9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Randomized Trial of General Strength and Conditioning versus Motor Control and Manual Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain on Physical and Self-Report Outcomes

      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

          Exercise and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6-month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; n = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; n = 20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio-respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, p = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow-up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): −10.7 (−18.7, −2.8) mm; p = 0.008) and MCMT (−19.2 (−28.1, −10.3) mm; p < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between-group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; p = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; p = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; p = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; p = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (−5.7 (−11.2, −0.2) pts; p = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (−6.6 (−9.9, −3.2) pts; p < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6-month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC ( p = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

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

          Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems.

          Back and neck problems are among the symptoms most commonly encountered in clinical practice. However, few studies have examined national trends in expenditures for back and neck problems or related these trends to health status measures. To estimate inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, and pharmacy expenditures related to back and neck problems in the United States from 1997 through 2005 and to examine associated trends in health status. Age- and sex-adjusted analysis of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1997 to 2005 using complex survey regression methods. The MEPS is a household survey of medical expenditures weighted to represent national estimates. Respondents were US adults (> 17 years) who self-reported back and neck problems (referred to as "spine problems" based on MEPS descriptions and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification definitions). Spine-related expenditures for health services (inflation-adjusted); annual surveys of self-reported health status. National estimates were based on annual samples of survey respondents with and without self-reported spine problems from 1997 through 2005. A total of 23 045 respondents were sampled in 1997, including 3139 who reported spine problems. In 2005, the sample included 22 258 respondents, including 3187 who reported spine problems. In 1997, the mean age- and sex-adjusted medical costs for respondents with spine problems was $4695 (95% confidence interval [CI], $4181-$5209), compared with $2731 (95% CI, $2557-$2904) among those without spine problems (inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars). In 2005, the mean age- and sex- adjusted medical expenditure among respondents with spine problems was $6096 (95% CI, $5670-$6522), compared with $3516 (95% CI, $3266-$3765) among those without spine problems. Total estimated expenditures among respondents with spine problems increased 65% (adjusted for inflation) from 1997 to 2005, more rapidly than overall health expenditures. The estimated proportion of persons with back or neck problems who self-reported physical functioning limitations increased from 20.7% (95% CI, 19.9%-21.4%) to 24.7% (95% CI, 23.7%-25.6%) from 1997 to 2005. Age- and sex-adjusted self-reported measures of mental health, physical functioning, work or school limitations, and social limitations among adults with spine problems were worse in 2005 than in 1997. In this survey population, self-reported back and neck problems accounted for a large proportion of health care expenditures. These spine-related expenditures have increased substantially from 1997 to 2005, without evidence of corresponding improvement in self-assessed health status.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

            Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31(12): 3508-3523, 2017-The purpose of this article was to conduct a systematic review of the current body of literature and a meta-analysis to compare changes in strength and hypertrophy between low- vs. high-load resistance training protocols. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were conducted for studies that met the following criteria: (a) an experimental trial involving both low-load training [≤60% 1 repetition maximum (1RM)] and high-load training (>60% 1RM); (b) with all sets in the training protocols being performed to momentary muscular failure; (c) at least one method of estimating changes in muscle mass or dynamic, isometric, or isokinetic strength was used; (d) the training protocol lasted for a minimum of 6 weeks; (e) the study involved participants with no known medical conditions or injuries impairing training capacity. A total of 21 studies were ultimately included for analysis. Gains in 1RM strength were significantly greater in favor of high- vs. low-load training, whereas no significant differences were found for isometric strength between conditions. Changes in measures of muscle hypertrophy were similar between conditions. The findings indicate that maximal strength benefits are obtained from the use of heavy loads while muscle hypertrophy can be equally achieved across a spectrum of loading ranges.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale.

              The quality of a disability scale should dictate when it is used. The purposes of this study were to examine the validity of a global rating of change as a reflection of meaningful change in patient status and to compare the measurement properties of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QUE). Sixty-seven patients with acute, work-related low back pain referred for physical therapy participated in the study. The 2 scales were administered initially and after 4 weeks of physical therapy. The Physical Impairment Index, a measure of physical impairment due to low back pain, was measured initially and after 2 and 4 weeks. A global rating of change survey instrument was completed by each subject after 4 weeks. An interaction existed between patients defined as improved or stable based on the global rating using a 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures on the impairment index. The modified OSW showed higher levels of test-retest reliability and responsiveness compared with the QUE. The minimum clinically important difference, defined as the amount of change that best distinguishes between patients who have improved and those remaining stable, was approximately 6 points for the modified OSW and approximately 15 points for the QUE. The construct validity of the global rating of change was supported by the stability of the Physical Impairment Index across the study period in patients defined as stable by the global rating and by the decrease in physical impairment across the study period in patients defined as improved by the global rating. The modified OSW demonstrated superior measurement properties compared with the QUE.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                03 June 2020
                June 2020
                : 9
                : 6
                : 1726
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia; scott.tagliaferri@ 123456deakin.edu.au (S.D.T.); c.miller@ 123456deakin.edu.au (C.T.M.); luana.main@ 123456deakin.edu.au (L.C.M.); timo.rantalainen@ 123456jyu.fi (T.R.); p.owen@ 123456deakin.edu.au (P.J.O.)
                [2 ]Advance HealthCare, 157 Scoresby Rd, Boronia, VIC 3155, Australia; jford@ 123456advancehealthcare.com.au
                [3 ]Low Back Research Team, College of Science, Health & Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia; a.hahne@ 123456latrobe.edu.au
                [4 ]Gerontology Research Center and Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
                [5 ]Imaging@Olympic Park, AAMI Park, 60 Olympic Boulevard, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; d.connell@ 123456iop.net.au
                [6 ]School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia; katie_simson@ 123456hotmail.com
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3669-4131
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7743-6986
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9576-9466
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6977-4782
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3924-9375
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-832X
                Article
                jcm-09-01726
                10.3390/jcm9061726
                7355598
                32503243
                9fbef533-cc40-4226-8d53-a6a097572248
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 April 2020
                : 01 June 2020
                Categories
                Article

                exercise,spine,physiotherapy,physical therapy,rehabilitation

                Comments

                Comment on this article