STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of classification-based physical therapy with that of therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute, work-related low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical practice guidelines recommend minimal intervention during the first few weeks after acute low back injury. However, studies supporting this recommendation have not attempted to identify which patients are likely to respond to particular interventions. METHODS: For this study, 78 subjects with work-related low back pain of less than 3 weeks duration were randomized to receive therapy based on a classification system that attempts to match patients to specific interventions or therapy based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. The subjects were followed for 1 year. Outcomes included the impairment index, Oswestry scale, SF-36 component scores, satisfaction, medical costs, and return to work status. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline factors, subjects receiving classification-based therapy showed greater change on the Oswestry (P = 0.023) and the SF-36 physical component (P = 0.029) after 4 weeks. Patient satisfaction was greater (P = 0.006) and return to full-duty work status more likely (P = 0.017) after 4 weeks in the classification-based group. After 1 year, there was a trend toward reduced Oswestry scores in the classification-based group (P = 0.063). Median total medical costs for 1 year after injury were 1003.68 dollars for the guideline-based group and 774.00 dollars for the classification-based group (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with acute, work-related low back pain, the use of a classification-based approach resulted in improved disability and return to work status after 4 weeks, as compared with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines. Further research is needed on the optimal timing and methods of intervention for patients with acute low back pain.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of classification-based physical therapy with that of therapy based on clinical practice guidelines for patients with acute, work-related low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical practice guidelines recommend minimal intervention during the first few weeks after acute low back injury. However, studies supporting this recommendation have not attempted to identify which patients are likely to respond to particular interventions. METHODS: For this study, 78 subjects with work-related low back pain of less than 3 weeks duration were randomized to receive therapy based on a classification system that attempts to match patients to specific interventions or therapy based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. The subjects were followed for 1 year. Outcomes included the impairment index, Oswestry scale, SF-36 component scores, satisfaction, medical costs, and return to work status. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline factors, subjects receiving classification-based therapy showed greater change on the Oswestry (P = 0.023) and the SF-36 physical component (P = 0.029) after 4 weeks. Patient satisfaction was greater (P = 0.006) and return to full-duty work status more likely (P = 0.017) after 4 weeks in the classification-based group. After 1 year, there was a trend toward reduced Oswestry scores in the classification-based group (P = 0.063). Median total medical costs for 1 year after injury were 1003.68 dollars for the guideline-based group and 774.00 dollars for the classification-based group (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with acute, work-related low back pain, the use of a classification-based approach resulted in improved disability and return to work status after 4 weeks, as compared with therapy based on clinical practice guidelines. Further research is needed on the optimal timing and methods of intervention for patients with acute low back pain.
Authors: Anne N Nisenzon; Steven Z George; Jason M Beneciuk; Laura D Wandner; Calia Torres; Michael E Robinson Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Kristen A Zielinski; Sharon M Henry; Rebecca H Ouellette-Morton; Michael J DeSarno Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: M L Verra; F Angst; R Brioschi; S Lehmann; F J Keefe; J Bart Staal; R A de Bie; A Aeschlimann Journal: Pain Res Manag Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.037
Authors: Nicole H Raney; Evan J Petersen; Tracy A Smith; James E Cowan; Daniel G Rendeiro; Gail D Deyle; John D Childs Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 3.134