Implementation of RCGP guidelines for acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Capacity of the clinical picture to characterize low back pain relieved by facet joint anesthesia. Proposed criteria to identify patients with painful facet joints. Controlled trial of balneotherapy in treatment of low back pain. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Two psychological interventions are effective in severely disabled, chronic back pain patients: a randomised controlled trial. Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: a single-blind randomized controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Low level laser therapy is ineffective in the management of rheumatoid arthritic finger joints. A randomized controlled clinical trial for low back pain treated by acupressure and physical therapy. Comparison of a functional restoration program with active individual physical therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) has produced guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care.
                To investigate the impact on patient management of an educational strategy to promote these guidelines among general practitioners (GPs).
                Group randomised controlled trial, using the health centre as the unit of randomisation.
                Primary care teams in north-west England.
                Twenty-four health centres were randomly allocated to an intervention or control arm. Practices in the intervention arm were offered outreach visits to promote national guidelines on acute low back pain, as well as access to fast-track physiotherapy and to a triage service for patients with persistent symptoms.
                Twenty-four centres were randomised. Two thousand, one hundred and eighty-seven eligible patients presented with acute low back pain during the study period: 1049 in the intervention group and 1138 in the control group. There were no significant differences between study groups in the proportion of patients who were referred for X-ray, issued with a sickness certificate, prescribed opioids or muscle relaxants, or who were referred to secondary care, but significantly more patients in the intervention group were referred to physiotherapy or the back pain unit (difference in proportion = 12.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.8% to 21.6%).
                The management of patients presenting with low back pain to primary care was mostly unchanged by an outreach educational strategy to promote greater adherence to RCGP guidelines among GPs. An increase in referral to physiotherapy or educational programmes followed the provision of a triage service. Prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of facet joint injection with lidocaine and facet joint injection with saline in two groups of patients with low back pain, with and without clinical criteria that were determined in a previous study to implicate the facet joint as the primary source of the pain.
                To assess the efficacy of single facet joint anesthesia versus placebo (saline injections) and to determine clinical criteria that are predictive of significant relief of LBP after injection.
                There is no syndrome that discriminates between lower back pain caused by facet joint and that caused by other structures. Single or double facet joint anesthesia, and single photon emission computed tomography are expensive and time-consuming procedures for selecting patients in controlled clinical trials with large populations.
                Results of a previous study showed that seven clinical characteristics were more frequent in patients who responded to facet joint anesthesia than in those who did not. In the current study, a group of 43 patients with lower back pain who met at least five criteria were compared with 37 patients who met fewer criteria. Patients randomly received injection of either lidocaine or saline into the lower facet joints. The result was considered positive if more than 75% pain relief was determined by visual analog scale. The patient, the radiologist, and the investigator were blinded. An analysis of variance was used to seek an interaction between clinical group effect and injection effect, and logistic regression analysis to select the best set of variables that would be predictive of minimum pain relief of 75% after the injection.
                There was a significant interaction between clinical group and injection effect (P = 0.003). In patients with back pain, lidocaine provided greater lower-back pain relief than saline (P = 0.01). Lidocaine also-provided greater pain relief in the back pain group than in the nonpain group (P = 0.02). The presence of five among seven variables (age greater than 65 years and pain that was not exacerbated by coughing, not worsened by hyperextension, not worsened by forward flexion, not worsened when rising from flexion, not worsened by extension-rotation, and well-relieved by recumbency), always including the last item, distinguished 92% of patients responding to lidocaine injection and 80% of those not responding in the lidocaine group.
                A set of five clinical characteristics can be used in randomized studies to select lower back pain that will be well relieved by facet joint anesthesia. These characteristics should not, however, be considered as definite diagnostic criteria of lower back pain originating from facet joints. Three treatments for non-specific lumbar pain--balneotherapy, underwater traction bath, and underwater massage--were assessed in a randomised prospective controlled trial in 158 outpatients. Each group was treated for four weeks and patients were reviewed at the end of this period and at 12 months after entry to the trial. The prescription of analgesics and the pain score were significantly reduced in all three treated groups, but there was no difference between the three groups. No significant change occurred in spinal motion and the straight leg raising test. After one year only the analgesic consumption was significantly lower than in the control group. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. Many pain patients appreciate biofeedback interventions because of the integration of psychological and physiological aspects. Therefore we wanted to investigate in a sample of chronic back pain patients whether biofeedback ingredients lead to improved outcome of psychological interventions.
                One hundred and twenty-eight chronic back pain patients were randomly assigned to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), cognitive-behavioural therapy including biofeedback tools (CBT-B) or waitlist control (WLC). The sample was recruited from a highly disabled group including many patients with low education status and former back surgeries. Measures on pain, physical functioning, emotional functioning, coping strategies and health care utilisation were taken at pretreatment, posttreatment and 6 months of follow-up.
                The results indicated significant improvements on most outcome measures for CBT-B and CBT in comparison to WLC. CBT-B and CBT were equally effective (e.g. ITT effect sizes for pain intensity: CBT-B, 0.66 (95% CI 0.39-0.95); CBT, 0.60 (95% CI 0.33-0.87)).
