Literature DB >> 11074682

The Cochrane review of bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica.

K B Hagen1, G Hilde, G Jamtvedt, M F Winnem.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to rest in bed for patients with acute low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a health care provider, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain.
METHODS: All randomized studies available in systematic searches (electronic databases, contact with authors, and reference lists) were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials, and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.
RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 1435 patients were included. Four trials compared bed rest with advice to stay active, and the overall results were heterogeneous. Overall, results from two high-quality studies indicate no difference in pain intensity at the 3-week follow-up (standardized mean difference 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.3, 0.2]), and a small difference in functional status in favor of staying active (weighted mean difference 3.2 [on a 0-100 scale] 95% CI 0.6, 5.8). In two high-quality trials no differences were reported in pain intensity between 2-3 days of bed rest and 7 days of bed rest. In another two high-quality trials, no differences were found between bed rest and exercises in pain intensity or functional status.
CONCLUSION: Bed rest compared with advice to stay active at best has no effect, and at worst may have slightly harmful effects on LBP. There is not an important difference in the effects of bed rest compared with exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain, or 7 days compared with 2-3 days of bed rest in patients with low back pain of different durations with and without radiating pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11074682     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  5 in total

1.  Barriers for early return-to-work of workers with musculoskeletal disorders according to occupational health physicians and human resource managers.

Authors:  M van Duijn; H Miedema; L Elders; A Burdorf
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2004-03

Review 2.  European guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic girdle pain.

Authors:  Andry Vleeming; Hanne B Albert; Hans Christian Ostgaard; Bengt Sturesson; Britt Stuge
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Does physical activity change predict functional recovery in low back pain? Protocol for a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Paul Hendrick; Stephan Milosavljevic; Melanie L Bell; Leigh Hale; Deirdre A Hurley; Suzanne M McDonough; Markus Melloh; David G Baxter
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-11-06       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 4.  Systematic review of active workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence.

Authors:  M Odeen; L H Magnussen; S Maeland; L Larun; H R Eriksen; T H Tveito
Journal:  Occup Med (Lond)       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 1.611

5.  UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578].

Authors:  S Brealey; K Burton; S Coulton; A Farrin; A Garratt; E Harvey; L Letley; J Martin; Moffett J Klaber; I Russell; D Torgerson; M Underwood; M Vickers; K Whyte; M Williams
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.