Dataset Information

Effectiveness of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: midterm follow up results of a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health and economic problem worldwide. Graded activity and physiotherapy are commonly used interventions for nonspecific low back pain. However, there is currently little evidence to support the use of one intervention over the other in the medium-term.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of graded activity exercises to physiotherapy-based exercises at mid-term (three and six months' post intervention) in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Methods

Sixty-six patients were randomly allocated to two groups: graded activity group (n=33) and physiotherapy group (n=33). These patients received individual sessions twice a week for six weeks. Follow-up measurements were taken at three and six months. The main outcome measurements were intensity pain (Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire).

Results

No significant differences between groups after three and six month-follow ups were observed. Both groups showed similar outcomes for pain intensity at three months [between group differences: -0.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.5 to 1.2)] and six months [0.1 (95% CI=-1.1 to 1.5)], disability at three months was [-0.6 (95% CI=-3.4 to 2.2)] and six months [0.0 (95% CI=-2.9 to 3.0)].

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that graded activity and physiotherapy have similar effects in the medium-term for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

SUBMITTER: Magalhaes MO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5816082 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan - Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: midterm follow up results of a randomized controlled trial.

Magalhães Maurício Oliveira MO Comachio Josielli J Ferreira Paulo Henrique PH Pappas Evangelos E Marques Amélia Pasqual AP

Brazilian journal of physical therapy 20170712 1

<h4>Background</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is a major health and economic problem worldwide. Graded activity and physiotherapy are commonly used interventions for nonspecific low back pain. However, there is currently little evidence to support the use of one intervention over the other in the medium-term.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness of graded activity exercises to physiotherapy-based exercises at mid-term (three and six months' post intervention) in patients with chronic nonspecif ...[more]

