients in the usual care and placebo group. Good compliance did not affect the results.
                Exercise therapy for patients with acute low back pain does not reduce sickness absence. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.
                To compare the effect of manual therapy to exercise therapy in sick-listed patients with chronic low back pain (>8 wks).
                The effect of exercise therapy and manual therapy on chronic low back pain with respect to pain, function, and sick leave have been investigated in a number of studies. The results are, however, conflicting.
                Patients with chronic low back pain or radicular pain sick-listed for more than 8 weeks and less than 6 months were included. A total of 49 patients were randomized to either manual therapy (n = 27) or to exercise therapy (n = 22). Sixteen treatments were given over the course of 2 months. Pain intensity, functional disability (Oswestry disability index), general health (Dartmouth COOP function charts), and return to work were recorded before, immediately after, at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after the treatment period. Spinal range of motion (Schober test) was measured before and immediately after the treatment period only.
                Although significant improvements were observed in both groups, the manual therapy group showed significantly larger improvements than the exercise therapy group on all outcome variables throughout the entire experimental period. Immediately after the 2-month treatment period, 67% in the manual therapy and 27% in the exercise therapy group had returned to work (P < 0.01), a relative difference that was maintained throughout the follow-up period.
                Improvements were found in both intervention groups, but manual therapy showed significantly greater improvement than exercise therapy in patients with chronic low back pain. The effects were reflected on all outcome measures, both on short and long-term follow-up. The current investigation studied the effectiveness of a secondary prevention program for nurses with back pain who were deemed at risk for developing a chronic problem. A 2 X 3 repeated measures design was employed with 2 groups and 3 assessment periods. The treatment group received an intervention designed to reduce current problems, but above all to prevent reinjury and minor pains from becoming chronic medical problems, and it included a physical and behavioral therapy package. The control group was placed on a waiting-list. Results indicated that the treatment group had significantly greater improvements than the control group for pain intensity, anxiety, sleep quality and fatigue ratings, observed pain behavior, activities, mood, and helplessness. These differences were generally maintained at the 6 month follow-up. In addition, the treatment group broke a trend for increasing amounts of pain-related absenteeism, while the control group did not. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that a secondary prevention program aimed at altering life style factors may represent an effective method for dealing with musculoskeletal pain problems. A randomized clinical trial.
                To examine the relative efficacy of three active therapies for chronic low back pain.
                There is much evidence documenting the efficacy of exercise in the conservative management of chronic low back pain, but many questions remain regarding its exact prescription and method of application. The most successful method must be identified to enable refinement of future rehabilitation programs to target the specific needs of the patient with chronic low back pain and the budget of the healthcare provider.
                One hundred forty-eight patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to one of the following treatments, which they attended twice a week for 3 months: 1) modern active physiotherapy, 2) muscle reconditioning on training devices, or 3) low-impact aerobics. Pretherapy and posttherapy, objective measurements of lumbar mobility were performed, and questionnaires were administered inquiring about self-rated pain and disability, and psychosocial factors. Similar questionnaires were administered 6 months after therapy. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.
                Of the 148 patients, 16 (10.8%) dropped out of the therapy. One hundred thirty-seven questionnaires (93%) were available for analysis at all three time points. After therapy, significant reductions were observed in pain intensity, frequency, and disability; Fear-Avoidance Beliefs about physical activity (FABQactivity); and "praying/hoping," "catastrophizing," and "pain behavior" coping strategies--each with no group differences in the extent of the response. These effects were maintained over the subsequent 6 months, with the exception of disability and FABQactivity for the physiotherapy group. There were small but significant posttherapy increases in lumbar mobility, with aerobics and devices showing a greater response than physiotherapy.
                The general lack of treatment specificity suggests that the main effects of the therapies were educed not through the reversal of physical weaknesses targeted by the corresponding exercise modality, but rather through some "central" effect, perhaps involving an adjustment of perception in relation to pain and disability. The direct costs associated with administering physiotherapy were three times as great, and devices four times as great, as those for aerobics. Administration of aerobics as an efficacious therapy for chronic low back pain has the potential to relieve some of the huge financial burden associated with the condition. Intensive group training using principles of graded activity has been proven to be effective in occupational care for workers with chronic low back pain. Objective of the study was to compare the effects of an intensive group training protocol aimed at returning to normal daily activities and guideline physiotherapy for primary care patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. The study was designed as pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a setup of 105 primary care physiotherapists in 49 practices and 114 patients with non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks duration participated in the study. In the intensive group training protocol exercise therapy, back school and operant-conditioning behavioural principles are combined. Patients were treated during 10 individual sessions along 20 group sessions. Usual care consisted of physiotherapy according to the Dutch guidelines for Low Back Pain. Main outcome measures were functional disability (Roland Morris disability questionnaire), pain intensity, perceived recovery and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6, 13, 26 and 52 weeks. Both an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis were performed. Multilevel analysis did not show significant differences between both treatment groups on any outcome measures during the complete follow-up period, with one exception. After 26 weeks the protocol group showed more reduction in pain intensity than the guideline group, but this difference was absent after 52 weeks. We finally conclude that an intensive group training protocol was not more effective than usual physiotherapy for chronic low back pain. 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. Conducted a treatment-outcome study to investigate the effectiveness of behavioral (BT) or physical therapy (PT) for treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). Thirteen patients received BT; 12 patients received PT. All patients had at least a 6-month history of seeking treatment of CLBP. Prior to treatment patients were assessed in four principal areas of functioning: (1) physical abilities; (2) current physical functioning; (3) psychological and psychosocial functioning; and (4) pain intensity and pain perception. Treatments were conducted in a group (5-8 patients) outpatient setting. Both BT and PT met for 10 weekly 2-hour sessions. BT was designed to address the environmental, social, and emotional influences of the pain experience, depression, and decreased activity from CLBP. PT was based upon traditional rehabilitation theory and was designed to improve low back function. The posttreatment results showed general improvement for patients in both groups, but few treatment-specific differences in outcome measures. To compare two different exercise programmes versus a control group, after lumbar disc surgery.
