Back Pain: Cedraschi C

Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G, Anonymous00003. · No affiliation provided · Eur Spine J. · Pubmed #16550448 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Mannion AF, Balagué F, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C. · Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Zürich, Switzerland. · Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17968331 No free full text.

Abstract: Pain is a multidimensional experience that is a prominent feature of many musculoskeletal disorders. Despite its subjective nature, pain is a highly relevant complaint; hence, nothing should deter physicians from attempting to formally assess it. This Review summarizes the main aspects of pain measurement from a practical standpoint, with a specific focus on low back pain. On balance, for the assessment of pain intensity, categorical scales with verbal descriptors or numerical rating scales seem to be preferable to traditional visual analogue scales, although no single best measure can be recommended. Pain per se should be assessed, rather than surrogate measures such as analgesic use. Back and leg pain should be evaluated separately in patients in whom these conditions coexist. For assessing change, prospective measurements are preferable to retrospective reports. Pain is not synonymous with function or quality of life, and other tools covering these important outcome dimensions should complement the assessment of pain, especially in patients with chronic symptoms. Clinicians should be aware of the psychometric properties of the tool to be used, including its level of imprecision (random measurement error) and its minimum clinically important difference (score difference indicating meaningful change in clinical status).

Henrotin YE, Cedraschi C, Duplan B, Bazin T, Duquesnoy B. · Bone and Cartilage Research Unit, Department of Physical Medicine, Institute of Pathology, University of Liège, Belgium. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #16688023 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A systematic search of three electronic databases was done to identify randomized controlled trials on the effect of written or audiovisual information in low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether information is an effective preventive action and/or therapy for low back pain and which type of information is most effective. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Information is commonly used in the primary care of low back pain and mostly delivered by booklets. METHODS: A systematic computer-aided search of the Medline, PsyclInfo, and Embase database. A rating system was used to assess the strength of the evidence, based on the methodologic quality of the randomized controlled trials, the relevance of the outcome measures, and the consistency of the results. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials were selected, including seven trials of high methodologic quality, as well as one parallel group controlled survey and one longitudinal study. Only three of the seven high-quality studies showed favorable results for information. There is strong evidence that a booklet increases knowledge and moderate evidence that physician-related cues increase the confidence in a booklet and adherence to exercises. There is limited evidence that a biopsychosocial booklet is more efficient than a biomedical booklet to shift patient's beliefs about physical activity, pain, and consequences of low back trouble. There is strong evidence that booklets are not efficient on absenteeism and conflicting evidence that they are efficient on healthcare use. There is no evidence that e-mail discussion or video programs alone are effective to reduce low back pain, disability, and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Information based on a biopsychosocial model is recommended in primary care to shift patient beliefs on low back pain. Nevertheless, information delivery alone is not sufficient to prevent absenteeism and reduce healthcare costs.

Balagué F, Cedraschi C. · Clinic of Rheumatology and Service of Physical Medicine and Reeducation, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, 1708 Fribourg, Switzerland. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #16563842 No free full text.

Abstract: A review of the recent literature shows that guidelines on the management of low back pain (LBP) have little impact on the use of radiological imagery. Among the factors which might account for the use of radiological examination, a review of the literature points to some that refer to the patient, others to the clinician and still others to the therapeutic interaction. This leads one to question the importance of radiological examination for both the patient and the physician. The matter at stake in this review is the relationship that may exist between this type of examination and the patient's and/or the physician's anxiety. If these aspects are associated or causally related, this relationship can be two-sided and is thus susceptible to affect the patient, the physician, or both. Some possible keys which emphasize the central role of the therapeutic relationship in this predicament are also reviewed.

Nordin M, Balagué F, Cedraschi C. · Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedics Center, Department of Orthopaedics, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY 10014, USA. · Clin Orthop Relat Res. · Pubmed #16462440 No free full text.

