Literature DB >> 9883955

Conservative treatment in patients sick-listed for acute low-back pain: a prospective randomised study with 12 months' follow-up.

T Seferlis1, G Németh, A M Carlsson, P Gillström.   

Abstract

We evaluated three different conservative treatment methods for acute low-back pain patients in groups following a manual therapy programme, an intensive training programme, or a general practitioner programme, the latter serving as the control group. Patients aged 19-64 years on sick leave for low-back pain with or without sciatica were included in a prospective randomised study evaluating outcomes such as impairment, pain, functional disability, socio-economic disability and satisfaction with the treatment or explanations. Evaluation by unbiased observers was performed at 1, 3 and 12 months. The three treatment groups were comparable at baseline. With regard to satisfaction, the patients in the manual therapy programme and those in the intensive training programme were more satisfied with the treatment than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. With regard to the explanations of current low-back pain episodes, the patients in the manual therapy programme were more satisfied than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. The manual therapy programme group were also more satisfied with the explanations than those in the intensive training programme at the 1-month follow-up. However, no differences were revealed between the groups with respect to outcomes on measures of impairment, pain, functional disability or socioeconomic disability. All three study groups showed rapid improvement. After 1 month a significant improvement was noted in all outcome values compared with the values on entry to the study. Within the limitations discussed in our study, it is concluded that (1) patients sick listed with acute low-back pain, with or without sciatica, will be significantly improved after 1 month regardless of conservative treatment programme; (2) they will be more satisfied with the treatment if they are referred to a manual treatment programme or a training treatment programme; (3) they will be more satisfied with the explanations of the acute low-back problem if they are referred to one of the above groups, especially the manual treatment group; (4) they will not show any other differences with respect to subjective and objective variables, either at short-term or at long-term follow-ups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9883955      PMCID: PMC3611294          DOI: 10.1007/s005860050109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  18 in total

Review 1.  Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy to reduce sickness absence for workers with back pain.

Authors:  Frederieke G Schaafsma; Karyn Whelan; Allard J van der Beek; Ludeke C van der Es-Lambeek; Anneli Ojajärvi; Jos H Verbeek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-08-30

Review 2.  Prognostic factors for duration of sick leave in patients sick listed with acute low back pain: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  I A Steenstra; J H Verbeek; M W Heymans; P M Bongers
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 3.  Low back pain investigations and prognosis: a review.

Authors:  K M Refshauge; C G Maher
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 13.800

4.  Patient satisfaction with musculoskeletal physiotherapy care in Australia: an international comparison.

Authors:  Julia M Hush; Vivian Yung; Martin Mackey; Roger Adams; Benedict M Wand; Roger Nelson; Paul Beattie
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-11

5.  National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy.

Authors:  Mette Jensen Stochkendahl; Per Kjaer; Jan Hartvigsen; Alice Kongsted; Jens Aaboe; Margrethe Andersen; Mikkel Ø Andersen; Gilles Fournier; Betina Højgaard; Martin Bach Jensen; Lone Donbæk Jensen; Ture Karbo; Lilli Kirkeskov; Martin Melbye; Lone Morsel-Carlsen; Jan Nordsteen; Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson; Zoreh Rasti; Peter Frost Silbye; Morten Zebitz Steiness; Simon Tarp; Morten Vaagholt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Return-to-work interventions for low back pain: a descriptive review of contents and concepts of working mechanisms.

Authors:  J Bart Staal; Hynek Hlobil; Maurits W van Tulder; Albère J A Köke; Tjabe Smid; Willem van Mechelen
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 11.136

7.  The effects of McKenzie and Brunkow exercise program on spinal mobility comparative study.

Authors:  Emela Mujić Skikić; Suad Trebinjac; Slavica Sakota; Dijana Avdić
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.363

8.  Brunkow exercises and low back pain.

Authors:  Emela Mujić Skikić; Suad Trebinjac; Slavica Sakota; Dijana Avdić; Aida Delić
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.363

Review 9.  Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis.

Authors:  Liset H M Pengel; Robert D Herbert; Chris G Maher; Kathryn M Refshauge
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-08-09

Review 10.  Content and outcome of usual primary care for back pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Simon Somerville; Elaine Hay; Martyn Lewis; Julie Barber; Danielle van der Windt; Jonathan Hill; Gail Sowden
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.