Dataset Information

Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For many years, low back pain has been both the leading cause of days lost from work and the leading indication for medical rehabilitation. The goal of the German Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on nonspecific low back pain is to improve the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS:The current update of the NDMG on non-specific low back pain is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search of the literature for systematic reviews. Its recommendations for diagnosis and treatment were developed by a collaborative effort of 29 scientific medical societies and organizations and approved in a formal consensus process. RESULTS:If the history and physical examination do not arouse any suspicion of a dangerous underlying cause, no further diagnostic evaluation is indicated for the time being. Passive, reactive measures should be taken only in combination with activating measures, or not at all. When drugs are used for symptomatic treatment, patients should be treated with the most suitable drug in the lowest possible dose and for as short a time as possible. CONCLUSION:A physician should be in charge of the overall care process. The patient should be kept well informed over the entire course of his or her illness and should be encouraged to adopt a healthful lifestyle, including regular physical exercise.

SUBMITTER: Chenot JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5769319 | biostudies-other | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

Chenot Jean-François JF Greitemann Bernhard B Kladny Bernd B Petzke Frank F Pfingsten Michael M Schorr Susanne Gabriele SG

Deutsches Arzteblatt international 20171201 51-52

<h4>Background</h4>For many years, low back pain has been both the leading cause of days lost from work and the leading indication for medical rehabilitation. The goal of the German Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on nonspecific low back pain is to improve the treatment of patients with this condition.<h4>Methods</h4>The current update of the NDMG on non-specific low back pain is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search of the literature for systematic reviews. Its recommendations ...[more]

PMID: 29321099

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressants are commonly used in the management of low-back pain. However, their use is controversial.ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to determine whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo for the treatment of non-specific low-back pain.Search strategyRandomised controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE (to September 2007), PsycINFO to June 2006, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2006, issue 2, and previous systematic reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials that compared antidepressant medication and placebo for patients with non-specific low-back pain, and used at least one clinically relevant outcome measure.Data collection and analysisTwo blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the effect of antidepressants on pain, depression and function, and the effect of antidepressant type on pain. To account for studies that could not be pooled, additional qualitative analyses were performed using the levels of evidence recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.Main resultsTen trials that compared antidepressants with placebo were included in this review. The pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief (six trials; standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.16)) or depression (two trials; SMD 0.06 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.40)) between antidepressant and placebo treatments. The qualitative analyses found conflicting evidence on the effect of antidepressants on pain intensity in chronic low-back pain, and no clear evidence that antidepressants reduce depression in chronic low-back pain patients. Two pooled analyses showed no difference in pain relief between different types of antidepressants and placebo. Our findings were not altered by the sensitivity analyses which varied the level of methodological quality required for inclusion in the meta-analyses to allow data from additional trials to be examined. Two additional trials were identified in September 2007 and await assessment.Authors' conclusionsThere is no clear evidence that antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the management of patients with chronic low-back pain. These findings do not imply that severely depressed patients with back pain should not be treated with antidepressants; furthermore, there is evidence for their use in other forms of chronic pain.

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Project description:BackgroundThe contribution of sport in non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) remains unknown, due to a large heterogeneity in the methods applied in research. The aims of this scoping review (ScR) were to systematically map and summarize findings concerning studies reporting data on NS-LBP among athletes.MethodsThis ScR was developed referring to the 2020 version of the "Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance" and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. Five medical databases (Pubmed, Cochrane, Central, Embase, Pedro and Scopus) were searched up to November 2021. No limitations in terms of study design and language were applied. Results were presented numerically and thematically.ResultsA total of 4061 records were identified through the initial search; 114 articles met the inclusion criteria. Publications have increased over the years, since 1990. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA (17.5%), even if most research was conducted in Europe (53.5%). Analytic observational (42%) and cross-sectional studies (37%) were the most used designs, followed by case reports (12%) and systematic reviews (9%). Boating (7%), football, soccer, volleyball, running and gymnastics (4.4% each) were the most investigated, although the majority of the studies considered sports in general (36.8%). The overall sample size median was 181, mean age 22 ± 10.2; 68% of athletes were professional and 32% amateur. Most of the studies (38%) did not detail the frequency of training. Sport was reported as a risk factor for developing NS-LBP in 67.5% of cases, especially in those studies which assessed activities implying high or repeated loading on the spine.ConclusionsThis is the first ScR to provide a comprehensive overview on this topic. The increased number of publications on the association between sport practice and NS-LBP demonstrates a growing interest over the years on this topic. Some sport activities seem to be more involved than others in LBP development; however, research methods are extremely varied, thus more standardized observational research may focus on specific disciplines to properly contribute to research and clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

Publications

Non-Specific Low Back Pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets