Multidisciplinary Group Rehabilitation Versus Individual Physiotherapy for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Predictors of efficacy in treatment of chronic low back pain. Role of Physical Exercise in Low Back Pain Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Three-Month Exercise Program in Patients Who Have Completed Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Treatment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prognostic Model for Its Outcome Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus outpatient physiotherapy for non specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial. Interventional Therapies, Surgery, and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation for Low Back Pain: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society ISSLS Prize Winner: Early Predictors of Chronic Work Disability: A Prospective, Population-Based Study of Workers With Back Injuries Psychosocial Predictors of Outcome in Acute and Subchronic Low Back Trouble Massage for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group Can It Be Predicted Which Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Should Be Offered Tertiary Rehabilitation in a Functional Restoration Program?: A Search for Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Physical Predictors Effectiveness of physical therapist administered spinal manipulation for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature. Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Low Back Pain Recurrence in Occupational Environments Stretching in the Rehabilitation of Low-Back Pain Patients Prediction of Success From a Multidisciplinary Treatment Program for Chronic Low Back Pain Factors Predicting Pain Reduction in Chronic Back and Neck Pain After Multimodal Treatment Psychological features and outcomes of the Back School treatment in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. A randomized controlled study. Comparison of three intensive programs for chronic low back pain patients: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study with one-year follow-up. Which Prognostic Factors for Low Back Pain Are Generic Predictors of Outcome Across a Range of Recovery Domains? Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society Change Factors Explaining Reductions of “Interference” in a Multidisciplinary and an Exercise Prevention Program for Low Back Pain Quality of life improved by multidisciplinary back school program in patıents with chronic non-specific low back pain: a single blind randomized controlled trial.
Study Design . A r and omized trial . Objective . To evaluate the effectiveness of a semi-intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain in an outpatient setting . Summary and Background Data . Systematic review s 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 . Material s and Methods . 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 r and omized 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 . Results . 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 . Conclusions . 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 The investigation of predictors for therapy outcome in patients with chronic low back pain date back to the early 1970s . Numerous well controlled prospect i ve longitudinal studies have confirmed the predominant predictive power of several psychological factors , which are in addition to objective work related , medical and sociodemographic variables . Studies published in the review period have reported markedly improved method ological st and ards . Further progress is seen with the enhanced search for predictors of working situation in chronic low back pain patients . Finally , there is a shift toward the investigation of predictors for efficacy of primary care in acute and subchronic low back pain patients Study Design . R and omized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up . Objective . To analyze the effects of an exercise program or routine follow-up on patients with chronic low back pain who have completed functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation . The short- and long-term outcome in terms of symptoms and physical and social functioning was compared . Summary of Background Data . Systematic review s have shown that functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves physical function and reduces pain in patients with chronic low back pain . However , long-term maintenance of these improvements is inconsistent and the role of exercise in achieving this goal is unclear . Methods . One hundred five chronic patients with low back pain who had completed a 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation program were r and omized to either a 3-month exercise program ( n = 56 ) or routine follow-up ( n = 49 ) . The exercise program consisted of 24 training sessions during 12 weeks . Patients underwent evaluations of trunk muscle endurance , cardiovascular endurance , lumbar spine mobility ( flexion and extension range-of-motion , fingertip-to-floor distance ) , pain and perceived functional ability at the beginning and the end of functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation , at the end of the exercise program ( 3 months ) and at 1-year follow-up . Disability was also assessed at the same time points except at the beginning of functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation . Results . At the end of the functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation , both groups improved significantly in all physical parameters except flexion and extension range-of-motion . At the 3 month and 1 year follow-up , both groups maintained improvements in all parameters except for cardiovascular endurance . Only the exercise program group improved in disability score and trunk muscle endurance . No differences between groups were found . Conclusion . A favorable long-term outcome was observed after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation in both patient groups . Patients who participated in an exercise program obtained some additional benefits . The relevance of these benefits to overall health status need to be further investigated Objectives ( 1 ) To determine if treatment outcome in chronic low back pain can be predicted by a predefined multivariate prognostic model based on consistent predictors from the literature and ( 2 ) to explore the value of potentially prognostic factors further . Methods Data were derived from a r and omized controlled trial on the effect of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain compared with usual care .  