PMID: 28803704

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide, and its socioeconomic burden is substantial. Self-management support is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP and may support cost-effective management. However, providing adequate individually tailored self-management support is difficult. The integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care) seems promising to optimize tailored treatment and enhance patients' self-management and, consequently, may reduce LBP-related costs.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.MethodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care physiotherapy. Patients with nonspecific LBP were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) (n=104) or face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104). The content of both interventions was based on the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary clinical outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a). For the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning were the primary outcomes. Secondary clinical outcomes included fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. Costs were measured from societal and health care perspectives using self-report questionnaires. Effectiveness was estimated using linear mixed models. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences for the economic evaluation.ResultsNeither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial differences were found between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy regarding physical functioning (mean difference [MD] -1.1, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.7) and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI -0.020 to 0.072) over 12 months. Regarding the secondary outcomes, fear avoidance beliefs showed a statistically significant improvement in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy (MD -4.3, 95% CI -7.3 to -1.3). Societal and health care costs were higher for stratified blended physiotherapy than for face-to-face physiotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (societal: €972 [US $1027], 95% CI -€1090 to €3264 [US -$1151 to $3448]; health care: €73 [US $77], 95% CI -€59 to €225 [US -$62 to $238]). Among the disaggregated cost categories, only unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher for stratified blended physiotherapy. From both perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability (ie, 0.23-0.81) of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy.ConclusionsThe stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective for improving physical functioning nor more cost-effective from societal or health care perspectives compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP.Trial registrationISRCTN 94074203; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN94074203.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Project description:BackgroundPatient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients' self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients' physical functioning.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.MethodsThe study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up.ResultsBoth the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference -1.96, 95% CI -4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference -16.39, 95% CI -27.98 to -4.79) and several secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThe stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Project description:BackgroundLow back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.MethodsThe two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.ConclusionsOur results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Project description:Active physiotherapy (APT) embraces a patient-centered approach, prioritizing self-management within the biopsychosocial model and involving active patient movements. Beyond structured exercise, APT incorporates pain neuroscience education, Mulligan Mobilization (MWM), and active myofascial release techniques to integrate sensory-motor information for functional recovery and pain relief. This study aims to rigorously compare the effectiveness of APT versus conventional physical therapy (CPT) on pain and functional outcomes in patients with chronic knee pain. Eighty-seven patients with symptomatic and radiographically confirmed knee pain were included in this 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, conducted at a national institute and a rehabilitation clinic. Patients were randomized to either APT (n = 44) or CPT (n = 43). The APT protocol integrated pain neuroscience education, MWM, active myofascial release techniques, and structured exercises focusing on flexibility, stability, neuromuscular control, and coordination. The CPT protocol included health education, laser therapy, ultrasound therapy, and exercise. Both interventions were performed for 60 min twice a week for 3 months. The primary outcome was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-4 domain version (KOOS4). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (VAS), KOOS-pain, activities of daily living (ADL), function in sport and recreation (Sports/Rec), knee-related quality of life, global rating of change (GROC), quality of life (SF-36), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and functional performances measured at different intervals. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. Of the 87 patients, 70 (80.5%) completed the 12-month follow-up. KOOS4 improved more in the APT group (16.13; 95% CI, 10.39-21.88) than in the CPT group (11.23; 95% CI, 5.42-17.04). APT showed additional improvement in KOOS4 compared to CPT (2.94; 95% CI: 0.04 to 5.85, p = 0.047). The VAS difference was -3.41 mm (95% CI: -6.40 to -0.43, p = 0.025), favoring APT. APT also showed more improvements in KOOS-pain, KOOS-ADL, KOOS-Sports/Rec, and TSK (p < 0.05). No differences between groups were observed in GROC and SF-36. APT significantly improved most functional performance variables compared to CPT (p < 0.05). Active Physiotherapy outshines conventional physical therapy by delivering more substantial reductions in pain intensity and marked enhancements in function among patients with knee pain. This distinctive efficacy underscores the invaluable role of APT in the management of chronic knee pain. By actively involving patients in their recovery journey, APT not only fosters superior results but also emphasizes the critical need to integrate these advanced therapeutic strategies into everyday clinical practices.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain is considered to be one of the main causes of absenteeism from work and primary and specialized consultations. The symptoms of nonspecific chronic low back pain may be accompanied by the activation of myofascial trigger points in the muscles, together with local and/or referred pain. Electrical dry needling is increasingly used in the treatment of lumbar myofascial pain. Conventional physiotherapy, however, is a popular approach to chronic pathologies, and there is evidence of different modalities of physiotherapy being used in the treatment of chronic low back pain. The aim of this study has been to determine the effectiveness of electrical dry needling versus conventional physiotherapy when applied to active and latent myofascial trigger points in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.MethodsThis is a controlled, randomized, two-arm, double-blind study. A total of 92 patients with chronic low back pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire score ≥ 4) will be recruited from the University of Almería. Participants will be divided into two study groups (n = 40) to receive treatment of low back pain with electrical dry needling and conventional physiotherapy (ischaemic compression, analytic stretching and postural education training dossier). A total of 6 sessions will be administered once a week for 6 weeks. Pain intensity, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, quality of sleep, anxiety and depression, pressure pain threshold, abdominal strength and lumbar mobility will be recorded at 6 weeks (post-immediate) and 2 months after the end of treatment.DiscussionWe believe that an approach including electrical dry needling to chronic low back pain dysfunction will be more effective in these patients. The results of this study will inform clinicians on which type of treatment is more beneficial for patients with chronic low back pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04804228. Registered on 14 January 2021.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and the combination of physiotherapy and chiropractic care compared with information and advice for the treatment of patients with nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) in Sweden.DesignA multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial.SettingTen primary care rehabilitation units in Sweden.ParticipantsEighty-eight participants with nonspecific CLBP.InterventionsThe participants were randomly assigned to receive physiotherapy, chiropractic care, combination treatment, or information and advice.Main outcome measuresThis study measured the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), working status, and costs.ResultsThe study revealed no statistically significant differences in any of the outcome measures when physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and combination treatment with information and advice were compared (p > 0.05). The ODI changes between baseline and the 6-month follow-up ranged from 6.13 to 12.56 across the treatment groups, indicating reduced disability in all groups. Compared with the other treatment options, the combination treatment resulted in the greatest QALY gain (0.418) and lowest cost (SEK 3,081).ConclusionCompared with alternative standalone treatment options, the combination treatment strategy resulted in greater QALY gain and lower costs from a heath care perspective. Although the study did not detect statistically significant differences in outcomes or costs among the treatment options, the combination treatment showed promising potential for cost-effectiveness. Given the small sample size and low statistical power of the study, further clinical trials with fewer treatment arms and a focus on the combination group are warranted to confirm these findings. The insights gained from this study are important for informing the design and conduct of future clinical studies investigating the effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP.Trial registrationThe study is registered in the ISRCTN registry (2017-02-20: ISRCTN15830360).

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: midterm follow up results of a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effectiveness of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: midterm follow up results of a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets