OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes in chronic low back pain: The OSTEOPATHIC Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Licciardone JC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2386783 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes in chronic low back pain: The OSTEOPATHIC Trial.
Licciardone John C JC King Hollis H HH Hensel Kendi L KL Williams Daniel G DG
Osteopathic medicine and primary care 20080425
<h4>Background</h4>Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and ultrasound physical therapy (UPT) are commonly used for chronic low back pain. Although there is evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis that OMT generally reduces low back pain, there are no large clinical trials that specifically assess OMT efficacy in chronic low back pain. Similarly, there is a lack of evidence involving UPT for chronic low back pain.<h4>Methods</h4>The OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes In Chronic low back ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We studied the efficacy of osteopathic manual treatment (OMT) and ultrasound therapy (UST) for chronic low back pain.A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial design was used to study OMT and UST for short-term relief of nonspecific chronic low back pain. The 455 patients were randomized to OMT (n = 230) or sham OMT (n = 225) main effects groups, and to UST (n = 233) or sham UST (n = 222) main effects groups. Six treatment sessions were provided over 8 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to measure moderate and substantial improvements in low back pain at week 12 (30% or greater and 50% or greater pain reductions from baseline, respectively). Five secondary outcomes, safety, and treatment adherence were also assessed.There was no statistical interaction between OMT and UST. Patients receiving OMT were more likely than patients receiving sham OMT to achieve moderate (response ratio [RR] = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P <.001) and substantial (RR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.13-1.76; P = .002) improvements in low back pain at week 12. These improvements met the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size. Back-specific functioning, general health, work disability specific to low back pain, safety outcomes, and treatment adherence did not differ between patients receiving OMT and sham OMT. Nevertheless, patients in the OMT group were more likely to be very satisfied with their back care throughout the study (P <.001). Patients receiving OMT used prescription drugs for low back pain less frequently during the 12 weeks than did patients in the sham OMT group (use ratio = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.43-1.00; P = .048). Ultrasound therapy was not efficacious.The OMT regimen met or exceeded the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size in relieving chronic low back pain. It was safe, parsimonious, and well accepted by patients.
| S-EPMC3601389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acute low back pain (ALBP) may limit mobility and impose functional limitations in active duty military personnel. Although some manual therapies have been reported effective for ALBP in military personnel, there have been no published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the military. Furthermore, current military ALBP guidelines do not specifically include OMT.This RCT examined the efficacy of OMT in relieving ALBP and improving functioning in military personnel at Fort Lewis, Washington. Sixty-three male and female soldiers ages 18 to 35 were randomly assigned to a group receiving OMT plus usual care or a group receiving usual care only (UCO).The primary outcome measures were pain on the quadruple visual analog scale, and functioning on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Outcomes were measured immediately preceding each of four treatment sessions and at four weeks post-trial. Intention to treat analysis found significantly greater post-trial improvement in 'Pain Now' for OMT compared to UCO (P?=?0·026). Furthermore, the OMT group reported less 'Pain Now' and 'Pain Typical' at all visits (P?=?0·025 and P?=?0·020 respectively). Osteopathic manipulative treatment subjects also tended to achieve a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline on 'Pain at Best' sooner than the UCO subjects. With similar baseline expectations, OMT subjects reported significantly greater satisfaction with treatment and overall self-reported improvement (P<0·01).This study supports the effectiveness of OMT in reducing ALBP pain in active duty military personnel.
| S-EPMC3267441 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveChronic low back pain represents a substantial cost to employers through benefits coverage and days missed due to incapacity. We sought to explore the effectiveness of Naturopathic care on chronic low back pain.MethodsThis study was a randomized clinical trial. We randomized 75 postal employees with low back pain of longer than six weeks duration to receive Naturopathic care (n = 39) or standardized physiotherapy (n = 36) over a period of 12 weeks. The study was conducted in clinics on-site in postal outlets. Participants in the Naturopathic care group received dietary counseling, deep breathing relaxation techniques and acupuncture. The control intervention received education and instruction on physiotherapy exercises using an approved education booklet. We measured low back pain using the Oswestry disability questionnaire as the primary outcome measure, and quality of life using the SF-36 in addition to low back range of motion, weight loss, and Body Mass Index as secondary outcomes.ResultsSixty-nine participants (92%) completed eight weeks or greater of the trial. Participants in the Naturopathic care group reported significantly lower back pain (-6.89, 95% CI. -9.23 to -3.54, p = <0.0001) as measured by the Oswestry questionnaire. Quality of life was also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care in all domains except for vitality. Differences for the aggregate physical component of the SF-36 was 8.47 (95% CI, 5.05 to 11.87, p = <0.0001) and for the aggregate mental component was 7.0 (95% CI, 2.25 to 11.75, p = 0.0045). All secondary outcomes were also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care: spinal flexion (p<0.0001), weight-loss (p = 0.0052) and Body Mass Index (-0.52, 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.08, p = 0.01).ConclusionsNaturopathic care provided significantly greater improvement than physiotherapy advice for patients with chronic low back pain.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN41920953.