                A prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study.
                Outpatient clinic of Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
                Sixty patients diagnosed as having single level lumbar disc herniation with clinical examination and MRI evaluation and who had undergone lumbar discectomy (post-operative first month) at a single level. Patients with serious pathologies involving the cardiac and respiratory systems that could prevent them from doing exercises were excluded. Intervention: The patients were randomly split into three groups. The first group received an intensive exercise programme and back school education while the second group received a home exercise programme and back school education. The third group was defined as the control group and did not receive education or exercise.
                The patients were evaluated at the beginning and end of the treatment with clinical parameters, pain levels, endurance tests and weight-lifting tests, modified Oswestry Disability Index, Beck Depression Inventory, Low Back Pain Rating Scale and return to work.
                The groups doing exercises experienced a decrease in the severity of pain and disability, also functional parameters showed better improvement than the control group. The intensive exercise programme was better than the home exercise programme.
                It seems that intensive exercise is more effective in reduction of pain and disability, but whether it is cost-effective is not clear. Is low level laser therapy an effective adjuvant intervention for chronic low back pain?
                Randomised trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.
                Sixty-one patients who had low back pain for at least 12 weeks.
                One group received laser therapy alone, one received laser therapy and exercise, and the third group received placebo laser therapy and exercise. Laser therapy was performed twice a week for 6 weeks.
                Outcomes were pain severity measured using a 10-cm visual analogue scale, lumbar range of motion measured by the Schober Test and maximum active flexion, extension and lateral flexion, and disability measured with the Oswestry Disability Index on admission to the study, after 6 weeks of intervention, and after another 6 weeks of no intervention.
                There was no greater effect of laser therapy compared with exercise for any outcome, at either 6 or 12 weeks. There was also no greater effect of laser therapy plus exercise compared with exercise for any outcome at 6 weeks. However, in the laser therapy plus exercise group pain had reduced by 1.8 cm (95% CI 0.1 to 3.3, p = 0.03), lumbar range of movement increased by 0.9 cm (95% CI 0.2 to 1.8, p < 0.01) on the Schober Test and by 15 deg (95% CI 5 to 25, p < 0.01) of active flexion, and disability reduced by 9.4 points (95% CI 2.7 to 16.0, p = 0.03) more than in the exercise group at 12 weeks.
                In chronic low back pain low level laser therapy combined with exercise is more beneficial than exercise alone in the long term. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations: the deconditioning model, the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model. There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment, but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation. A direct comparison of a physical, a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far.
                The effectiveness of active physical, cognitive-behavioral and combined treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain compared with a waiting list control group was determined by performing a randomized controlled trial in three rehabilitation centers. Two hundred and twenty three patients were randomized, using concealed block randomization to one of the following treatments, which they attended three times a week for 10 weeks: Active Physical Treatment (APT), Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT), Combined Treatment of APT and CBT (CT), or Waiting List (WL). The outcome variables were self-reported functional limitations, patient's main complaints, pain, mood, self-rated treatment effectiveness, treatment satisfaction and physical performance including walking, standing up, reaching forward, stair climbing and lifting. Assessments were carried out by blinded research assistants at baseline and immediately post-treatment. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.
                For 212 patients, data were available for analysis. After treatment, significant reductions were observed in functional limitations, patient's main complaints and pain intensity for all three active treatments compared to the WL. Also, the self-rated treatment effectiveness and satisfaction appeared to be higher in the three active treatments. Several physical performance tasks improved in APT and CT but not in CBT. No clinically relevant differences were found between the CT and APT, or between CT and CBT.
                All three active treatments were effective in comparison to no treatment, but no clinically relevant differences between the combined and the single component treatments were found. Low back pain is one of the most common and important musculoskeletal disorders. In addition, chronic low back pain can deteriorate the patient's physical, psychosocial and socioeconomic status. The objective of this quasi-experimental research was to assess the efficacy of an aerobic exercise and health education program in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Seventy-two patients whose ages ranged from 30 to 50 years who had chronic low back pain were enrolled and randomly assigned into two groups. Eight men and 28 women in the experimental group participated in a series of 3 health education sessions and an aerobic exercise training program. Nine men and 27 women in the control group received regular health education and a lumbar flexion exercise program. After a 3-month period of treatment, the results revealed the experimental group had statistically significant improvement of pain score and resting pulse rates when compared to the values of the control group (p-value < 0.001 and < 0.01, respectively). The average serum High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (HDL-C) in the experimental group was also significantly higher (p-value < 0.05) than that of the control group. This health education program is useful and may be applicable to patients with chronic low back pain as an alternative treatment. Restorative exercise and palliative modalities are frequently used together for the treatment of acute low back pain. However, little is known about the effects of combining these treatments.
