scholarly journals The Treatment of Low Back Pain and Scientific Evidence

Low Back Pain ◽  
10.5772/33716 ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Latorre
2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 759-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno T. Saragiotto ◽  
Matheus O. de Almeida ◽  
Tiê P. Yamato ◽  
Chris G. Maher

<LEAP> highlights the findings and application of Cochrane reviews and other evidence pertinent to the practice of physical therapy. The Cochrane Library is a respected source of reliable evidence related to health care. Cochrane systematic reviews explore the evidence for and against the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions—medications, surgery, education, nutrition, exercises—and the evidence for and against the use of diagnostic tests for specific conditions. Cochrane reviews are designed to facilitate the decisions of clinicians, patients, and others in health care by providing a careful review and interpretation of research studies published in the scientific literature.1Each article in thisPTJseries will summarize a Cochrane review or other scientific evidence resource on a single topic and will present clinical scenarios based on real patients to illustrate how the results of the review can be used to directly inform clinical decisions. This article focuses on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for nonspecific chronic low back pain.Can multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation help this patient with chronic low back pain?


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 481.1-481
Author(s):  
F. Bailly ◽  
A. P. Trouvin ◽  
S. Bercier ◽  
S. Dadoun ◽  
J. P. Deneuville ◽  
...  

Background:Low back pain (LBP) is a frequent, disabling symptom, for which the risk of chronicity is increased by heterogeneous care. Developing and implementing recommendations is likely to improve LBP management.Objectives:To develop French guidelines and care pathway on the management of LBP, coordinated by the French National Authority for Health (FNAH) and based on previous international guidelines in addition to update literature.Methods:A compilation report was constituted on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines between January 2013 and December 2018, and systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the field of LBP between January 2015 and December 2018. This report summarized the state-of-the-art for each predefined area of the guideline. A panel of experts including patients’ representatives and 19 health professionals involved in LBP management was constituted to elaborate the guideline based on the compilation report. A care pathway was constituted to identify the trajectory and the different steps followed by a patient with LBP. Then, the compilation report and the preliminary guidelines were submitted to 24 academic institutions and stakeholders for feedback. Based on the preliminary guideline and the responses of academic institutions and stakeholders, the final recommendations were drawn up by the expert panel. The guideline was finally submitted to an independent committee of the FNAH for final validation. For each area of the guidelines, agreement between experts of the working group was evaluated through the RAND/UCLA method.Results:The initial literature search identified 572 references of recent international guidelines or systematic reviews about LBP. After selection, the compilation report included 101 references. The compilation report was submitted to the expert group during 3 different meetings to reach a consensus on different topics. Thirty-one preliminary recommendations and a care pathway (divided in two parts to facilitate its use and readability) were drafted and submitted to academic institutions and stakeholders. Having considered their comments, final recommendations and care pathway were written. The final guideline was validated by the FNAH. Then, the consensus of the expert panel was assessed about all the final guidelines separately: 32 recommendations (including the care pathway) were evaluated as appropriate; none were evaluated uncertain or inappropriate. Strong approval was obtained for 27 of them (including the care pathway) and weak for 5 of them.Conclusion:This new LBP guideline was based on recent scientific evidence. It introduced several concepts, including the need to identify low back pain at risk of chronicity, in order to provide quicker intensive management if necessary. This guideline should be updated in 5 years’ time, in order to keep it in line with ongoing scientific evidence.Disclosure of Interests: :Florian Bailly Consultant of: Consultation fees from Lilly and Grünenthal laboratories, Anne Priscille Trouvin Speakers bureau: Speaker for menarini, recordati, pfizer, astellas, Sandrine Bercier: None declared, Sabrina Dadoun: None declared, Jean Philippe Deneuville: None declared, Rogatien Faguer: None declared, Jean Baptiste Fassier: None declared, Michèle Koleck: None declared, Louis Lassalle: None declared, Thomas Le Vraux: None declared, Brigitte Liesse: None declared, Karine Petitprez: None declared, Aline Ramond: None declared, Jean François Renard: None declared, Alexandra Roren: None declared, Sylvie Rozenberg Consultant of: Pfizer, Catherine Sebire: None declared, Gilles Viudes: None declared, François Rannou Grant/research support from: Pierre Fabre, Fidia, MSD, Pfizer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Grunenthal, Thuasne, Genévrier, Fondation Arthritis, Consultant of: Pierre Fabre, Fidia, MSD, Pfizer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Grunenthal, Thuasne, Genévrier, Speakers bureau: Pierre Fabre, Fidia, MSD, Pfizer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Grunenthal, Thuasne, Audrey Petit: None declared


Author(s):  
Adrian Escriche-Escuder ◽  
Irene De-Torres ◽  
Cristina Roldán-Jiménez ◽  
Jaime Martín-Martín ◽  
Antonio Muro-Culebras ◽  
...  

Digital health interventions may improve different behaviours. However, the rapid proliferation of technological solutions often does not allow for a correct assessment of the quality of the tools. This study aims to review and assess the quality of the available mobile applications (apps) related to interventions for low back pain. Two reviewers search the official stores of Android (Play Store) and iOS (App Store) for localisation in Spain and the United Kingdom, in September 2019, searching for apps related to interventions for low back pain. Seventeen apps finally are included. The quality of the apps is measured using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). The scores of each section and the final score of the apps are retrieved and the mean and standard deviation obtained. The average quality ranges between 2.83 and 4.57 (mean 3.82) on a scale from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (excellent). The best scores are found in functionality (4.7), followed by aesthetic content (mean 4.1). Information (2.93) and engagement (3.58) are the worst rated items. Apps generally have good overall quality, especially in terms of functionality and aesthetics. Engagement and information should be improved in most of the apps. Moreover, scientific evidence is necessary to support the use of applied health tools.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaiane Silva Tomazoni ◽  
Lucíola da Cunha Menezes Costa ◽  
Layana de Souza Guimarães ◽  
Amanda Costa Araujo ◽  
Dafne Port Nascimento ◽  
...  

IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is one of the largest and most frequent public health problems worldwide. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is a frequently used non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is little high-quality scientific evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of PBMT in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP in the short, medium and long term. Therefore, the objective of this clinical trial is to evaluate the effects of PBMT in patients with chronic non-specific LBP in the short, medium and long term.Methods and analysesThis is a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo-controlled trial with blinded patients, assessors and treatment providers. One hundred and forty-eight patients with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited. Treatment sessions will be provided three times a week for 4 weeks (totaling 12 sessions) with patients receiving either placebo or active PBMT. For ethical reasons, all patients, regardless of treatment allocation, will also receive an information booklet based on ‘The Back Book’. Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline, at the end of treatment, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured after 12 sessions of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation, in addition to specific disability and global perceived effect in all time points.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidade Cidade de São Paulo. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications and presentations at national and international scientific meetings.Trial registration numberNCT03089424.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (14) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH MECHCATIE
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document