Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

A structured protocol of evidence-based conservative care compared with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized clinical trial
Parkin-Smith GF, Norman IJ, Briggs E, Angier E, Wood TG, Brantingham JW
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2012 Jan;93(1):11-20
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To compare a protocol of evidence-based conservative care with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) of less than 6 weeks' duration. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized trial. SETTING: Three practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 149 eligible patients were invited to participate in the study, with 118 volunteers being consented and randomly allocated to a treatment group. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group received evidence-based treatments for acute nonspecific LBP as prescribed in a structured protocol of care developed for this study. The control group received usual conservative care. Participants in both groups could receive up to 7 treatments over a 4-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, alongside estimation of clinically meaningful outcomes. RESULTS: Total dropout rate was 14% (n = 16), with 13% of data missing. Missing data were replaced using a multiple imputation method. Participants in both groups received an average of 6 treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in disability (ODI) scores at the end of week 4 (p = 0.33), but there was for pain (VAS) scores (p < 0.001). Interestingly, there were statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both disability and pain measures at the midpoint of the treatment period (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction with care was equally high (85%) in both groups. Minimally clinically important differences in scores and number needed to treat scores (NNT < 6) indicated that the experimental treatment (protocol of care) offered a clinically meaningful benefit over the control treatment (usual care), particularly at the midpoint of the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the 2 treatment groups were similar based on primary or secondary outcome measure scores for the full treatment period (4 weeks, with up to 7 treatments). However, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in both disability and pain scores at week 2 (midpoint) with 4 treatments, suggesting that the protocol of care had a more rapid effect than usual care.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help