                To evaluate the efficacy of combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise on the functional ability of patients with acute low back pain.
                A randomized controlled trial was conducted at three outpatient medical facilities.
                One hundred individuals (age 31.2+/-10.6 years) with low back pain of less than 3 months duration.
                The primary outcome measure was functional ability assessed by the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were disability assessed by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and pain relief assessed by a 6-point verbal rating scale.
                Participants were randomized to one of four groups: Heat wrap therapy alone (heat wrap, n=25); directional preference-based exercise alone (exercise, n=25); combination of heat wrap therapy and exercise (heat+exercise, n=24); or control (booklet, n=26). Treatment was administered for five consecutive days and included four visits to the study center over 1 week.
                At 2 days after the conclusion of treatment (Day 7), functional improvement for heat+exercise was 84%, 95%, and 175% greater than heat wrap, exercise, and booklet, respectively (p<.05). Seventy-two percent of the subjects in the heat+exercise group demonstrated a return to pre-injury function compared with 20%, 20%, and 19% for heat wrap, exercise, and booklet, respectively (p<.05). Disability reduction for heat+exercise was 93%, 139%, and 400% greater than heat wrap, exercise, and booklet, respectively (p<.05). Pain relief for heat+exercise was 70% and 143% greater than exercise and booklet, respectively (p<.05).
                Combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise during the treatment of acute low back pain significantly improves functional outcomes compared with either intervention alone or control. Either intervention alone tends to be more effective than control. Randomized controlled trial.
                To compare two fast-access evidence-based interventions for the treatment of simple low back pain.
                People aged 18-65 with a new episode of simple back pain causing them to be off work or on modified work for less than 1 year.
                A district general hospital using a consultation/treatment room and a rehabilitation gym.
                One group received a back advice booklet and one session of advice and then followed the normal route of care as directed by their general practitioner. The other group received the back booklet and one session of advice and also a back program. The back program consisted of a full assessment, immediately followed by one individual treatment, and then exercise classes over 1 to 2 weeks.
                (1) Rate of return to work, (2) pain scores and health status, and (3) cost effectiveness of interventions versus the financial cost to the individual or employer.
                On average, those receiving the individual treatment and group exercise took 7 days less off work. This represented a 35% reduction in the amount of time taken off work since study entry. The estimated cost saving of providing the extra service of a simple back program ranged between 250 pound (367 US dollars, 300 euro) and 578 pound (850 US dollars, 694 euro) for each patient.
                The results indicate that the costs of this active back program are more than reimbursed as a consequence of earlier return to work. Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain. Given the individual and economic burden of chronic work disability in low back pain patients, there is a need for effective preventive interventions. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether problem-solving therapy had a supplemental value when added to behavioral graded activity, regarding days of sick leave and work status.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Employees who were recently on sick leave as a result of nonspecific low back pain were referred to the rehabilitation center by general practitioner, occupational physician, or rehabilitation physician. Forty-five employees had been randomly assigned to the experimental treatment condition that included behavioral graded activity and problem-solving therapy (GAPS), and 39 employees had been randomly assigned to behavioral graded activity and group education (GAGE).
                Days of sick leave and work status. Data were retrieved from occupational health services.
                Data analyses showed that employees in the GAPS group had significantly fewer days of sick leave in the second half-year after the intervention. Moreover, work status was more favorable for employees in this condition, in that more employees had a 100% return-to-work and fewer patients ended up receiving disability pensions one year after the intervention. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results.
                The addition of problem-solving therapy to behavioral graded activity had supplemental value in employees with nonspecific low back pain. A multicenter, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.
                To evaluate the efficiency of progressively graded medical exercise therapy, conventional physiotherapy, and self-exercise by walking in patients with chronic low back pain.
                Varieties of medical exercise therapy and conventional physiotherapy are considered to reduce symptoms, improve function, and decrease sickness absence, but this opinion is controversial.
                Patients with chronic low back pain or radicular pain sick-listed for more than 8 weeks and less than 52 weeks (Sickness Certificate II) were included. The treatment lasted 3 months (36 treatments). Pain intensity, functional ability, patient satisfaction, return to work, number of days on sick leave, and costs were recorded.
                Of the 208 patients included in this study, 71 were randomly assigned to medical exercise therapy, 67 to conventional physiotherapy, and 70 to self-exercise. Thirty-three (15.8%) patients dropped out during the treatment period. No difference was observed between the medical exercise therapy and conventional physiotherapy groups, but both were significantly better than self-exercise group. Patient satisfaction was highest for medical exercise therapy. Return to work rates were equal for all 3 intervention groups at assessment 15 months after therapy was started, with 123 patients were back to work. In terms of costs for days on sick leave, the medical exercise therapy group saved 906,732 Norwegian Kroner (NOK) ($122,531.00), and the conventional physiotherapy group saved NOK 1,882,560 ($254,200.00), compared with the self-exercise group.
                The efficiency of medical exercise therapy and conventional physiotherapy is shown. Leaving patients with chronic low back pain untampered poses a risk of worsening the disability, resulting in longer periods of sick leave. A randomized, assessor-blinded clinical trial was conducted.
                To investigate the relative effectiveness of three manual treatments and back school for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Literature comparing the relative effectiveness of specific therapies for low back pain is limited.
                Among the 5925 inquiries, 206 patients met the specific admission criteria, and 200 patients randomly received one of four treatments for 3 weeks: back school, joint manipulation, myofascial therapy, and combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy. These patients received assessments at baseline, after 3 weeks of therapy, and 6 months after the completion of therapy. The primary outcomes were evaluated using visual analog pain scales and Roland-Morris activity scales.
                All four groups showed significant improvement in pain and activity scores after 3 weeks of care, but did not show further significant improvement at the 6-month follow-up assessment. No statistically significant between-group differences were found either at the 3-week or 6-month reassessments.
                For subacute low back pain, combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy was as effective as joint manipulation or myofascial therapy alone. Additionally, back school was as effective as three manual treatments. 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. Population-based randomized clinical trial.
                To develop and test a model of management of subacute back pain, to prevent prolonged disability.
                The present management of back pain seems inadequate, and development of innovative models has been urged.
                A model for the treatment of subacute work-related back pain has been developed and evaluated in a population-based randomized clinical trial. Workers (n = 130) from eligible workplaces in the Sherbrooke area (N = 31), who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks for back pain, were randomized, based on their workplace, in one of four treatment groups: usual care, clinical intervention, occupational intervention, and full intervention (a combination of the last two). The duration of absence from regular work and from any work was evaluated using survival analysis. Functional status and pain were compared at study entry and after 1 year of follow-up.
                The full intervention group returned to regular work 2.41 times faster than the usual care intervention group (95% confidence interval 1.19-4.89; P < 0.01). The specific effect of the occupational intervention accounted for the most important part of this result, with a rate ratio of return to regular work of 1.91 (95% confidence interval = 1.18-3.10; P < 0.01). Pain and disability scales demonstrated either a statistically significant reduction or a trend toward reduction in the three intervention groups, compared with the trend in the usual care intervention group.
                Close association of occupational intervention with clinical care is of primary importance in impeding progression toward chronicity of low back pain. One hundred and twelve patients with acute mechanical low back pain were randomly divided into three treatment groups. All patients received ergonomic advice and then either a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or conservative or manipulative types of physiotherapy. Serial assessments of pain and spinal mobility showed similar response rates in all three treatment groups and no significant difference between therapies. The overall improvement ratings, time off work, and economic cost favoured the group treated with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, but this group had a better range of spinal flexion at the onset so firm conclusions regarding the preferred management of these patients in general practice cannot be drawn. Treatment failures occurred in all groups highlighting the need for a variety of therapeutic approaches in managing the patient with low back pain. Although acupressure has been reported to be effective in managing various types of pain, its efficacy in relieving pain associated with low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of acupressure with that of physical therapy in reducing low back pain.
                A randomized controlled clinical trial in an orthopedic referral hospital in Taiwan was conducted between December 20, 2000, and March 2, 2001. A total of 146 participants with chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to the acupressure group (69) or the physical therapy group (77), each with a different treatment technique. Self-appraised pain scores were obtained before treatment as baseline and after treatment as outcomes using the Chinese version of Short-Form Pain Questionnaire (SF-PQ).
                There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among patients randomized into the two groups. The mean of posttreatment pain score after a 4-week treatment (2.28, SD = 2.62) in the acupressure group was significantly lower than that in the physical therapy group (5.05, SD = 5.11) (P = 0.0002). At the 6-month follow-up assessment, the mean of pain score in the acupressure group (1.08, SD = 1.43) was still significantly lower than that in the physical therapy group (3.15, SD = 3.62) (P = 0.0004).
                Our results suggest that acupressure is another effective alternative medicine in reducing low back pain, although the standard operating procedures involved with acupressure treatment should be carefully assessed in the future.
                Copyright 2004 The Institute for Cancer Prevention and Elsevier Inc. 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) Bed rest and back-extension exercises are often prescribed for patients with acute low back pain, but the effectiveness of these two competing treatments remains controversial.
                We conducted a controlled trial among employees of the city of Helsinki, Finland, who presented to an occupational health care center with acute, nonspecific low back pain. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: bed rest for two days (67 patients), back-mobilizing exercises (52 patients), or the continuation of ordinary activities as tolerated (the control group; 67 patients). Outcomes and costs were assessed after 3 and 12 weeks.
                After 3 and 12 weeks, the patients in the control group had better recovery than those prescribed either bed rest or exercises. There were statistically significant differences favoring the control group in the duration of pain, pain intensity, lumbar flexion, ability to work as measured subjectively, the Oswestry back-disability index, and number of days absent from work. Recovery was slowest among the patients assigned to bed rest. The overall costs of care did not differ significantly among the three groups.