| S-EPMC1976391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) suffer with functional, social, and psychological aspects. There is a growing number of studies with multimodal approaches in the management of these patients, combining physical and behavioral therapies such as osteopathic manipulative treatment, associating pain education and clinical hypnosis. The aim of the present study will be to evaluate the effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) associated with pain neuroscience education (PNE) and clinical hypnosis (CH) on pain and disability in participants with CLBP compared to PNE, CH, and sham therapy.MethodsA randomized controlled clinical trial will be conducted in participants aged 20-60 years with CLBP who will be divided into two groups. Group 1 will receive PNE and CH associated with OMT, and G2 will receive PNE, CH, and sham therapy. In both groups, 4 interventions of a maximum of 50 min and with an interval of 7 days will be performed. As primary outcomes, pain (numerical pain scale), pressure pain threshold (pressure algometer), and disability (Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) will be evaluated and, as a secondary outcome, global impression of improvement (Percent of Improvement Scale), central sensitization (Central Sensitization Questionnaire), biopsychosocial aspects (Start Beck Toll Questionnaire), and behavior of the autonomic nervous system (heart rate variability) will be assessed. Participants will be evaluated in the pre-intervention moments, immediately after the end of the protocol and 4 weeks after the procedures. Randomization will be created through a simple randomized sequence and the evaluator will be blinded to the allocation of intervention groups.DiscussionThe guidelines have been encouraging multimodal, biopsychosocial approaches for patients with CLBP; in this sense, the results of this study can help clinicians and researchers in the implementation of a model of treatment strategy for these patients. In addition, patients may benefit from approaches with minimal risk of deleterious effects and low cost. In addition, it will enable the addition of relevant elements to the literature, with approaches that interact and do not segment the body and brain of patients with CLBP, allowing new studies in this scenario.Trials registrationDate: September 4, 2021/Number: NCT05042115 .
| S-EPMC9801526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe Stand Back study evaluated the feasibility and effects of a multicomponent intervention targeting reduced prolonged sitting and pain self-management in desk workers with chronic low back pain (LBP).MethodsThis randomised controlled trial recruited 27 individuals with chronic LBP, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) >10% and desk jobs (sitting ≥20 hours/week). Participants were randomised within strata of ODI (>10%-<20%, ≥20%) to receive bimonthly behavioural counselling (in-person and telephone), a sit-stand desk attachment, a wrist-worn activity-prompting device and cognitive behavioural therapy for LBP self-management or control. Self-reported work sitting time, visual analogue scales (VAS) for LBP and the ODI were assessed by monthly, online questionnaires and compared across intervention groups using linear mixed models.ResultsBaseline mean (SD) age was 52 (11) years, 78% were women, and ODI was 24.1 (10.5)%. Across the 6-month follow-up in models adjusted for baseline value, work sitting time was 1.5 hour/day (P<0.001) lower comparing intervention to controls. Also across follow-up, ODI was on average 8 points lower in intervention versus control (P=0.001). At 6 months, the relative decrease in ODI from baseline was 50% in intervention and 14% in control (P=0.042). LBP from VAS was not significantly reduced in intervention versus control, though small-to-moderate effect sizes favouring the intervention were observed (Cohen's d ranged from 0.22 to 0.42).ConclusionAn intervention coupling behavioural counselling targeting reduced sedentary behaviour and pain self-management is a translatable treatment strategy that shows promise for treating chronic LBP in desk-bound employees.Trial registration numberNCT0224687; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC8283944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOsteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is frequently offered to people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) but never compared with sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of standard OMT vs sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months in persons with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, single-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP from a tertiary care center in France starting February 17, 2014, with follow-up completed on October 23, 2017. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 22, 2018, to December 5, 2018.InterventionsSix sessions (1 every 2 weeks) of standard OMT or sham OMT delivered by nonphysician, nonphysiotherapist osteopathic practitioners.