The primary outcome measure was the Rol and and Morris Disability Question naire and secondary outcomes were the Physical and Mental Component Summary Scales , derived from the Short Form Health Survey . Outcomes were expressed as the differences between baseline and follow-up ( 8 wk and 6 mo ) values . A confirmatory and an exploratory model were defined . Baseline predictors included in the confirmatory model were pain intensity , work status , and Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroup membership . The exploratory model included sick leave , compensation , depression , and fear-avoidance beliefs . Statistical analysis was performed using multiple linear regression analysis . Results One hundred and sixty-three patients participated in the study . More pain was prognostic for more improvement in the rehabilitation group . No value was found for work status or the Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroups . For the exploratory model , more depression and fear-avoidance beliefs predicted more improvement after rehabilitation . The explained variance ranged from 18.5 % to 43.8 % depending on the length of follow-up evaluation , the treatment group , and the outcome variable of interest . Discussion The results of this study do not support the construction of a clinical prediction model . Future confirmative studies of homogeneous rehabilitation treatments and outcome measures are needed to shed more light on relevant prognostic factors BACKGROUND Multiple sclerosis ( MS ) is a major cause of chronic , neurological disability , with a significant long-term disability burden , often requiring comprehensive rehabilitation . OBJECTIVES To systematic ally evaluate evidence from published Cochrane Review s of clinical trials to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions for people with MS ( pwMS ) , to improve patient outcomes , and to highlight current gaps in knowledge . METHODS We search ed the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s up to December 2017 , to identify Cochrane Review s that assessed the effectiveness of organised rehabilitation interventions for pwMS . Two review ers independently assessed the quality of included review s , using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review s ( R-AMSTAR ) tool , and the quality of the evidence for reported outcomes , using the GRADE framework . MAIN RESULTS Overall , we included 15 review s published in the Cochrane Library , comprising 164 r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) and four controlled clinical trials , with a total of 10,396 participants . The included review s evaluated a wide range of rehabilitation interventions , including : physical activity and exercise therapy , hyperbaric oxygen therapy ( HBOT ) , whole-body vibration , occupational therapy , cognitive and psychological interventions , nutritional and dietary supplements , vocational rehabilitation , information provision , telerehabilitation , and interventions for the management of spasticity . We assessed all review s to be of high to moderate method ological quality , based on R-AMSTAR criteria .Moderate- quality evidence suggested that physical therapeutic modalities ( exercise and physical activities ) improved functional outcomes ( mobility , muscular strength ) , reduced impairment ( fatigue ) , and improved participation ( quality of life ) . Moderate- quality evidence suggested that inpatient or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes led to longer-term gains at the levels of activity and participation , and interventions that provided information improved patient knowledge . Low-qualitty evidence suggested that neuropsychological interventions , symptom-management programmes ( spasticity ) , whole body vibration , and telerehabilitation improved some patient outcomes . Evidence for other rehabilitation modalities was inconclusive , due to lack of robust studies . AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that regular specialist evaluation and follow-up to assess the needs of patients with all types of MS for appropriate rehabilitation interventions may be of benefit , although the certainty of evidence varies across the different types of interventions evaluated by the review s. Structured , multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes and physical therapy ( exercise or physical activities ) can improve functional outcomes ( mobility , muscle strength , aerobic capacity ) , and quality of life . Overall , the evidence for many rehabilitation interventions should be interpreted cautiously , as the majority of included review s did not include data from current studies . More studies , with appropriate design , which report the type and intensity of modalities and their cost-effectiveness are needed to address the current gaps in knowledge INTRODUCTION In recent decades the treatment of non-specific low back pain has turned to active modalities , some of which were based on cognitive-behavioural principles . Non-r and omised studies clearly favour functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation over outpatient physiotherapy . However , systematic review s and meta- analysis provide contradictory evidence regarding the effects on return to work and functional status . The aim of the present r and omised study was to compare long-term functional and work status after 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation or 18 supervised outpatient physiotherapy sessions . METHODS 109 patients with non-specific low back pain were r and omised to either a 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme , including physical and ergonomic training , psychological pain management , back school and information , or 18 sessions of active outpatient physiotherapy over 9 weeks . Primary outcomes were functional disability ( Oswestry ) and work status . Secondary outcomes were lifting capacity ( Spinal Function Sort and PILE test ) , lumbar range-of-motion ( modified-modified Schöber and fingertip-to-floor tests ) , trunk muscle endurance ( Shirado and Biering-Sörensen tests ) and aerobic capacity ( modified Bruce test ) . RESULTS Oswestry disability index was improved to a significantly greater extent after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to outpatient physiotherapy at follow-up of 9 weeks ( P = 0.012 ) , 9 months ( P = 0.023 ) and 12 months ( P = 0.011 ) . Work status was significantly improved after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation only ( P = 0.012 ) , result ing in a significant difference compared to outpatient physiotherapy at 12 months ' follow-up ( P = 0.012 ) . Secondary outcome results were more contrasted . CONCLUSIONS Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation was better than outpatient physiotherapy in improving functional and work status . From an economic point of view , these results should be backed up by a cost-effectiveness study Study Design . Clinical practice guideline . Objective . To develop evidence -based recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies , surgeries , and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain of any duration , with or without leg pain . Summary of Background Data . Management of patients with persistent and disabling low back pain remains a clinical challenge . A number of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies and surgery are available and their use is increasing , but in some cases their utility remains uncertain or controversial . Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has also been proposed as a potentially effective noninvasive intervention for persistent and disabling low back pain . Methods . A multidisciplinary panel was convened by the American Pain Society . Its recommendations were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from r and omized controlled trials . Recommendations were grade d using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development , and Evaluation Working Group . Results . Investigators review ed 3348 abstract s. A total of 161 r and omized trials were deemed relevant to the recommendations in this guideline . The panel developed a total of 8 recommendations . Conclusion . Recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies , surgery , and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are presented . Due to important trade-offs between potential benefits , harms , costs , and burdens of alternative therapies , shared decision-making is an important component of a number of the recommendations Study Design . Prospect i ve population -based cohort study . Objective . To identify early predictors of chronic work disability after work-related back injury . Summary of Background Data . Identification of early predictors of prolonged disability after back injury could increase underst and ing concerning the development of chronic , disabling pain , and aid in secondary prevention . Few studies have examined predictors across multiple domains in a large , population -based sample . Methods . Workers ( N = 1885 ) were interviewed 3 weeks ( average ) after su bmi tting a lost work-time cl aim for a back injury .  Sociodemographic , employment-related , pain and function , clinical , health care , administrative/legal , health behavior , and psychological domain variables were assessed via worker interviews , medical records , and administrative data bases . Logistic regression analyses identified early predictors of work disability compensation 1 year after cl aim su bmi ssion . Results . Significant baseline predictors of 1-year work disability in the final multidomain model were injury severity ( rated from medical records ) , specialty of the first health care provider seen for the injury ( obtained from administrative data ) , and worker-reported physical disability ( Rol and -Morris disability question naire ) , number of pain sites , “ very hectic ” job , no offer of a job accommodation ( e.g. , light duty ) , and previous injury involving a month or more off work . The model showed excellent ability to discriminate between workers who were/were not disabled at 1 year ( area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.88 , 95 % CI = 0.86–0.90 ) . Conclusion . Among workers with new lost work-time back injury cl aims , risk factors for chronic disability include radiculopathy , substantial functional disability , and to a lesser extent , more widespread pain and previous injury with extended time off work . The roles of employers and health care providers also seem important , supporting the need to incorporate factors external to the worker in models of the development of chronic disability and in disability prevention efforts Study Design A prospect i ve survey of patients seeking primary care for low back pain . Clinical and psychosocial data , available at presentation , were explored for predictors of outcome at 1 year . Objectives To determine the relative value of clinical and psychosocial variables for early identification of patients with a poor prognosis . Summary of Background Data Current treatment strategies for low back pain have failed to stem the rising levels of disability . Psychosocial factors have been shown to be important determinants of response to therapy in chronic patients , but the contribution from similar data in acute or subchronic patients has not been comprehensively investigated . Methods Two hundred fifty-two patients with low back pain , presenting to primary care , underwent a structured clinical interview and completed a battery of psychosocial instruments . Follow-up was done by mail at 1 year ; outcome was measured using a back pain disability question naire . Predictive relationships were sought between the data at presentation and disability at follow-up . Results Most patients showed improved disability and pain scores , although more than half had persisting symptoms . Eighteen percent showed significant psychological distress at presentation . Multiple regression analysis showed the level of persisting disability to depend principally on measures in the psychosocial domain ; for acute cases outcome is also dependent on the absence or presence of a previous history of low back trouble . Discriminant models successfully allocated typically 76 % of cases to recovered/not-recovered groups , largely on the basis of psychosocial factors evident at presentation . Conclusions Early identification of psychosocial problems is important in underst and ing , and hopefully preventing , the progression to chronicity in low back trouble Study Design . Systematic Review . Objectives . To assess the effects of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain . Summary of Background Data . Low back pain is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society . Proponents of massage therapy cl aim it can minimize pain and disability , and speed return to normal function . Methods . We search ed MEDLINE , EMBASE , CINAHL from their beginning to May 2008 . We also search ed the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( The Cochrane Library 2006 , issue 3 ) , HealthSTAR and Dissertation abstract s up to 2006 . There were no language restrictions . References in the included studies and in review s of the literature were screened . The studies had to be r and omized or quasi-r and omized trials investigating the use of any type of massage ( using the h and s or a mechanical device ) as a treatment for nonspecific low back pain . Two review authors selected the studies , assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group , and extracted the data using st and ardized forms . Both qualitative and meta-analyses were performed . Results . Thirteen r and omized trials were included . Eight had a high risk and 5 had a low risk of bias . One study was published in German and the rest in English . Massage was compared to an inert therapy ( sham treatment ) in 2 studies that showed that massage was superior for pain and function on both short- and long-term follow-ups . In 8 studies , massage was compared to other active treatments . They showed that massage was similar to exercises , and massage was superior to joint mobilization , relaxation therapy , physical therapy , acupuncture , and self-care education . One study showed that reflexology on the feet had no effect on pain and functioning . The beneficial effects of massage in patients with chronic low back pain  lasted at least 1 year after the end of the treatment . Two studies compared 2 different techniques of massage . One concluded that acupuncture massage produces better results than classic ( Swedish ) massage and another concluded that Thai massage produces similar results to classic ( Swedish ) massage . Conclusion . Massage might be beneficial for patients with subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain , especially when combined with exercises and education . The evidence