Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a back care pillow as an adjuvant physical therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: [Purpose] The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a back care pillow (BCP) on pain, lumbar range of motion (LROM) and functional disability of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). [Subjects and Methods] Fifty-two subjects who were aged between 20-69 years old, who presented with LBP of more than 3 months duration with a numerical rating scale (NRS) value of at least 4 were randomly assigned to treatment (BCP) and control (CON) groups. Participants in each group received six sessions of the 30 minutes treatment for two weeks. The BCP group was asked to wear the BCP during the daytime during the study period. Pain, lumbar ROM and functional disability were assessed before and after the 2-week treatment, and at the end of a 12-week follow up. [Results] After the 2-week treatment and 12-week follow up, all outcomes had improved in both groups; the BCP group had maintained the decrease in pain intensity and improved lumbar ROM in the extension position after the 12-week follow up, and showed better improvements in all outcomes at 2 weeks and after the 12-week follow up. [Conclusion] BCP combined with physical therapy had better pain, lumbar ROM and functional disability outcomes than physical therapy alone.

SUBMITTER: Prommanon B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4540812 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a back care pillow as an adjuvant physical therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Prommanon Bundit B Puntumetakul Rungthip R Puengsuwan Punnee P Chatchawan Uraiwan U Kamolrat Torkamol T Rittitod Theera T Yamauchi Junichiro J

Journal of physical therapy science 20150722 7

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a back care pillow (BCP) on pain, lumbar range of motion (LROM) and functional disability of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). [Subjects and Methods] Fifty-two subjects who were aged between 20-69 years old, who presented with LBP of more than 3 months duration with a numerical rating scale (NRS) value of at least 4 were randomly assigned to treatment (BCP) and control (CON) groups. Participants in each group ...[more]

PMID: 26311921

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Different types of pillows have been proposed for neck pain, but no previous randomized controlled trial has investigated the effectiveness of a "spring pillow" for adults with chronic nonspecific neck pain. OBJECTIVE:We evaluated the effectiveness of using a pillow made from viscoelastic polyurethane and 60 independent springs compared with an educational intervention in individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain. DESIGN:This was a randomized controlled trial with crossover study design. SETTING:The setting was the Occupational Medicine Unit, University Hospital, Bologna (Italy). PARTICIPANTS:We recruited 70 adults with chronic nonspecific neck pain, of whom 64 completed the trial. INTERVENTION:Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups. One group used the spring pillow for 4 weeks, and the other group followed educational advice for 4 weeks while continuing to use their own pillows. After 4 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks of washout, groups were crossed over. Pain perceived in the neck, thoracic, and shoulder areas and headache were the primary outcome measures. In addition, disability, sleep quality, subjective improvement, and pillow comfort were assessed. Measures were captured at pretreatment, after 4 weeks, after the 4-week washout period, and 4 weeks after crossover. The mean differences (MD) in outcomes between groups were assessed. RESULTS:Treatment with the spring pillow appeared to reduce neck pain (MD = -8.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -14.7 to -2.6), thoracic pain (MD = -8.4; 95% CI = -15.2 to -1.5), and headache (MD = -16.0; 95% CI = -23.2 to -8.7). Reductions in shoulder pain were not statistically significant between groups (MD = -6.9; 95% CI = -14.1-0.3). Neither the crossover sequence nor the period (first vs second intervention administration) significantly affected the results. LIMITATIONS:Education may not have been the best comparator for the spring pillow; drug consumption, actual pillow use, and the implementation of the educational suggestions as prescribed were not controlled. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the spring pillow in this study was more effective than an educational intervention for improving cervical, thoracic, and head pain. Whether a spring pillow is more effective than other ergonomic pillows remains to be tested.

Project description:Low back pain is among the leading causes of medical visits and lost duty days among members of the United States Armed Forces and represents the highest 5-year risk of permanent disability in the US Army. For certain elements of care, the timing may be just as important as the type of care. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the timing of access to a physical therapist by patients with low back pain, by looking at outcomes and low back pain-related healthcare utilization over a 1-year period.This trial will be a two-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial occurring at two different clinical sites in the Military Health System. We will assess outcomes and related downstream costs for patients who access physical therapy at the primary care level compared to those that receive usual care only. There will be 220 consecutive patients randomized to receive care in either group (early physical therapy or usual care only) for the first 4 weeks, and these patients will then be allowed to receive any additional care dictated by their primary care provider for the following year. The primary outcome measure is the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures are the Global Rating of Change, Patient Satisfaction and 1-year healthcare utilization. Follow-ups will occur at 4 weeks, 3 months and 1 year.This trial takes a pragmatic approach to delivering care by enabling a usual care environment for managing low back pain, while also allowing immediate access to physical therapy. After the initial intervention, the patient's primary provider can continue to manage the patient as he/she normally would in practice. The Military Health System Data Repository will capture all low back pain-related healthcare utilization that occurs in order to allow for a comparison between groups. Analysis from retrospective cohorts has shown improved outcomes and decreased costs for patients that received early versus late physical therapy, but this has yet to be shown in prospective trials.ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT01556581 initially on 14 March 2012.

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.

Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (? 18 years) population with chronic (? 12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search.Study selectionPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients.SynthesisA total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria.ConclusionExercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.

Project description:BackgroundPoor sleep is common among adults with chronic low back pain (cLBP), but the influence of cLBP treatments, such as yoga and physical therapy (PT), on sleep quality is under studied.ObjectiveEvaluate the effectiveness of yoga and PT for improving sleep quality in adults with cLBP.DesignSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.SettingAcademic safety-net hospital and 7 affiliated community health centers.ParticipantsA total of 320 adults with cLBP.InterventionTwelve weekly yoga classes, 1-on-1 PT sessions, or an educational book.Main measuresSleep quality was measured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global score (0-21) at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks. Additionally, we also evaluated how the proportion of participants who achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in sleep quality (>?3-point reduction in PSQI) at 12 weeks varied by changes in pain and physical function at 6 weeks.Key resultsAmong participants (mean age?=?46.0, 64% female, 82% non-white), nearly all (92%) reported poor sleep quality (PSQI >?5) at baseline. At 12 weeks, modest improvements in sleep quality were observed among the yoga (PSQI mean difference [MD]?=?-?1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] -?1.82, -?0.55) and PT (PSQI MD?=?-?0.91, 95% CI -?1.61, -?0.20) groups. Participants who reported a ??30% improvement in pain or physical function at 6 weeks, compared with those who improved <?10%, were more likely to be a sleep quality responder at 12 weeks (odds ratio [OR]?=?3.51, 95% CI 1.73, 7.11 and OR?=?2.16, 95% CI 1.18, 3.95, respectively). Results were similar at 52 weeks.ConclusionIn a sample of adults with cLBP, virtually all with poor sleep quality prior to intervention, modest but statistically significant improvements in sleep quality were observed with both yoga and PT. Irrespective of treatment, clinically important sleep improvements at the end of the intervention were associated with mid-intervention pain and physical function improvements.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01343927.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a back care pillow as an adjuvant physical therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Effectiveness of a back care pillow as an adjuvant physical therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure