18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Best Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 3: Low Back Pain

      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

          Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a major and highly prevalent health problem. Given the high number of papers available, clinicians might be overwhelmed by the evidence on CLBP management. Taking into account the scale and costs of CLBP, it is imperative that healthcare professionals have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Therefore, this paper provides a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence non-invasive rehabilitation for CLBP. Taking together up-to-date evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analysis and available treatment guidelines, most physically inactive therapies should not be considered for CLBP management, except for pain neuroscience education and spinal manipulative therapy if combined with exercise therapy, with or without psychological therapy. Regarding active therapy, back schools, sensory discrimination training, proprioceptive exercises, and sling exercises should not be considered due to low-quality and/or conflicting evidence. Exercise interventions on the other hand are recommended, but while all exercise modalities appear effective compared to minimal/passive/conservative/no intervention, there is no evidence that some specific types of exercises are superior to others. Therefore, we recommend choosing exercises in line with the patient’s preferences and abilities. When exercise interventions are combined with a psychological component, effects are better and maintain longer over time.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

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

          Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care.

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

            The association between obesity and low back pain: a meta-analysis.

            This meta-analysis assessed the association between overweight/obesity and low back pain. The authors systematically searched the Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) and Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) databases until May 2009. Ninety-five studies were reviewed and 33 included in the meta-analyses. In cross-sectional studies, obesity was associated with increased prevalence of low back pain in the past 12 months (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 1.54), seeking care for low back pain (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.67), and chronic low back pain (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.28, 1.60). Compared with non-overweight people, overweight people had a higher prevalence of low back pain but a lower prevalence of low back pain compared with obese people. In cohort studies, only obesity was associated with increased incidence of low back pain for > or =1 day in the past 12 months (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.92). Results remained consistent after adjusting for publication bias and limiting the analyses to studies that controlled for potential confounders. Findings indicate that overweight and obesity increase the risk of low back pain. Overweight and obesity have the strongest association with seeking care for low back pain and chronic low back pain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review

              OBJECTIVE To estimate worldwide prevalence of chronic low back pain according to age and sex. METHODS We consulted Medline (PubMed), LILACS and EMBASE electronic databases. The search strategy used the following descriptors and combinations: back pain, prevalence, musculoskeletal diseases, chronic musculoskeletal pain, rheumatic, low back pain, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic low back pain. We selected cross-sectional population-based or cohort studies that assessed chronic low back pain as an outcome. We also assessed the quality of the selected studies as well as the chronic low back pain prevalence according to age and sex. RESULTS The review included 28 studies. Based on our qualitative evaluation, around one third of the studies had low scores, mainly due to high non-response rates. Chronic low back pain prevalence was 4.2% in individuals aged between 24 and 39 years old and 19.6% in those aged between 20 and 59. Of nine studies with individuals aged 18 and above, six reported chronic low back pain between 3.9% and 10.2% and three, prevalence between 13.1% and 20.3%. In the Brazilian older population, chronic low back pain prevalence was 25.4%. CONCLUSIONS Chronic low back pain prevalence increases linearly from the third decade of life on, until the 60 years of age, being more prevalent in women. Methodological approaches aiming to reduce high heterogeneity in case definitions of chronic low back pain are essential to consistency and comparative analysis between studies. A standard chronic low back pain definition should include the precise description of the anatomical area, pain duration and limitation level.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                19 July 2019
                July 2019
                : 8
                : 7
                : 1063
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO), 1090 Brussels, Belgium
                [2 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy (KIMA), Faculty of Physical Education & Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
                [3 ]Pain in Motion International Research Group, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
                [4 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Physiotherapy, University Hospital Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
                [5 ]Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium
                [6 ]Department of Public Health (GEWE), Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
                [7 ]Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
                [8 ]Transcare, Transdisciplinary Pain Management Centre, 9728 EE Groningen, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0598-7038
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0751-6504
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5673-7314
                Article
                jcm-08-01063
                10.3390/jcm8071063
                6679058
                31331087
                c5798ca4-cf93-4086-ac62-9d46b4ef9c5c
                © 2019 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
                : 06 June 2019
                : 16 July 2019
                Categories
                Article

                pain neuroscience,musculoskeletal pain,rehabilitation medicine,physiotherapy,lifestyle

                Comments

                Comment on this article