suggests that acupuncture massage is more effective than classic massage , but this need confirmation . More studies are needed to confirm these conclusions , to assess the impact of massage on return-to-work , and to determine cost-effectiveness of massage  as an intervention for low back pain Study Design . A prospect i ve clinical trial was conducted that involved six groups of patients with chronic low back pain selected from a large cohort ( N = 816 ) . Objectives . To correlate pretreatment baseline variables with outcome parameters after treatment in a functional restoration program or in control programs , to identify possible factors predictive of the need for functional restoration . Summary of Background Data . Since the functional restoration program was first described , research has focused on identifying patients who will or will not benefit from such a program . The value of previous studies is limited , however , because predictive factors from a control group were not " subtracted . " Methods . Eight hundred sixteen patients with chronic low back disability were included . All had a structured medical examination , including various physical tests before participation in either a functional restoration program ( n = 621 ) or shorter " control " outpatient programs ( n = 144 ) . A smaller group of the cohort ( n = 51 ) had no treatment and served as a pure control group . Six groups were selected from the cohort : Three underwent an identical functional restoration program and three underwent different outpatient control programs . Several baseline demographic , physical , and socioeconomic variables were correlated to 1‐year outcome parameters . Results . Age , days of sick leave , connection to the work force , and back pain intensity , were significantly correlated to success 1 year after entry into the study in all groups , no matter what kind of treatment was administered . Back muscle endurance , sports activity , activity of daily living scores , and vibrations were of importance in some outcome parameters for success after functional restoration . Smoking was positively correlated to disability pension . Days of sick leave and , in functional restoration , ability to work were the only factors that were correlative with statistics for people who withdrew . Conclusions . Different factors can be identified as predictive of outcome in a functional restoration program , but most of these factors were also shown to predict success for shorter control outpatient programs or of no treatment BACKGROUND CONTEXT Low back pain ( LBP ) is a prevalent disorder in society that has been associated with increased loss of work time and medical expenses . A common intervention for LBP is spinal manipulation , a technique that is not specific to one scope of practice or profession . PURPOSE The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of physical therapy spinal manipulations for the treatment of patients with low back pain . METHODS A search of the current literature was conducted using PubMed , CINAHL , SPORTD iscus , Pro Quest Nursing and Allied Health Source , Scopus , and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register . Studies were included if each involved : 1 ) individuals with LBP ; 2 ) spinal manipulations performed by physical therapists compared to any control group that did not receive manipulations ; 3 ) measurable clinical outcomes or efficiency of treatment measures , and 4 ) r and omized control trials . The quality of included articles was determined by two independent authors using the criteria developed and used by the Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ( PEDro ) . RESULTS Six r and omized control trials met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review . The most commonly used outcomes in these studies were some variation of pain rating scales and disability indexes . Notable results included varying degrees of effect sizes favoring physical therapy spinal manipulations and minimal adverse events result ing from this intervention . Additionally , the manipulation group in one study reported statistically significantly less medication use , health care utilization , and lost work time . CONCLUSION Based on the findings of this systematic review there is evidence to support the use of spinal manipulation by physical therapists in clinical practice . Physical therapy spinal manipulation appears to be a safe intervention that improves clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain STUDY DESIGN A systematic review of r and omized and nonr and omized controlled trials . SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Lumbar supports are used in the treatment of low back pain , but also to prevent the onset ( primary prevention ) or recurrences of a low back pain episode ( secondary prevention ) . OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of lumbar sup-ports for prevention and treatment of nonspecific low back pain .  METHODS The Medline , Cinahl , and Current Contents data bases ; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to September 1999 ; and the Embase data base up to September 1998 were all search ed . References of identified trials and systematic review s were review ed and the Science Citation Index used to identify additional trials . Method ologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two review ers independently . A quantitative analysis was performed in which the strength of evidence was classified as strong , moderate , limited or conflicting , and no evidence . RESULTS Five r and omized and two nonr and omized preventive trials and six r and omized therapeutic trials were included in the review . Only 4 of the 13 studies were of high quality . There was moderate evidence that lumbar supports are not effective for primary prevention . No evidence was found on the effectiveness of lumbar supports for secondary prevention . The systematic review of therapeutic trials showed that there is limited evidence that lumbar supports are more effective than no treatment , whereas it is still unclear whether lumbar supports are more effective than other interventions for treatment of low back pain . CONCLUSIONS There continues to be a need for high quality r and omized trials on the effectiveness of lumbar supports . One of the most essential issues to tackle in these future trials seems to be the realization of adequate compliance Study Design . Prospect i ve assessment of return to work after low back pain . Objective . To determine which factors or combination of factors best predict recurrence of low back pain ( defined 4 different ways ) when returning to full-duty work . Summary of Background Data . Recurrent back pain is one of the more costly health problems facing industry today . Few systematic evaluations of the various factors suspected of exacerbating low back pain have been reported in the literature . Methods . A total of 206 workers who reported low back pain were evaluated as they returned to full-duty work .  Five types of assessment s were performed including : 1 ) a  low back kinematic functional assessment s  , 2 )  evaluation of job physical dem and s  , 3 )  psychosocial assessment of the job environment , 4 )  self-reported impairment including perception of symptoms and psychological measures  , and 5 )  personal ( individual ) factors . One year after return to full duty workers were interviewed to assess who had a recurrence of low back pain according to 4 different definitions of low back pain ( symptom reports , medical visits , self-reported lost days , and employer-reported lost days due to back pain ) . Multiple logistic regression models were developed to assess the best combinations of predictors . Results . The most liberal definition of recurrence , recurrent symptoms , had a significantly greater recurrence rate at 58 % than all other outcome measures ( P = 0.0001 ) . The medical visit recurrence rate of 36 % was significantly greater than the more conservative lost time measures ( P = 0.0001 ) . The recurrence rate for self-reported lost time was 15 % , whereas the more conservative employer confirmed lost time measure was significantly lower at 10 % ( P = 0.0077 ) . Multivariate predictive models associated with the various recurrence definitions yielded sensitivities varying between 78 % and 80 % and specificity between 73 % and 80 % . Conclusion . Recurrence is greatly dependent on how one defines recurrence with symptom reporting yielding 5.5 times as many recurrences compared with employer confirmed lost time . In general , more quantitative measures of worker musculoskeletal function yielded the best predictions of recurrence when predicting the more restrictive definitions of recurrence ( employer confirmed lost time ) The major objective of this investigation was to study the effectiveness of the physical conditioning program used at the University of Miami Comprehensive Pain and Rehabilitation Center in restoring certain elements of the functional abilities of individuals suffering from chronic low-back pain and to evaluate the effectiveness of using a systematic ally applied , aggressive stretching maneuver as an add-on therapy in the treatment of chronic low-back pain patients . The effect(s ) of the proposed stretching maneuver was evaluated . Twenty-eight chronic low-back pain patients were r and omly assigned to one of two groups . The control group underwent a multimodal rehabilitation program , and the experimental group underwent the same rehabilitation program in addition to the systematic stretching maneuver under investigation . The results obtained showed that patients undergoing the multimodal rehabilitation program with and without the proposed systematic stretching maneuver showed a significant improvement in their functional abilities as seen from the significant increase in the static strength of the back extensors , with corresponding significant increase in back muscle myoelectric signals . Also , a significant decrease in their pain level was reported after 2 weeks of continuous treatment . The use of the systematic stretching maneuver enhanced the functional gains of chronic low-back pain patients compared to the control group Study Design . The study included 90 disabled patients with chronic low back pain recruited from a pain clinic who were admitted to an 8-week program of functional restoration and behavioral support .  Initial evaluations included a medical examination , rating of the physical impairment , a personal interview , a visual analogue scale to record pain intensity , an assessment of limitations for daily activities , a pain disability index , a depression and psychovegetative scale , and a scale to evaluate general living st and ards . The physical assessment included different flexibility measurements , measurement of power and endurance through st and ardized exercises , and measurements of isokinetic trunk and lifting strength and general endurance . The measurements were repeated at the end of the 8-week program and thereafter at intervals of 6 and 12 months . Final analyses were carried out on 82 patients . Objectives . To determine whether objective or subjective signs most influence the outcome of rehabilitation . Summary of Background Data . In recent years , several studies have shown that active and intensive multimodal treatment of chronic low back pain is successful . Until now there has been lack of information about which patients will respond to the therapy and what is the most effective part of treatment . Methods . Prognostic factors ( return to work , pain intensity , self- assessment of treatment success by patients ) were tested by study ing variance and regression analyses for their ability to predict treatment outcome . Results . Certain factors were identified that had a significant impact on determining the probability of a patient 's return to work and the reduction of pain intensity . These factors included self-evaluation for predicting a return to work , the length of absence from work , application for pension , and a decrease in disability after treatment . Overall satisfaction with treatment was best determined by the number of medical consultations before treatment , the extent of disability , previous measures taken for coping with the disease , and reduction of disability during treatment . Medical background , medical diagnosis , and physical impairment had no predictive value . Physical variables ( i.e. , mobility , strength , endurance , and physical performance ) also demonstrated only limited predictive value . Conclusion . This study has demonstrated that the most important variable in determining a successful treatment of chronic low back pain is the reduction of subjective feelings of disability in patients Objectives : To determine whether treatment related pain reduction  on the short- and long-term is predicted by different baseline variables , and with different accuracy , in patients with chronic low back pain as compared with those with chronic neck pain . Design and Methods : A single blinded prospect i ve cohort study based on patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in the lower back ( N = 167 ) or the neck ( N = 136 ) who completed a 4-week multimodal rehabilitation program .  At admission , each patient was evaluated on 17 potential predictors , including pain characteristics and physical , sociodemographic , and psychosocial-behavioral variables . Changes in self-reported pain intensity in the lower back or the neck between the pretreatment evaluation and those performed immediately after , and 12 months after the rehabilitation program , were assessed . Results : Logistic regression models revealed that change in pain intensity could be predicted with good specificity but with poor sensitivity both for patients with chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain . Significant predictors among the neck pain patients were high endurance , low age , high pain intensity , few other symptoms , low need of being social , to do things with others , and to be helped , along with optimistic attitudes on how the pain will interfere with daily life . Among the low back pain patients , high pain intensity , low levels of pain severity , and high affective distress were important predictors . Variables such as sex , sick leave history , working status , accident , pain duration , and depressive symptoms demonstrated no predictive value . Short- and long-term pain outcome was equally predictable and predicted by almost the same variables . Conclusions : Patients who reported unchanged or increased pain after multimodal treatment could be predicted with good accuracy , whereas those who reported decreased pain were more difficult to identify . Treatment-related pain alteration in chronic low back pain seems to be predicted by partly different variables than in chronic neck pain BACKGROUND Low back pain is a worldwide health problem , affecting up to 80 % of adult population . Psychological factors are involved in its development and maintenance . Many clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of different interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain . In this field , Back School program has been demonstrated effective for people with chronic non-specific low back . AIM To evaluate the relationship between the effects of the Back School treatment and psychological features measured by MMPI-II of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain . DESIGN A r and omised controlled trial with three and six-month follow-up . SETTING Ambulatory rehabilitative university centre . POPULATION Fifty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain out of 77 screened patients . METHODS Patients were r and omly placed in a 3:2 form and were allocated into two groups ( Treatment versus Control ) . The Treatment Group participated to an intensive multidisciplinary Back School program ( BSG , N.=29 ) , while the Control Group received medical assistance ( CG , N.=21 ) . Medication was the same in both groups . Then , patients were subgrouped in those with at least an elevation in one scale of MMPI-II , and those without it . The Short Form 36 Health Status Survey for the assessment of quality of life ( primary outcome measure ) , pain Visual Analogue Scale , Waddel Index and Oswestry Disability Index were collected at baseline , at the end of treatment , and at the three and six-month follow-up . RESULTS Only the two treated subgroups showed a significant improvements in terms of quality of life , disability and pain . Among treated subjects , only those with at least one scale elevation in MMPI-II showed also a significant improvement in terms of Short Form 36 mental composite score and relevant subscores . CONCLUSION These results suggest that Back School program has positive effects , even in terms of mental components of quality of life in patients with scale elevations of MMPI-II . Probably these findings are due to its educational and cognitive-behavioural characteristics . CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT Because of its educational purpose s , the Back School treatment can have positive effects also on the mental status of patients with low back pain when it affects their psychological features In a r and omized , blinded study , we compared the outcome from a full-time functional restoration program with the outcome from shorter active rehabilitation programs for patients with chronic , disabling low back pain . The study initially included 132 patients , r and omized into one of three treatment programs : ( 1 ) an intensive 3-week multidisciplinary program ; ( 2 ) active physical training and back school ; or ( 3 ) psychological pain management and active physical training .  Nine of the r and omized patients never started in any program , so the studied population consisted of 123 patients . Of these , 14 patients ( 11 % ) dropped out . The results presented here are at 1 year following treatment , where we achieved a 92 % response rate , including the drop-outs . The functional restoration program was superior to the shorter programs as to work-ready rate , health care contacts , back pain level , disability level , staying physically active , and reduction in analgesics . There was no significant difference between Programs 2 and 3 in most of these parameters . As for sick leave and leg pain , there was no significant difference between Programs 1 and 2 , although a difference was observed when comparing Program 3 with each of the other two . Conclusively , it seems that there is human , as well as economical , benefit from a functional restoration program compared to less intensive programs for these patients Background Recovery from low back pain ( LBP ) is multidimensional and requires the use of multiple-response ( outcome ) measures to fully reflect these many dimensions . Predictive prognostic variables that are present or stable in all or most predictive models that use different outcome measures could be considered “ universal ” prognostic variables . Objective The aim of this study was to explore the potential of universal prognostic variables in predictive models for 4 different outcome measures in patients with mechanical LBP . Design Predictive modeling was performed using data extracted from a r and omized controlled trial . Four prognostic models were created using backward stepwise deletion logistic , Poisson , and linear regression . Methods Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy facilities in 10 states . All 149 patients with LBP were treated with manual therapy and spine strengthening exercises until discharge . Four different measures of response were used : Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale change scores , total visits , and report of rate of recovery . Results The set of statistically significant predictors was dependent on the definition of response . All regression models were significant . Within both forms of the 4 models , meeting the clinical prediction rule for manipulation at baseline was present in all 4 models , whereas no irritability at baseline and diagnosis of sprains and strains were present in 2 of 4 of the predictive models . Limitations The primary limitation is that this study evaluated only 4 of the multiple outcome measures that are pertinent for patients with LBP . Conclusions Meeting the clinical prediction rule was prognostic for all outcome measures and should be considered a universal prognostic predictor . Other predictive variables were dependent on the outcomes measure used in the predictive model Low back pain is the fifth most common reason for all physician visits in the United States ( 1 , 2 ) . Approximately one quarter of U.S. adults reported having low back pain lasting at least 1 whole day in the past 3 months ( 2 ) , and 7.6 % reported at least 1 episode of severe acute low back pain ( see Glossary ) within a 1-year period ( 3 ) . Low back pain is also very costly : Total incremental direct health care costs attributable to low back pain in the U.S. were estimated at $ 26.3 billion in 1998 ( 4 ) . In addition , indirect costs related to days lost from work are substantial , with approximately 2 % of the U.S. work force compensated for back injuries each year ( 5 ) . Many patients have self-limited episodes of acute low back pain and do not seek medical care ( 3 ) . Among those who do seek medical care , pain , disability , and return to work typically improve rapidly in the first month ( 6 ) . However , up to one