Abstract: We review evidence-based treatments for patients seeking care for lower-back pain and patients who have been diagnosed with nonspecific lower-back pain. The review is based on selected systematic reviews and national and international guidelines for the treatment of lower-back pain. Additional randomized controlled trials (ie, possibly those not previously included in the latest systematic reviews) were reviewed and added based on recommended procedures for the evaluation of methodological quality (ie, strong, moderate, and weak). In acute nonspecific lower-back pain (0-4 weeks duration of pain) there is moderate to strong evidence that self-care with over-the-counter medication and maintaining activity as tolerated or treatment with a limited number of sessions of manipulative therapy is effective for pain relief. In subacute nonspecific lower-back pain (4-12 weeks duration of pain) there is weak to moderate evidence that a graded activity program including exercises and cognitive behavioral treatment in combination is more efficient than usual care with regard to return to work. There is strong evidence that these programs reduce work absenteeism. In cases of chronic nonspecific lower-back pain (> 12 weeks duration of pain) a variety of treatments are available with limited and similar efficacy on pain and disability reduction. There is moderate evidence that surgery in chronic nonspecific lower-back pain is as effective as cognitive behavioral treatment with regard to pain, function, mood and return to work. Surgical indications for chronic nonspecific lower-back pain remain ill defined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V (expert opinion). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cedraschi C, Allaz AF. · Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Service of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology and Division of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva University Hospitals, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland. · Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15949777 No free full text.

Abstract: Predicting poor outcomes in daily practice is challenging. As well as prior episodes of low back pain and pain intensity, various psychosocial risk factors have been identified, although the independent prognostic value of these is rather low. This supports the necessity for a multidimensional view of the transition from acute to chronic pain and/or the development of disability. Psychological distress has been found to increase the risk of such a transition. Patients' beliefs and expectations about their pain seem to influence the recovery process; pain-related fear and fear avoidance can be influential psychological variables, from pain inception to its chronic stage. The influence of occupational factors such as job satisfaction, low workplace support or physical workload has also been emphasized. Treatment provider factors and the relationship between patients and care providers also contribute to the realistic or unrealistic expectations and meaningful or acceptable outcomes.

Desmeules JA, Cedraschi C, Piguet V, Allaz AF, Dayer P. · Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology and Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland. · Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11987934 No free full text.

Abstract: One of the major developments with regard to chronic non-malignant pain in these last few years has been a better understanding of the mechanisms that act to maintain pain, while inferences about the pathophysiology have facilitated therapeutic decision-making. This chapter reviews the strength of evidence for the therapeutic effect of pharmacological symptomatic approaches using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, opioids and co-analgesics in acute and chronic back pain with an emphasis on the results of randomized controlled trials as well as on the need for long-term comparative trials of drug efficacy, toxicity and compliance.

Pellisé F, Balagué F, Rajmil L, Cedraschi C, Aguirre M, Fontecha CG, Pasarín M, Ferrer M. · Spine Unit, Hospital Universitari de Traumatologia I Rehabilitació Vall d'Hebron, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035 Barcelona, Spain. · Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. · Pubmed #19124706 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in adolescents and the clinical features of LBP in 2 European countries and to evaluate the effect of LBP on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using standardized validated generic and disease-specific instruments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Secondary schools of Barcelona, Spain, and Fribourg, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Representative sample of adolescents from the 2 cities. Intervention Selected adolescents completed a questionnaire including a generic HRQOL (KIDSCREEN-52) and 2 LBP-specific instruments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Results of KIDSCREEN-52, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Hanover Functional Ability Questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 1470 adolescents (52.6% male) with a mean (SD) age of 15.05 (1.17) years completed the questionnaires (response rate, 85.1%). Low back pain was reported by 587 adolescents (39.8%): isolated LBP in 250 (42.6%), LBP plus other pain in 271(46.2%), LBP plus whole-body pain in 50 (8.5%, and unclassifiable LBP in 16 (2.7%). Five hundred adolescents (34.7%) reported no pain, and 369 (25.6%) reported other pain without LBP. In those with isolated LBP, the percentage of adolescent boys was higher (54.6%; P < .001) and the LBP was mildest. In those with LBP plus whole-body pain, the percentage of adolescent girls was higher (62%; P < .001) and LBP was most severe. All KIDSCREEN scores in the group with LBP plus whole-body pain were significantly lower than in the other groups (effect size, 0.52-1.24). No differences were found between the groups who reported isolated pain, no pain, or other pain with no LBP. On the LBP-specific instruments, adolescents who reported LBP plus other pain had significantly poorer scores (P < .001) compared with those with isolated LBP but better scores (P < .001) than those with LBP plus whole-body pain. CONCLUSIONS: Low back pain in adolescents is a prevalent symptom with overall low associated disability and little effect on health-related quality of life. A subset of adolescents in whom LBP is associated with whole-body pain report significant impairment and deserve more attention.

