LOW BACK PAIN
Chou, Deyo, Friedly, Skelly, Hashimoto, Weimer, Fu, Dana, Kraegel, Griffin, Grusing, & Brodt (2017) Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline
Background A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed nonpharmacologic treatment options for low back pain. New evidence is now available.
Purpose To systematically review the current evidence on nonpharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.
Data Sources Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through February 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists.
Study Selection Randomized trials of 9 nonpharmacologic options versus sham treatment, wait list, or usual care, or of 1 nonpharmacologic option versus another.
Data Extraction One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked abstractions for accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.
Data Synthesis The number of trials evaluating nonpharmacologic therapies ranged from 2 (tai chi) to 121 (exercise). New evidence indicates that tai chi (strength of evidence [SOE], low) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (SOE, moderate) are effective for chronic low back pain and strengthens previous findings regarding the effectiveness of yoga (SOE, moderate). Evidence continues to support the effectiveness of exercise, psychological therapies, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, spinal manipulation, massage, and acupuncture for chronic low back pain (SOE, low to moderate). Limited evidence shows that acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain (SOE, low). The magnitude of pain benefits was small to moderate and generally short term; effects on function generally were smaller than effects on pain.
Limitation Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses, restricted to English-language studies; heterogeneity in treatment techniques; and inability to exclude placebo effects.
Conclusion Several nonpharmacologic therapies for primarily chronic low back pain are associated with small to moderate, usually short-term effects on pain; findings include new evidence on mind–body interventions.
O'Connell, Cook, Wand & Ward (2016) Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines
Given the scale and cost of the low back pain problem, it is imperative that healthcare professionals involved in the care of people with low back pain have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Clinical guidelines exist to promote the consistent best practice, to reduce unwarranted variation and to reduce the use of low-value interventions in patient care. Recent decades have witnessed the publication of a number of such guidelines. In this narrative review, we consider three selected international interdisciplinary guidelines for the management of low back pain. Guideline development methods, consistent recommendations and inconsistencies between these guidelines are critically discussed.
Foster, Anema, Cherkin, Chou, Cohen, Gross, Ferreira, Fritz, Koes, Peul, Turner, Maher (2018) Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions
Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies