Article

Quality of Low Back Pain Guidelines Improved

Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 10/2009; 34(23):2562-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4d50d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Systematic review of clinical guidelines.
To assess the methodological quality of clinical guidelines for the management of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care and compare their recommendations.
A guideline evaluation performed in 2004 concluded that the quality and transparency of the development process and consistency in the reporting of primary care guidelines for LBP need to be improved. At present, several guidelines have been revised and new guidelines are published. We evaluated if the quality of guidelines has improved.
Guidelines published since 2004 were selected by electronically searching in MEDLINE, Cochrane Back Review Group database, Guideline Clearing House, Google, and contacting experts. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by 2 authors independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation in Europe instrument. Also, the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations were compared.
Fourteen guidelines were included. In general, the quality was satisfactory. The guidelines had best scores on clarity and presentation. The domain scores of scope and purpose were often moderate due to the absence of description of the clinical questions. The domain of stakeholder involvement scored moderate, mostly because guidelines were not tested among target users. Domains that had generally low scores were applicability and editorial independence. Four guidelines scored low on the rigor of development, but the other guidelines scored high on this domain.The diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations in the guidelines for acute LBP were mainly comparable while the recommendations for the management of chronic LBP varied widely.
Compared to the quality assessment performed in 2004, the average quality of guidelines has improved. However, guideline developers should still improve the quality transparency of the development process. Especially the applicability of guidelines and the editorial independence need to be ensured in future guidelines.

0 Followers
 · 
62 Views
  • Source
    • "A recurring conclusion of high quality systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of back pain is that most treatments show modest effects compared to natural course, and small or no differences between the effectiveness of different interventions [1] [2] [3] [4]. This leads to equivocal and sometimes contradictory messages in clinical practice guidelines [5] [6], and frustration in clinicians attempting to provide evidence-based care for their patients. In part, the underwhelming results reported by these studies are likely due to incomplete understanding of what factors might be necessary to include in interventions to help influence outcome. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mediation analysis is a useful research method that potentially allows identification of the mechanisms through which treatments affect patient outcomes. This chapter reviews the theoretical framework, research designs and statistical approaches used in mediation analysis. It describes what can be learnt from previous mediation research, much of which has investigated mediating factors of psychosocial interventions in other health conditions. It also summarises the few treatment-mediation studies of psychosocial interventions conducted in back pain. This chapter shows that there is emerging evidence about the role of some psychological factors as potential treatment mediators, such as self-efficacy and catastrophising. Mediation analysis can equally be applied to non-psychological factors. Pre-planned and appropriately conducted mediation analysis in adequately powered clinical trials would be a step forward in understanding treatment effects in back pain and improving patient management.
    Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology 10/2013; 27(5):685-97. DOI:10.1016/j.berh.2013.10.001 · 3.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "de recherche utilisé était « low back pain » ; • le web mondial (jusqu'à décembre 2010) avec les moteurs de recherche Google et Google scholar, en utilisant le terme « low back pain guideline » et la même combinaison avec « guidelines » ; • des recommandations supplémentaires ont été identifiées par la recherche manuelle au sein des références des éléments sélectionnés , recommandations, article et revues générales [13] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectif. – Au cours de la dernière décennie, de nombreux pays à travers le monde ont émis des recommandations pour aider les cliniciens dans leur pratique clinique concernant une prise en charge qui soit basée sur des preuves. Le but de cette étude a été de présenter et de comparer les systèmes de recommandations internationales de qualité et les mieux établis sur des preuves concernant la prise en charge des lombalgies chroniques communes dans le cadre de médecine de premier recours. Méthodes. – Les systèmes de recommandations publiés ou mis à jour depuis 2002 ont été sélectionnés en recherchant sur les bases de données PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, sur les bases de données des recommandations et sur le web. La qualité de la méthodologie des systèmes de recommandations a été évaluée indépendamment par trois auteurs, à l’aide de l’outil Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE). Nous avons synthétisé les recommandations dans les domaines du diagnostic et du traitement, recommandations s’appuyant sur des preuves fortes, moyennes ou faibles. Résultats. – Nous avons inclus 13 systèmes de recommandations. De manière générale, leur qualité était satisfaisante. Les scores les plus élevés concernaient les domaines de la clarté et de la présentation, ainsi que dans celui du sujet et de son étendue ; les plus bas concernaient leur applicabilité. Il existe un fort consensus entre les recommandations, tout particulièrement concernant l’arbre diagnostique décisionnel et l’évaluation des facteurs pronostiques. Les recommandations thérapeutiques consensuelles concernaient l’information au malade, les traitements physiques, la prise en charge multidisciplinaire et l’association des traitements à visée physique et psychologique. Conclusion. – En comparaison aux évaluations précédentes, la qualité moyenne des systèmes de recommandations ayant pour objet les lombalgies chroniques s’est améliorée. De plus, les recommandations sont de plus en plus concordantes concernant le traitement des lombalgies chroniques, recommandations clairement distinctes de celles émises pour les lombalgies aiguës. Néanmoins, il reste nécessaire d’améliorer encore la qualité et d’obtenir de nouvelles preuves dans cette pathologie.
    Revue du Rhumatisme 12/2011; 78(6):557-567. DOI:10.1016/j.rhum.2011.09.013
  • Source
    • "The authors concluded that there is strong evidence that exercise therapy is not more effective than no treatment or other conservative treatments for acute LBP. Two recent papers summarised the quality and content of 25 international clinical guidelines on the management of LBP [17] [18]. There seems to be consensus about the optimal management for acute LBP. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exercise therapy is the most widely used type of conservative treatment for low back pain. Systematic reviews have shown that exercise therapy is effective for chronic but not for acute low back pain. During the past 5 years, many additional trials have been published on chronic low back pain. This articles aims to give an overview on the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with low back pain. For this overview, existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, and the search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) was followed. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) randomised controlled trials,(2) adult (> or =18 years) population with chronic (> or =12 weeks) nonspecific low back pain and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias and outcomes at short-term, intermediate and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach (GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 37 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. The authors conclude that evidence from randomised controlled trials demonstrated that exercise therapy is effective at reducing pain and function in the treatment of chronic low back pain. There is no evidence that one particular type of exercise therapy is clearly more effective than others. However, effects are small and it remains unclear which subgroups of patients benefit most from a specific type of treatment.
    Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology 04/2010; 24(2):193-204. DOI:10.1016/j.berh.2010.01.002 · 3.06 Impact Factor
Show more