Multidisciplinary group rehabilitation versus individual physiotherapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized trial.
ABSTRACT A randomized trial.
To evaluate the effectiveness of a semi-intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain in an outpatient setting.
Systematic reviews have shown that there is strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary treatment (>100 hours), which includes functional restoration, improves function among chronic patients with low back pain, and moderate evidence that it reduces pain but contradictory evidence regarding improvement of working ability. However, there is paucity of data whether semi-intensive outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation in groups is more effective than individual physiotherapy.
A total of 120 women employed as healthcare and social care professionals with nonspecific chronic low back pain were recruited from two occupational healthcare centers. The patients were randomized into two intervention programs. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation (n = 59) was conducted in groups and comprised of physical training, workplace interventions, back school, relaxation training, and cognitive-behavioral stress management methods for 70 hours. The individual physiotherapy (n = 61) included physical exercise and passive treatment methods administered for 10 hours. Main outcome measures were: back pain and sciatic pain intensity, disability, sick leaves, healthcare consumption, symptoms of depression, and beliefs of working ability after 2 years.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in main outcome measures just after rehabilitation, at 6-, at 12-, or 24-month follow-up. In both intervention arms, however, the before-and-after comparison showed favorable effects, and the effects were still maintained at 2 years follow-up.
The results of this study indicate that semilight outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for female chronic low back pain patients does not offer incremental benefits when compared with rehabilitation carried out by a physiotherapist having a cognitive-behavioral way of administering the treatment.
SourceAvailable from: Federica Vannetti[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective. Comparing global postural reeducation (GPR) to a standard physiotherapy treatment (PT) based on active exercises, stretching, and massaging for improving pain and function in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. Design. Prospective controlled study. Setting. Outpatient rehabilitation facility. Participants. Adult patients with diagnosis of nonspecific, chronic (>6 months) low back pain. Interventions. Both treatments consisted of 15 sessions of one hour each, twice a week including patient education. Measures. Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire to evaluate disability, and Numeric Analog Scale for pain. A score change >30% was considered clinically significant. Past treatments, use of medications, smoking habits, height, weight, profession, and physical activity were also recorded on baseline, on discharge, and 1 year after discharge (resp., T0, T1, and T2). Results. At T0 103 patients with cLBP (51 cases and 52 controls) were recruited. The treatment (T1) has been completed by 79 (T1) of which 60 then carried out the 1-year follow-up (T2). Both GPR and PT at T1 were associated with a significant statistical and clinical improvement in pain and function, compared to T0. At T2, only pain in GPR still registered a statistically significant improvement.The Scientific World Journal 08/2014; 2015. DOI:10.1155/2015/271436 · 1.73 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain. Systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Electronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials. Trials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention. Forty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care. © Kamper et al 2015.BMJ Clinical Research 02/2015; 350:h444. DOI:10.1136/bmj.h444 · 14.09 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation alone and in combination with cognitive behavioural management in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Double blind parallel group randomised controlled trial with six months' follow-up conducted May 2011-March 2013. Participants, physiotherapists, assessors, and analyses were blinded to group allocation. Interdisciplinary chronic pain centre. 135 participants with non-specific chronic low back pain >12 weeks were recruited from 225 patients assessed for eligibility. Participants were randomised to receive anodal (20 minutes to motor cortex at 2 mA) or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (identical electrode position, stimulator switched off after 30 seconds) for five consecutive days immediately before cognitive behavioural management (four week multidisciplinary programme of 80 hours). Two primary outcome measures of pain intensity (0-100 visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry disability index) were evaluated at two primary endpoints after stimulation and after cognitive behavioural management. Analyses of covariance with baseline values (pain or disability) as covariates showed that transcranial direct current stimulation was ineffective for the reduction of pain (difference between groups on visual analogue scale 1 mm (99% confidence interval -8.69 mm to 6.3 mm; P=0.68)) and disability (difference between groups 1 point (-1.73 to 1.98; P=0.86)) and did not influence the outcome of cognitive behavioural management (difference between group 3 mm (-10.32 mm to 6.73 mm); P=0.58; difference between groups on Oswestry disability index 0 point (-2.45 to 2.62); P=0.92). The stimulation was well tolerated with minimal transitory side effects. This results of this trial on the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation for the reduction of pain and disability do not support its clinical use for managing non-specific chronic low back pain.Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN89874874. © Luedtke et al 2015.BMJ (online) 01/2015; 350:h1640. · 16.38 Impact Factor