11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An interdisciplinary clinical practice model for the management of low-back pain in primary care: the CLIP project

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Low-back pain is responsible for significant disability and costs in industrialized countries. Only a minority of subjects suffering from low-back pain will develop persistent disability. However, this minority is responsible for the majority of costs and has the poorest health outcomes. The objective of the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) project was to develop a primary care interdisciplinary practice model for the clinical management of low-back pain and the prevention of persistent disability.

          Methods

          Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a clinical management model for low-back pain was developed by the project team. A structured process facilitating discussions on this model among researchers, stakeholders and clinicians was created. The model was revised following these exchanges, without deviating from the evidence.

          Results

          A model consisting of nine elements on clinical management of low-back pain and prevention of persistent disability was developed. The model's two core elements for the prevention of persistent disability are the following: 1) the evaluation of the prognosis at the fourth week of disability, and of key modifiable barriers to return to usual activities if the prognosis is unfavourable; 2) the evaluation of the patient's perceived disability every four weeks, with the evaluation and management of barriers to return to usual activities if perceived disability has not sufficiently improved.

          Conclusion

          A primary care interdisciplinary model aimed at improving quality and continuity of care for patients with low-back pain was developed. The effectiveness, efficiency and applicability of the CLIP model in preventing persistent disability in patients suffering from low-back pain should be assessed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis.

          To describe the course of acute low back pain and sciatica and to identify clinically important prognostic factors for these conditions. Systematic review. Searches of Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Science Citation Index and iterative searches of bibliographies. Pain, disability, and return to work. 15 studies of variable methodological quality were included. Rapid improvements in pain (mean reduction 58% of initial scores), disability (58%), and return to work (82% of those initially off work) occurred in one month. Further improvement was apparent until about three months. Thereafter levels for pain, disability, and return to work remained almost constant. 73% of patients had at least one recurrence within 12 months. People with acute low back pain and associated disability usually improve rapidly within weeks. None the less, pain and disability are typically ongoing, and recurrences are common.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging.

            To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings. MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain. The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles. Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done. Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis: acupuncture for low back pain.

              Low back pain limits activity and is the second most frequent reason for physician visits. Previous research shows widespread use of acupuncture for low back pain. To assess acupuncture's effectiveness for treating low back pain. Randomized, controlled trials were identified through searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, CISCOM, and GERA databases through August 2004. Additional data sources included previous reviews and personal contacts with colleagues. Randomized, controlled trials comparing needle acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other sham treatments, no additional treatment, or another active treatment for patients with low back pain. Data were dually extracted for the outcomes of pain, functional status, overall improvement, return to work, and analgesic consumption. In addition, study quality was assessed. The 33 randomized, controlled trials that met inclusion criteria were subgrouped according to acute or chronic pain, style of acupuncture, and type of control group used. The principal [correction] measure of effect size was the standardized mean difference, since the trials assessed the same outcome but measured it in various ways. For the primary outcome of short-term relief of chronic pain, the meta-analyses showed that acupuncture is significantly more effective than sham treatment (standardized mean difference, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.73]; 7 trials) and no additional treatment (standardized mean difference, 0.69 [CI, 0.40 to 0.98]; 8 trials). For patients with acute low back pain, data are sparse and inconclusive. Data are also insufficient for drawing conclusions about acupuncture's short-term effectiveness compared with most other therapies. The quantity and quality of the included trials varied. Acupuncture effectively relieves chronic low back pain. No evidence suggests that acupuncture is more effective than other active therapies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central
                1471-2474
                2008
                21 April 2008
                : 9
                : 54
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Montreal Department of Public Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Rehabilitation, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Rehabilitation, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Industrial Relations, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
                [5 ]School of Rehabilitation, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
                [6 ]Sir Mortimer B Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada
                [7 ]Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital, Montreal, Canada
                [8 ]Constance Lethbridge Rehabilitation Centre, Montreal, Canada
                Article
                1471-2474-9-54
                10.1186/1471-2474-9-54
                2390556
                18426590
                5431ea07-a5e4-4d22-ab4f-ec0758c053b1
                Copyright © 2008 Poitras et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 May 2007
                : 21 April 2008
                Categories
                Research Article

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article