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months as measured by the self-administered Quebec Back Pain Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations; mean changes in pain and health-related quality of life; number and duration of sick leaves, as well as number of LBP episodes at 12 months; and consumption of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 3 and 12 months. Adverse events were self-reported at 3, 6, and 12 months.ResultsOverall, 200 participants were randomly allocated to standard OMT and 200 to sham OMT, with 197 analyzed in each group; the median (range) age at inclusion was 49.8 (40.7-55.8) years, 235 of 394 (59.6%) participants were women, and 359 of 393 (91.3%) were currently working. The mean (SD) duration of the current LBP episode was 7.5 (14.2) months. Overall, 164 (83.2%) patients in the standard OMT group and 159 (80.7%) patients in the sham OMT group had the primary outcome data available at 3 months. The mean (SD) Quebec Back Pain Disability Index scores for the standard OMT group were 31.5 (14.1) at baseline and 25.3 (15.3) at 3 months, and in the sham OMT group were 27.2 (14.8) at baseline and 26.1 (15.1) at 3 months. The mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months was -4.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -2.8) and -1.3 (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.6) for the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively (mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -6.0 to -0.7; P = .01). At 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations was -4.3 (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0; P = .01), and at 3 and 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in pain was -1.0 (95% CI, -5.5 to 3.5; P = .66) and -2.0 (95% CI, -7.2 to 3.3; P = .47), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Four and 8 serious adverse events were self-reported in the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively, though none was considered related to OMT.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP, standard OMT had a small effect on LBP-specific activity limitations vs sham OMT. However, the clinical relevance of this effect is questionable.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034864.
| S-EPMC7961471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonates relieve pain in conditions such as Paget's disease of bone, metastatic bone disease, and multiple myeloma. Based on positive findings from a prior case series, we conducted a randomized placebo-controlled study to assess the analgesic effect of i.v. pamidronate in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and evidence of degenerative disease of the spine. Four groups of 11 subjects (7 active, 4 placebo) were enrolled at escalating dose levels of 30, 60, 90, and 180 mg pamidronate (the latter administered as two 90 mg infusions). Primary outcomes were safety and change from baseline in average daily pain scores, recorded at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months postinfusion using electronic diaries. Secondary outcomes included responder rate, daily worst pain, and pain-related interference with daily function. There were no pamidronate-related serious adverse events or other significant safety findings. A statistically significant overall treatment difference in pain scores was observed, with clinically meaningful effects persisting for 6 months in the 180 mg pamidronate group. Least squares mean changes in daily average pain score were -1.39 (SE=0.43) for placebo, and -1.53 (0.71), -1.26 (0.81), -1.42 (0.65), and -4.13 (0.65) for pamidronate 30, 60, 90, and 180 mg, respectively (P=0.012 for pamidronate 180 mg vs placebo). The proportion of responders, changes in worst pain, and pain interference with daily function were also significantly improved for pamidronate 180 mg compared with placebo. In conclusion, i.v. pamidronate, administered as two 90 mg infusions, decreased pain intensity for 6 months in subjects with CLBP.
| S-EPMC3947358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteopathic medicine is based on a diagnostic and therapeutic system to treat tissue mobility/ motility dysfunctions in general, using different approaches (depending on the target tissue) known as osteopathic manipulative treatment. Among the available techniques those ones addressed to the cranial field are the most questioned because of the lack of scientific evidence; but the compression of the 4th ventricle technique has been largely studied in clinical trials. Studies have shown that the technique may affect both central and autonomous nervous system, modulating some reflexes (Traube-Hering baro signal), and modifying brain cortex electrical activity through central sensitization in subjects with chronic low back pain. Thus, investigators hypothesize that the compression of the 4th ventricle may modulate peak alpha frequency (eletroencephalographic assessment) and promote physical relaxation in subjects in vigil.A randomized, controlled crossover trial with blinded assessor was designed to test the hypothesis. A total of 81 participants will be assigned to three treatment conditions, with seven days of washout: (I) compression of the 4th ventricle; (II) sham compression of the fourth ventricle; (III) control (no intervention). The (I) power amplitude and the (II) frequencies of the dominant peak in the alpha band will be the primary outcome measures of the study. All participants will be recruited at the Outpatient Rehabilitation Service of the University Hospital of Brasília-University of Brasília. All the electroencephalographic exams will be conducted by a blinded assessor.The investigators hypothesize that patients with chronic low back pain submitted to the technique would have the peak alpha frequency modulated and, thus, would experience physical relaxation.NCT02111382.
| S-EPMC4499448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out.InterventionLow-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire.ResultsOf the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95).Conclusions and relevanceThis trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.
| S-EPMC6248203 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8782593 | biostudies-literature