                Among patients with acute low back pain, continuing ordinary activities within the limits permitted by the pain leads to more rapid recovery than either bed rest or back-mobilizing exercises. The aim of this study was to determine whether graded activity restored occupational function in industrial blue-collar workers who were sick-listed for 8 weeks because of subacute, nonspecific, mechanical low back pain (LBP). Patients with LBP, who had been examined by an orthopedic surgeon and a social worker, were randomly assigned to either an activity group (n = 51) or a control group (n = 52). Patients with defined orthopedic, medical, or psychiatric diagnoses were excluded before randomization. The graded activity program consisted of four parts: (1) measurements of functional capacity; (2) a work-place visit; (3) back school education; and (4) an individual, submaximal, gradually increased exercise program, with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach, based on the results of the tests and the demands of the patient's work. Records of the amount of sick leave taken over a 3-year period (ie, the 1-year periods before, during, and after intervention) were obtained from each patient's Social Insurance Office. The patients in the activity group returned to work significantly earlier than did the patients in the control group. The median number of physical therapist appointments before return to work was 5, and the average number of appointments was 10.7 (SD = 12.3). The average duration of sick leave attributable to LBP during the second follow-up year was 12.1 weeks (SD = 18.4) in the activity group and 19.6 weeks (SD = 20.7) in the control group. Four patients in the control group and 1 patient in the activity group received permanent disability pensions. The graded activity program made the patients occupationally functional again, as measured by return to work and significantly reduced long-term sick leave. The professional literature contains relatively few randomized-control studies that have assessed the efficacy of physical therapy approaches to the management of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). The purposes of this study were: 1) to investigate the effects of physical agents, joint manipulation, low-tech exercise, and high-tech exercise on objective measures of CLBP; 2) to track the length of CLBP relief; and 3) to determine treatment cost-effectiveness. Two-hundred-fifty subjects (68 females, 182 males; ages 34-51 years) with CLBP following an L5 laminectomy were randomly assigned into five separate groups for a treatment period of 8 weeks. Chronic low back pain status was measured by modified-modified Schober, Cybex Liftask, and Oswestry procedures. Results revealed that: 1) only low-tech and high-tech exercise produced significant improvements (p < .05) in CLBP, 2) the mean period of CLBP relief ranged from 1.6 weeks (control) to 91.4 weeks (low-tech exercise), and 3) low-tech exercise was most cost-effective. It was concluded that: 1) low-tech and high-tech exercise were the only effective treatments for CLBP, 2) low-tech exercise produced the longest period of CLBP relief, and 3) low-tech exercise was the most cost-effective form of treatment. Clinically, low-tech exercise may be the treatment method of choice for the effective management of chronic low back pain. A randomized trial.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of a semi-intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain in an outpatient setting.
                Systematic reviews have shown that there is strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary treatment (>100 hours), which includes functional restoration, improves function among chronic patients with low back pain, and moderate evidence that it reduces pain but contradictory evidence regarding improvement of working ability. However, there is paucity of data whether semi-intensive outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation in groups is more effective than individual physiotherapy.
                A total of 120 women employed as healthcare and social care professionals with nonspecific chronic low back pain were recruited from two occupational healthcare centers. The patients were randomized into two intervention programs. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation (n = 59) was conducted in groups and comprised of physical training, workplace interventions, back school, relaxation training, and cognitive-behavioral stress management methods for 70 hours. The individual physiotherapy (n = 61) included physical exercise and passive treatment methods administered for 10 hours. Main outcome measures were: back pain and sciatic pain intensity, disability, sick leaves, healthcare consumption, symptoms of depression, and beliefs of working ability after 2 years.
                There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in main outcome measures just after rehabilitation, at 6-, at 12-, or 24-month follow-up. In both intervention arms, however, the before-and-after comparison showed favorable effects, and the effects were still maintained at 2 years follow-up.
                The results of this study indicate that semilight outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for female chronic low back pain patients does not offer incremental benefits when compared with rehabilitation carried out by a physiotherapist having a cognitive-behavioral way of administering the treatment. Low back pain is a common medical and social problem associated with disability and absence from work. Knowledge on effective return to work (RTW) interventions is scarce.
                To determine the effectiveness of graded activity as part of a multistage RTW programme.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Occupational healthcare.
                112 workers absent from work for more than eight weeks due to low back pain were randomised to either graded activity (n = 55) or usual care (n = 57).
                Graded activity, a physical exercise programme aimed at RTW based on operant-conditioning behavioural principles.
                The number of days off work until first RTW for more then 28 days, total number of days on sick leave during follow up, functional status, and severity of pain. Follow up was 26 weeks.
                Graded activity prolonged RTW. Median time until RTW was equal to the total number of days on sick leave and was 139 (IQR = 69) days in the graded activity group and 111 (IQR = 76) days in the usual care group (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86). An interaction between a prior workplace intervention and graded activity, together with a delay in the start of the graded activity intervention, explained most of the delay in RTW (hazard ratio = 0.86, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.84 without prior intervention and 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81 with prior intervention). Graded activity did not improve pain or functional status clinically significantly.