third of patients report persistent back pain of at least moderate intensity 1 year after an acute episode , and 1 in 5 report substantial limitations in activity ( 7 ) . Approximately 5 % of the people with back pain disability account for 75 % of the costs associated with low back pain ( 8) . Many options are available for evaluation and management of low back pain . However , there has been little consensus , either within or between specialties , on appropriate clinical evaluation ( 9 ) and management ( 10 ) of low back pain . Numerous studies show unexplained , large variations in use of diagnostic tests and treatments ( 11 , 12 ) . Despite wide variations in practice , patients seem to experience broadly similar outcomes , although costs of care can differ substantially among and within specialties ( 13 , 14 ) . The purpose of this guideline is to present the available evidence for evaluation and management of acute and chronic low back pain ( see Glossary ) in primary care setting s. The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians caring for patients with low ( lumbar ) back pain of any duration , either with or without leg pain . The target patient population is adults with acute and chronic low back pain not associated with major trauma . Children or adolescents with low back pain ; pregnant women ; and patients with low back pain from sources outside the back ( nonspinal low back pain ) , fibromyalgia or other myofascial pain syndromes , and thoracic or cervical back pain are not included . These recommendations are based on a systematic evidence review summarized in 2 background papers by Chou and colleagues in this issue ( 15 , 16 ) from an evidence report by the American Pain Society ( 17 ) . The evidence report ( 17 ) discusses the evidence for the evaluation , and the 2 background papers ( 15 , 16 ) summarize the evidence for management . Methods The literature search for this guideline included studies from MEDLINE ( 1966 through November 2006 ) , the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , and EMBASE . The literature search included all English- language articles reporting on r and omized , controlled trials of nonpregnant adults ( age > 18 years ) with low back pain ( alone or with leg pain ) of any duration that evaluated a target medication and reported at least 1 of the following outcomes : back-specific function , generic health status , pain , work disability , or patient satisfaction .  The American College of Physicians ( ACP ) and the American Pain Society ( APS ) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop the key questions and scope used to guide the evidence report , review its results , and formulate recommendations . The background papers by Chou and colleagues ( 15 , 16 ) provide details about the methods used for the systematic evidence review . This guideline grade s its recommendations by using the ACP 's clinical practice guidelines grading system , adapted from the classification developed by the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development , and Evaluation ( GRADE ) work group ( Appendix Table 1 ) ( 18 ) . The evidence in this guideline was first evaluated by the ACP/APS panel by using a system adopted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for grading strength of evidence , estimating magnitude of benefits , and assigning summary ratings ( Appendix Tables 2 , 3 , and 4 ) ( 19 ) . The evidence was independently review ed by the ACP 's Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee . The ratings for individual low back pain interventions discussed in this guideline are summarized in Appendix Table 5 for acute low back pain ( < 4 weeks ' duration ) and in Appendix Table 6 for chronic/subacute low back pain ( > 4 weeks ' duration ) . This guideline considered interventions to have proven benefits only when they were supported by at least fair- quality evidence and were associated with at least moderate benefits ( or small benefits but no significant harms , costs , or burdens ) . Figures 1 and 2 present an accompanying algorithm . Appendix Table 1 . The American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guidelines Grading System Appendix Table 2 . Methods for Grading the Strength of the Overall Evidence for an Intervention Appendix Table 3 . Definitions for Estimating Magnitude of Effects Appendix Table 4 . Recommendations and Summary Ratings Appendix Table 5 . Level of Evidence and Summary Grade s for Noninvasive Interventions in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain Appendix Table 6 . Level of Evidence and Summary Grade s for Noninvasive Interventions in Patients with Chronic or Subacute Low Back Pain Figure 1 . Initial evaluation of low back pain ( LBP Figure 2 . Management of low back pain ( LBP Recommendations : Evaluation of Low Back Pain Recommendation 1 : Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories : nonspecific low back pain , back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis , or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause . The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors , which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain ( strong recommendation , moderate- quality evidence ) . More than 85 % of patients who present to primary care have low back pain that can not reliably be attributed to a specific disease or spinal abnormality ( nonspecific low back pain [ see Glossary ] ) ( 20 ) . Attempts to identify specific anatomical sources of low back pain in such patients have not been vali date d in rigorous studies , and classification schemes frequently conflict with one another ( 21 ) . Moreover , no evidence suggests that labeling most patients with low back pain by using specific anatomical diagnoses improves outcomes . In a minority of patients presenting for initial evaluation in a primary care setting , low back pain is caused by a specific disorder , such as cancer ( approximately 0.7 % of cases ) , compression fracture ( 4 % ) , or spinal infection ( 0.01 % ) ( 22 ) . Estimates for prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis in primary care patients range from 0.3 % ( 22 ) to 5 % ( 23 ) . Spinal stenosis ( see Glossary ) and symptomatic herniated disc ( see Glossary ) are present in about 3 % and 4 % of patients , respectively . The cauda equina syndrome ( see Glossary ) is most commonly associated with massive midline disc herniation but is rare , with an estimated prevalence of 0.04 % among patients with low back pain ( 24 ) . A practical approach to assessment is to do a focused history and physical examination to determine the likelihood of specific underlying conditions and measure the presence and level of neurologic involvement ( 24 , 25 ) . Such an approach facilitates classification of patients into 1 of 3 broad categories : nonspecific low back pain , back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy ( see Glossary ) or spinal stenosis ( suggested by the presence of sciatica [ see Glossary ] or pseudoclaudication ) , and back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause . The latter category includes the small proportion of patients with serious or progressive