                In conclusion, biofeedback ingredients did not lead to improved outcome of a psychological intervention. Cognitive-behavioural treatment as a "package" of respondent, operant and cognitive interventions was effective for ameliorating pain-related symptoms for chronic back pain patients treated in an outpatient setting. The high treatment acceptability associated with biofeedback ingredients can also be achieved with pure psychological interventions. A single blind randomized controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with acute simple low back pain.
                To compare two research-based models of care for acute low back pain and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention.
                National guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of acute low back pain. The guidelines suggest two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these approaches to the management of acute low back pain.
                Among 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an "assess/advise/treat" group or an "assess/advise/wait" group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy, and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (Visual Analogue Scale), functional disability (the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), mood (Modified Zung Self Rated Depression Score, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), general health (Euroqol), and quality of life (Short Form 36) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
                At 6 weeks, the assess/advise/treat group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health, and quality of life than patients in the assess/advise/wait group (P < 0.05). Disability and pain were not significantly different between the groups at long-term follow up (P > 0.05). However, mood, general health, and quality of life remained significantly better in the assess/advise/treat group (P < 0.05).
                At short-term, intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life, and general health. The timing of intervention affects the development of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore, an assess/advise/treat model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an assess/advise/wait model of care. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) is a relatively new and increasingly popular form of electrotherapy. It is used by physiotherapists in the treatment of a wide variety of conditions including RA despite the lack of scientific evidence to support its efficacy. A randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of LLLT. The patient sample consisted of chronic RA patients with active finger joint synovitis. Forty RA patients with involvement of some or all of MCP or PIP joints were recruited. Following random allocation they received either active or placebo laser three times a week for 4 weeks. Measurements were taken prior to entry, after the treatment, 1 month and 3 months at follow-up. The groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, disease duration and severity. Few significant differences were noted in grip strength, duration of morning stiffness, joint tenderness, temperature of inflamed joints, range of movement or pain either within or between groups. Using these irradiation parameters the efficacy of LLLT is ineffective. Although acupressure has been reported to be effective in managing various types of pain, its efficacy in relieving pain associated with low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of acupressure with that of physical therapy in reducing low back pain.
                A randomized controlled clinical trial in an orthopedic referral hospital in Taiwan was conducted between December 20, 2000, and March 2, 2001. A total of 146 participants with chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to the acupressure group (69) or the physical therapy group (77), each with a different treatment technique. Self-appraised pain scores were obtained before treatment as baseline and after treatment as outcomes using the Chinese version of Short-Form Pain Questionnaire (SF-PQ).
                There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among patients randomized into the two groups. The mean of posttreatment pain score after a 4-week treatment (2.28, SD = 2.62) in the acupressure group was significantly lower than that in the physical therapy group (5.05, SD = 5.11) (P = 0.0002). At the 6-month follow-up assessment, the mean of pain score in the acupressure group (1.08, SD = 1.43) was still significantly lower than that in the physical therapy group (3.15, SD = 3.62) (P = 0.0004).
                Our results suggest that acupressure is another effective alternative medicine in reducing low back pain, although the standard operating procedures involved with acupressure treatment should be carefully assessed in the future.
                Copyright 2004 The Institute for Cancer Prevention and Elsevier Inc. To compare the short-term outcomes of active individual therapy (AIT) with those of a functional restoration program (FRP).
                Prospective randomized controlled study.
                Two rehabilitation centers and private ambulatory physiotherapy facilities.
                One hundred thirty-two adults with chronic low back pain. Fifty-one percent of patients on sick leave or out of work (mean duration, 180d in the 2y before treatment).
                For 5 weeks, FRP (at 25h/wk) or AIT (at 3h/wk).
                Trunk flexibility, back flexor, and extensor endurance (Ito and Sorensen tests), general endurance, pain intensity, Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) scores, daily activities, anxiety depression, social interest, and work and leisure activities, and self-reported improvement (work ability, resumption of sport and leisure activities).
                All outcome measures improved after treatment except endurance in AIT. There was no between-group difference for pain intensity or DPQ daily activities or work and leisure activities scores. Better results were observed in FRP for all other outcome measures. There was a significant effect of treatment and the initial value for the gain of the Sorensen score with a treatment or initial value interaction; a significant effect of treatment and initial value on the gains of Ito, endurance, and DPQ social interest and anxiety depression scores, with no treatment or initial value interaction; and a significant effect of initial value but not treatment for the gains of DPQ daily activities and work and leisure activities scores.
                Low-cost ambulatory AIT is effective. The main advantage of FRP is improved endurance. We speculate that this may be linked to better self-reported work ability and more frequent resumption of sports and leisure activities.
Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions on the clinical effect of LLLT for low-back pain. 
There is a need for further methodologically rigorous RCTs to evaluate the effects of LLLT compared to other treatments, different lengths of treatment, wavelengths and dosages.