                Graded activity was not effective for any of the outcome measures. Different interventions combined can lead to a delay in RTW. Delay in referral to graded activity delays RTW. In implementing graded activity special attention should be paid to the structure and process of care. In a randomized, observer-blind trial, 150 men and women, aged 21-64 years, with chronic/subchronic low-back pain, followed one of these three treatment regimens: 1) intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises; 2) conventional physiotherapy, including isometric exercises for the trunk and leg muscles; and 3) placebo-control treatment involving semihot packs and light traction. Eight treatment sessions were given during the course of 4 weeks, each session lasting 1 hour. The short-term effect was evaluated at the end of the treatment period and 1 month later, and the long-term effect at 6 and 12 months. The evaluations included recording of changes in pain level and assessment of overall treatment effect, which were indicated on visual interval scales. Subgroups of patients could be identified according to their treatment responses: physiotherapy was the superior treatment for the male participants, whereas the intensive back exercises appeared to be most efficient for the female participants. Patients with moderate or hard physical occupations tended toward a better response with physiotherapy, whereas intensive back exercises seemed most effective for those with sedentary/light job functions. Americans with low back pain have been helped to return to work by multidisciplinary intensive treatment programs. Whether this treatment method will succeed in countries with a more generous social welfare system, where the incentive to return to work might be less, is not proven.
                To evaluate a Danish program of functional restoration combined with behavioral support.
                Patients who had experienced at least 6 months of disabling low back pain were randomly assigned to either a 3-week intensive treatment program (n = 55) or an untreated control group (n = 51).
                Of the 106 patients randomized, 94 (89%) returned for a 4-month follow-up visit. At that time, 29 (64%) of the 45 treated patients were able to work, compared with 14 of 49 (29%) in the control group. The treated patients had used fewer days of sick leave (P < .02), had contacted health care. professionals fewer times (P < .001), and had lower pain and disability scores.
                Although such programs are expensive, they can reduce pension expenditures, sick leave days, health care contacts, and pain. A randomized study comparing the results of active rehabilitation and passive control treatment in patients with chronic low back pain with follow-up at 6 months and 1 year.
                To study the efficacy of active rehabilitation on pain, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability.
                Exercises in an outpatient setting are widely used for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The efficacy of the active rehabilitation approach has been documented in randomized control studies, but these studies have seldom been focused on lumbar fatigability, which is now recognized as a frequent problem among patients with chronic low back pain.
                Fifty-nine middle-aged patients (37 men and 22 women) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to 12 weeks' active rehabilitation or to a passive control treatment (massage, thermal therapy). Pain and disability index, low back pain intensity (visual analog scale, 100 mm), and the objectively assessed lumbar muscle fatigability (spectral electromyogram, mean power frequency slope [MPFSLOPE]) in a new 90-second submaximal isoinertial back endurance test were recorded before and after the interventions and at 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits.
                Results of repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that back pain intensity (visual analog scale) and functional disability (pain and disability index score) decreased, and lumbar endurance (MPFSLOPE) improved significantly more (P < 0.05) in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group, when measured at a 1-year follow-up examination. The group difference in visual analog scale and pain and disability index changes became even more significant at the end of 1 year. The change in lumbar endurance was significantly greater in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group at the 6-month follow-up, but not at the 1-year follow-up.
                The active progressive treatment program was more successful in reducing pain and self-experienced disability and also in improving lumbar endurance than was the passive control treatment. However, the group difference in lumbar endurance tended to diminish at the 1-year follow-up. 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. To evaluate the effect of function-centered compared with pain-centered inpatient rehabilitation in patients whose absence from work is due to chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP).
                Single-blinded randomized controlled trial with follow-up assessments immediately after treatment and at 3 months.
                Center for work rehabilitation in Switzerland.
                Patients with more than 6 weeks of work absence due to chronic nonspecific LBP (N=174; 137 men, 37 women; mean age +/- standard deviation, 42+/-8 y; mean sick leave before study, 6.5 mo).
                Function-centered treatment (FCT) (4h/d, 6d/wk, for 3 wk) consisted of work simulation, strength, endurance, and cardiovascular training. Pain-centered treatment (PCT) (2.5h/d, 6d/wk, for 3 wk) used a mini back school, individually selected passive and active mobilization, stretching, and low-intensity strength training.
                The number of days at work in 3 months after treatment, self-efficacy, lifting capacity, pain, mobility, strength, and global perceived effect. Effect sizes (ESs) (Cohen d ) were defined as small (ES range, 0.2-0.5), moderate (ES range, 0.5-0.8), and large (ES, >0.8).
                Groups were comparable at baseline. Moderate ESs for the FCT group versus PCT group were found for days at work (25.9 d vs 15.8d, ES=.36, P =.029), self-efficacy (5.9 points vs -7.4 points, ES=.55, P =.003), and lifting capacity (2.3 kg vs 0.2 kg, ES=.54, P =.004).