neurologic deficits or underlying conditions requiring prompt evaluation ( such as tumor , infection , or the cauda equina syndrome ) , as well as patients with other conditions that may respond to specific treatments ( such as ankylosing spondylitis or vertebral compression fracture ) . Diagnostic triage into 1 of these 3 categories helps guide subsequent decision making . Clinicians should inquire about the location of pain , frequency of symptoms , and duration of pain , as well as any history of previous symptoms , treatment , and response to treatment . The possibility of low back pain due to problems outside the back , such as pancreatitis , nephrolithiasis , or aortic aneurysm , or systemic illnesses , such as endocarditis or viral syndromes , should be considered . All patients should be evaluated for the presence of rapidly progressive or severe neurologic deficits , including motor deficits at more than 1 level , fecal incontinence , and bladder dysfunction . The most frequent finding in the cauda equina syndrome is urinary retention ( 90 % sensitivity ) ( 24 ) . In patients without urinary retention , the probability of the cauda equina syndrome is approximately 1 in 10000 . Clinicians should also ask about risk factors for cancer and infection . In a large , prospect i ve study from a primary care setting , a history of cancer ( positive likelihood ratio , 14.7 ) , unexplained weight loss ( positive likelihood ratio , 2.7 ) , failure to improve after 1 month ( positive likelihood ratio , 3.0 ) , and age older than 50 years ( positive likelihood ratio , 2.7 ) were each associated with a higher likelihood for cancer ( 26 ) . The posttest probability of cancer in patients presenting with back pain increases from approximately 0.7 % to 9 % in patients with a history of cancer ( not including nonmelanoma skin cancer ) . In patients with any 1 of the other 3 risk factors , the likelihood of cancer only increases to approximately 1.2 % ( 26 ) . Features predicting the presence of vertebral infection have not been well studied Objectives To identify relevant changes in process variables that are associated with outcome following an exercise and a multidisciplinary secondary prevention program for low back pain . Methods Data from a r and omized controlled clinical trial to examine the effectiveness of an exercise and a multidisciplinary prevention program were analyzed using multiple regression analyses . The specific goal was to examine the amount of variance in changes in “ interference ” postintervention that could be explained by prechanges to postchanges in physical and psychologic parameters , and to determine if there are interactions between physical/psychologic parameters and the program type . Results One hundred sixty-two ( 89 % ) participants were included in the regression analyses . Reductions of interference at postmeasurement were explained best by reductions of pain intensity and catastrophizing in the multidisciplinary and the exercise prevention program . No significant interaction between the changes in process variables and the program type was found . The final model could explain 68.7 % of variance . Conclusions Owing to method ologic limitations , strong conclusions can not be drawn from this study . The findings suggest that treatment success in exercise and multidisciplinary interventions might be influenced by the same change factors , namely changes in pain and psychologic factors . The results raise the question of whether the mechanism through which exercise works , is improve in physical variables , or rather a change in psychologic attributes , in that people correct their irrational cognitions by making experiences that differ from their expectations . If these findings can be confirmed in longitudinal studies with more measurement points , they would have implication s for treatment refinement STUDY DESIGN A three and six months follow-up in a r and omized controlled trial . BACKGROUND Back School has become a widespread exercise program for low back pain ( LBP ) , since its introduction in 1969 . Back School could improve quality of life ( QoL ) , but there are controversial data regarding its effectiveness . AIM To evaluate the effects of the Back School program on quality of life ( primary outcome ) , disability and pain perceptions ( secondary outcomes ) in patients with chronic and non-specific low back pain . SETTING Rehabilitative specialized centre . POPULATION Seventy four patients with chronic non-specific LBP . METHODS Patients were r and omly placed in a 3:2 form and were allocated into 2 groups ( treated-control ) . Treatment group participated in a intensive multidisciplinary Back School program including brief education and active back exercises ( BSG , N.=41 ) , while the control group received medical assistance ( CG , N.=29 ) . Medication was the same in both groups . The Short Form 36 Health Status Survey , Waddel Index , Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analogue Scale were collected at baseline , at the end of treatment , and at the three and six month follow-up . RESULTS Quality of life significantly improved along time more in BSG , both in Physical and Mental Composite Score ( repeated measure Anova : interaction time per group : P<0.001 and P=0.002 , respectively ) . We also observed a significant improvement in disability scores along time ( P<0.001 ) in BSG with significant differences between groups at three and at six months for Waddell Index ( P=0.006 and P=0.009 respectively ) and for Oswestry Disability Index ( P=0.018 and 0.011 respectively ) . Moreover , pain perception score VAS showed a reduction in both groups , but it was significantly lower in BSG at end of treatment and both follow-ups ( P<0.001 ) . CONCLUSION Our Back School program can be considered an effective treatment in people with chronıc non-specıfıc LBP
Consistent evidence was found for the predictive value of pain intensity ( more pain-- > worse outcome ) , several work-related parameters ( e.g. , high satisfaction-- > better outcome ) , and coping style ( less active coping-- > better outcome ) .
Other sociodemographic and physical variables consistently lacked predictive value .
No consistent evidence was found for other psychological variables .
CONCLUSIONS It is impossible to define a generic set of predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary rehabilitation and back schools for patients with chronic low back pain because the review ed studies were descriptive or exploratory in nature , and most predictors were only studied once .
Nevertheless , for several predictors , consistent evidence was found .
OBJECTIVE To determine predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary rehabilitation-or back school treatment  for patients with chronic low back pain .
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Numerous review s have been performed to gain insight into which patients benefit from which treatment .
However , no review has systematic ally focused on predictors from multiple domains ( i.e. , sociodemographic , physical , and psychological ) , or on treatment outcome measured as activity limitation or participation restriction .