M J Wilkinson1. 1. Department of General Practice, University of Birmingham.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bed rest is a traditional treatment for back pain, yet only in recent years has the therapeutic benefit of this been questioned. AIM: The aim of this pilot study was to ascertain whether or not 48 hours' bed rest had an effect on the outcome of acute low back pain. METHOD: The study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial to compare a prescription of 48 hours' strict bed rest with controls; the control subjects were encouraged to remain mobile and to have no daytime rest. Nine general practitioners from practices in the West Midlands recruited patients in the age range 16-60 years who presented with low back pain of less than seven days' duration, with or without pain radiation. The outcome measures assessed were: change in straight leg raise and lumbar flexion after seven days, Oswestry and Roland-Morris disability scores after seven days and 28 days, and time taken from work. RESULTS:Forty two patients were recruited: 20 were allocated to bed rest and 22 as controls. Compared with the bed rest group the control group had statistically better Roland-Morris scores at day seven (P < 0.05) but not at day 28. At day seven, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in straight leg raise or lumbar flexion measurements although the control group had a better mean lumbar flexion than the bed rest group. The improvement in disability scores at day seven compared with day one was similar for the two groups but more of the control group had fully recovered (defined as scores of one or zero on the Roland-Morris disability scale and five or less on the Oswestry disability scale) by day seven. Remaining mobile did not appear to cause any adverse effects. The number of days lost from work in both groups was equal. A large number of self-remedies and physical therapies were recorded by subjects from both groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study did not indicate whether bed rest or remaining mobile was superior for the treatment of acute low back pain; however, the study sample was small. Subjects in the control group possibly fared better as they appeared to have better lumbar flexion at day seven. It appears that 48 hours' bed rest cannot be recommended for the treatment of acute low back pain on the basis of this small study. Large-scale definitive trials are required to detect clinically significant differences.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Bed rest is a traditional treatment for back pain, yet only in recent years has the therapeutic benefit of this been questioned. AIM: The aim of this pilot study was to ascertain whether or not 48 hours' bed rest had an effect on the outcome of acute low back pain. METHOD: The study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial to compare a prescription of 48 hours' strict bed rest with controls; the control subjects were encouraged to remain mobile and to have no daytime rest. Nine general practitioners from practices in the West Midlands recruited patients in the age range 16-60 years who presented with low back pain of less than seven days' duration, with or without pain radiation. The outcome measures assessed were: change in straight leg raise and lumbar flexion after seven days, Oswestry and Roland-Morris disability scores after seven days and 28 days, and time taken from work. RESULTS: Forty two patients were recruited: 20 were allocated to bed rest and 22 as controls. Compared with the bed rest group the control group had statistically better Roland-Morris scores at day seven (P < 0.05) but not at day 28. At day seven, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in straight leg raise or lumbar flexion measurements although the control group had a better mean lumbar flexion than the bed rest group. The improvement in disability scores at day seven compared with day one was similar for the two groups but more of the control group had fully recovered (defined as scores of one or zero on the Roland-Morris disability scale and five or less on the Oswestry disability scale) by day seven. Remaining mobile did not appear to cause any adverse effects. The number of days lost from work in both groups was equal. A large number of self-remedies and physical therapies were recorded by subjects from both groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study did not indicate whether bed rest or remaining mobile was superior for the treatment of acute low back pain; however, the study sample was small. Subjects in the control group possibly fared better as they appeared to have better lumbar flexion at day seven. It appears that 48 hours' bed rest cannot be recommended for the treatment of acute low back pain on the basis of this small study. Large-scale definitive trials are required to detect clinically significant differences.