                Function-centered rehabilitation increases the number of work days, self-efficacy, and lifting capacity in patients with nonacute nonspecific LBP. This study was designed to investigate the relative efficacy of cognitive-behavioral group treatment, including relaxation training, in comparison with a control condition in a sample of 20 outpatients with chronic low back pain. Subjects in both conditions also received the same physiotherapy back-education and exercise program. The control condition included a control for the attention of the therapist in the cognitive-behavioral treatment. The combined psychological treatment and physiotherapy condition displayed significantly greater improvement than the attention-control and physiotherapy condition at post-treatment on measures of other-rated functional impairment, use of active coping strategies, self-efficacy beliefs, and medication use. These differences were maintained at 6 month follow-up on use of active coping strategies and, to a lesser degree, on self-efficacy beliefs and other-rated functional impairment. Manipulative therapy as part of a multidimensional approach may be more effective than standard physical therapy in treating Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain. 64 participants, 29 women and 35 men, with Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain and a mean age of 40 yr. (SD=9.6) were randomly assigned to two groups: an experimental group (manipulative therapy plus physical therapy) and a control group (only physical therapy). A multicentre, nonblinded, randomised clinical trial was conducted. Pain relief was the main performance criteria measured together with secondary criteria which included functional status and mobility of the lower back. Fritz, Childs, and Flynn's clinical prediction rule--a duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no pain distal of the knee--was used to analyse the results. In combination with an age >35 years, results showed a statistical significant effect for disability, but no statistically significant benefit of additional manipulative therapy over physical therapy found for pain and mobility within 4 treatments. Controlled for the applied clinical prediction rule, there were statistically significant interaction effects with low effect size for disability and sex, but no significant effects were found for pain of mobility. Manual therapy, exercise and education target distinct aspects of chronic low back pain and probably have distinct effects. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a combined physiotherapy treatment that comprised all of these strategies. By concealed randomisation, 57 chronic low back pain patients were allocated to either the four-week physiotherapy program or management as directed by their general practitioners. The dependent variables of interest were pain and disability. Assessors were blind to treatment group. Outcome data from 49 subjects (86%) showed a significant treatment effect. The physiotherapy program reduced pain and disability by a mean of 1.5/10 points on a numerical rating scale (95% CI 0.7 to 2.3) and 3.9 points on the 18-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (95% CI 2 to 5.8), respectively. The number needed to treat in order to gain a clinically meaningful change was 3 (95% CI 3 to 8) for pain, and 2 (95% CI 2 to 5) for disability. A treatment effect was maintained at one-year follow-up. The findings support the efficacy of combined physiotherapy treatment in producing symptomatic and functional change in moderately disabled chronic low back pain patients. The effects of outpatient group behavioral therapy including aerobic exercise (BE), behavioral therapy only (B), and aerobic exercise only (E) on pain and physical and psychosocial disability were evaluated and compared in a group of mildly disabled chronic low-back-pain patients. Ninety-six Ss were randomly assigned to the 3 treatments and a waiting-list control (WL) condition and assessed on a variety of patient self-report, spouse-rated, and direct observational measures at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Patients in the BE condition, but not the B or E conditions, improved significantly more pretreatment to posttreatment than did WL patients on the patient self-report and observer-rated measures. At both follow-ups, all 3 treatment groups remained significantly improved from pretreatment, with no significant differences among treatments. Forty-five low back pain patients were randomly assigned to either a standard inpatient rehabilitation program or the standard program with additional psychological components. The standard program emphasized education, support, and physical reconditioning through exercise. Patients receiving the psychological program were given additional training in relaxation and other coping skills and received contingent reinforcement for exercise. Both programs included reduction of medication intake and an emphasis on family involvement after discharge. Measures of functional status were taken prior to the program, at discharge from the 3-week inpatient program, and at a 6-month follow-up appointment. These data revealed that patients improved their overall functioning at discharge and maintained these gains at the follow-up assessment. A similar pattern of findings was obtained for self-reported pain and interference. Furthermore, 81% of the patients had returned to work or were engaged in active job retraining by the follow-up. Using a conservative measure of full-time return to the same or an equivalent job, 57% were employed by the follow-up. Patient improvement, however, was not differentially affected by treatment group assignment, suggesting that the psychological treatment failed to add to the effectiveness obtained by the standard rehabilitation program. Results are discussed in the context of improving patient outcomes from rehabilitation for low back pain. A prospective randomized controlled trial.
                To examine the effectiveness of combined manipulative treatment, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared with physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain.
                Strong evidence exists that manual therapy provides more effective short-term pain relief than does placebo treatment in the management of chronic low back pain. The evidence for long-term effect is lacking.
                Two hundred four chronic low back pain patients, whose Oswestry disability index was at least 16%, were randomly assigned to either a manipulative-treatment group or a consultation group. All were clinically examined, informed about their back pain, provided with an educational booklet, and were given specific instructions based on the clinical evaluation. The treatment included four sessions of manipulation and stabilizing exercises aiming to correct the lumbopelvic rhythm. Questionnaires inquired about pain intensity, self-rated disability, mental depression, health-related quality of life, health care costs, and production costs.
                At the baseline, the groups were comparable, except for the percentage of employees (P = 0.01). At the 5- and 12-month follow-ups, the manipulative-treatment group showed more significant reductions in pain intensity (P < 0.001) and in self-rated disability (P = 0.002) than the consultation group. However, we detected no significant difference between the groups in health-related quality of life or in costs.
                The manipulative treatment with stabilizing exercises was more effective in reducing pain intensity and disability than the physician consultation alone. The present study showed that short, specific treatment programs with proper patient information may alter the course of chronic low back pain. We evaluated three different conservative treatment methods for acute low-back pain patients in groups following a manual therapy programme, an intensive training programme, or a general practitioner programme, the latter serving as the control group. Patients aged 19-64 years on sick leave for low-back pain with or without sciatica were included in a prospective randomised study evaluating outcomes such as impairment, pain, functional disability, socio-economic disability and satisfaction with the treatment or explanations. Evaluation by unbiased observers was performed at 1, 3 and 12 months. The three treatment groups were comparable at baseline. With regard to satisfaction, the patients in the manual therapy programme and those in the intensive training programme were more satisfied with the treatment than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. With regard to the explanations of current low-back pain episodes, the patients in the manual therapy programme were more satisfied than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. The manual therapy programme group were also more satisfied with the explanations than those in the intensive training programme at the 1-month follow-up. However, no differences were revealed between the groups with respect to outcomes on measures of impairment, pain, functional disability or socioeconomic disability. All three study groups showed rapid improvement. After 1 month a significant improvement was noted in all outcome values compared with the values on entry to the study. Within the limitations discussed in our study, it is concluded that (1) patients sick listed with acute low-back pain, with or without sciatica, will be significantly improved after 1 month regardless of conservative treatment programme; (2) they will be more satisfied with the treatment if they are referred to a manual treatment programme or a training treatment programme; (3) they will be more satisfied with the explanations of the acute low-back problem if they are referred to one of the above groups, especially the manual treatment group; (4) they will not show any other differences with respect to subjective and objective variables, either at short-term or at long-term follow-ups. To assess the effect of a combined exercise and motivation program on the compliance and level of disability of patients with chronic and recurrent low back pain.
                A double-blind prospective randomized controlled trial.
                Physical therapy outpatient department, tertiary care.
                Ninety-three low back pain patients were randomly assigned to either a standard exercise program (n = 49) or a combined exercise and motivation program (n = 44).
                Patients were prescribed 10 physical therapy sessions and were advised to continue exercising after treatment termination. The motivation program consisted of five compliance-enhancing interventions. Follow-up assessments were performed at 3 1/2 weeks, 4 months, and 12 months.
                Disability (low back outcome score), pain intensity, physical impairment (modified Waddell score, fingertip-to-floor distance, abdominal muscle strength), working ability, motivation, and compliance.
                The patients in the motivation group were significantly more likely to attend their exercise therapy appointments (p = .0005). Four and 12 months after study entry there was a significant difference in favor of the motivation group with regard to the disability score (p = .004) and pain intensity (p < or = .026). At 4 months, there was a significant advantage for the motivation group in the fingertip-to-floor distance (p = .01) and in abdominal muscle strength (p = .018). No significant differences were found in motivation scores, self-reported compliance with long-term exercise, and modified Waddell score. In terms of working ability, there was a trend favoring the combined exercise and motivation program.
                The combined exercise and motivation program increased the rate of attendance at scheduled physical therapy sessions, ie, short-term compliance, and reduced disability and pain levels by the 12-month follow-up. However, there was no difference between the motivation and control groups with regard to long-term exercise compliance. The effectiveness of massage therapy for low-back pain has not been documented. This randomized controlled trial compared comprehensive massage therapy (soft-tissue manipulation, remedial exercise and posture education), 2 components of massage therapy and placebo in the treatment of subacute (between 1 week and 8 months) low-back pain.
                Subjects with subacute low-back pain were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: comprehensive massage therapy (n = 25), soft-tissue manipulation only (n = 25), remedial exercise with posture education only (n = 22) or a placebo of sham laser therapy (n = 26). Each subject received 6 treatments within approximately 1 month. Outcome measures obtained at baseline, after treatment and at 1-month follow-up consisted of the Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (PPI and PRI), the State Anxiety Index and the Modified Schober test (lumbar range of motion).
                Of the 107 subjects who passed screening, 98 (92%) completed post-treatment tests and 91 (85%) completed follow-up tests. Statistically significant differences were noted after treatment and at follow-up. The comprehensive massage therapy group had improved function (mean RDQ score 1.54 v. 2.86-6.5, p < 0.001), less intense pain (mean PPI score 0.42 v. 1.18-1.75, p < 0.001) and a decrease in the quality of pain (mean PRI score 2.29 v. 4.55-7.71, p = 0.006) compared with the other 3 groups. Clinical significance was evident for the comprehensive massage therapy group and the soft-tissue manipulation group on the measure of function. At 1-month follow-up 63% of subjects in the comprehensive massage therapy group reported no pain as compared with 27% of the soft-tissue manipulation group, 14% of the remedial exercise group and 0% of the sham laser therapy group.
                Patients with subacute low-back pain were shown to benefit from massage therapy, as regulated by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and delivered by experienced massage therapists.
Exercise therapy appears to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low-back pain, particularly in healthcare populations. In subacute low-back pain there is some evidence that a graded activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, though evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low-back pain, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments.