Nadia Corp1, Gemma Mansell1,2, Siobhán Stynes1,3, Gwenllian Wynne-Jones1, Lars Morsø4, Jonathan C Hill1, Danielle A van der Windt1. 1. Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK. 2. Department of Psychology, School of Life & Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 3. Haywood Hospital, Spinal Interface Service, Midlands Partnership Foundation NHS Trust, Staffordshire, UK. 4. Open Patient data Explorative Network, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. RESULTS: Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. SIGNIFICANCE: Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. RESULTS: Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. SIGNIFICANCE: Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Françoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Steven E Hanna; Julie Makarski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-05-31 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Ivan Lin; Louise Wiles; Rob Waller; Roger Goucke; Yusuf Nagree; Michael Gibberd; Leon Straker; Chris G Maher; Peter P B O'Sullivan Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Nadine E Foster; Johannes R Anema; Dan Cherkin; Roger Chou; Steven P Cohen; Douglas P Gross; Paulo H Ferreira; Julie M Fritz; Bart W Koes; Wilco Peul; Judith A Turner; Chris G Maher Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kelvin P Jordan; Umesh T Kadam; Richard Hayward; Mark Porcheret; Catherine Young; Peter Croft Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Joanne Protheroe; Benjamin Saunders; Bernadette Bartlam; Kate M Dunn; Vince Cooper; Paul Campbell; Jonathan C Hill; Stephanie Tooth; Christian D Mallen; Elaine M Hay; Nadine E Foster Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Ulrich Siering; Michaela Eikermann; Elke Hausner; Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Edmund A Neugebauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J C Hill; S Garvin; Y Chen; V Cooper; S Wathall; B Saunders; M Lewis; J Protheroe; A Chudyk; K M Dunn; E Hay; D van der Windt; C Mallen; N E Foster Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Casper G Nim; Aron Downie; Søren O'Neill; Gregory N Kawchuk; Stephen M Perle; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Carlos Gevers-Montoro; Benjamin Provencher; Martin Descarreaux; Arantxa Ortega de Mues; Mathieu Piché Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2021-10-25
Authors: Nadia Corp; Gemma Mansell; Siobhán Stynes; Gwenllian Wynne-Jones; Lars Morsø; Jonathan C Hill; Danielle A van der Windt Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: An De Groef; Mira Meeus; Lauren C Heathcote; Louise Wiles; Mark Catley; Anna Vogelzang; Ian Olver; William B Runciman; Peter Hibbert; Lore Dams; Bart Morlion; G Lorimer Moseley Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 4.442