Genevay S, Cedraschi C. · Service de rhumatologie, HUG, 1211 Genève 14. · Rev Med Suisse. · Pubmed #18402019 No free full text.

Abstract: Multidisciplinary group therapies for low back pain patients have been devised for more than 30 years. Various models have been developed during this period, resulting in multiple programmes with varying effectiveness. Taking the opportunity of the establishment of a new programme at the Geneva University Hospitals, we reviewed these various models and listed the most prevailing elements in the literature. The summary presented here illustrates the hurdles in the treatment of low back pain patients. It underlines the numerous orientations available to the clinician and offers some indications for improving the treatment in these patients.

Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF, Wyatt M, Cassidy JD, Rossignol M, Leboeuf-Yde C, Hartvigsen J, Leino-Arjas P, Latza U, Reis S, Gil Del Real MT, Kovacs FM, Oberg B, Cedraschi C, Bouter LM, Koes BW, Picavet HS, van Tulder MW, Burton K, Foster NE, Macfarlane GJ, Thomas E, Underwood M, Waddell G, Shekelle P, Volinn E, Von Korff M. · Population Health Research Unit, (URESP) Research Centre of the Laval University Affiliated Hospital, Québec, QC, Canada. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #18165754 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. OBJECTIVE: To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. METHODS: Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. RESULTS: Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. CONCLUSION: These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.

Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C. · Department of Rheumatology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cantonal Hospital, 1708 Fribourg, Switzerland. · Lancet. · Pubmed #17336636 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Pellisé F, Vidal X, Hernández A, Cedraschi C, Bagó J, Villanueva C. · Unitat de Cirurgia del Raquis, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #15682021 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Patients in whom a posterior spinal fusion instrumentation had been performed to treat low back pain were asked to recall their preoperative clinical status by retrospectively filling out the same 3 self-evaluation scales they had completed before surgery in a prospective fashion. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of recollection error and compare outcomes using retrospective versus prospective methodologies among a cohort of patients treated with posterior spinal fusion instrumentation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Literature on spine surgery from 1990 to 2000 shows a greater increase in retrospective studies as compared to randomized controlled trials and other prospective studies. Cross-sectional studies evaluate therapeutic effectiveness by comparing the current condition with the recalled (retrospectively recorded) pretreatment condition. There are no studies analyzing the characteristics of recalled data in a cohort of patients with chronic low back pain treated with posterior spinal fusion instrumentation. METHODS: The preoperative clinical status of 58 patients, 33 women and 25 men, with a mean age of 48.3 years (22-84 years) was assessed prospectively with 3 self evaluation questionnaires and retrospectively at a mean of 37.5 months (2-58 months) after surgery using the same questionnaires. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare prospective and retrospective preoperative data and to compare prospective outcomes with outcomes determined from cross-sectional data. Agreement between prospective and retrospective measures was estimated with intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement and consistency. RESULTS: Comparisons between prospective and recalled data showed significant differences, demonstrating a worse preoperative situation when using retrospective data. Assessment of treatment effectiveness showed that cross-sectional evaluation significantly improved the real surgical outcome. Both absolute agreement and consistency intraclass correlation coefficients showed poor agreement between prospective and cross-sectional data, revealing no systematic bias. Follow-up, age, and gender did not modify agreement and cross-sectional overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on a patient's recall of preoperative clinical status is not an accurate method to evaluate surgical outcome after posterior spinal fusion instrumentation. Cross-sectional studies may overestimate the effectiveness of surgery.

Cedraschi C, Bove D, Perrin E, Vischer TL. · Division of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland. · Joint Bone Spine. · Pubmed #10963081 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Whilst investigating the influence of patients' representations on the impact of teaching in the back school, we took an interest in 1) the place of the back in the French idioms referring to the body; and 2) the meaning these idioms convey about the back. METHODS: The idioms including body part terms were sought on the basis of a compilation of French idioms; it has to be noted that such a compilation, however excellent it may be, can only offer a partial view of lay conversation. Occurrence of body parts and of their connotations were assessed. Idioms were classified as positive, negative or neutral, keeping in mind the difficulties of a strict classification in such a field. Drawings were then performed on the basis of the results of the descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Globally, idiomatic expressions offer a rather negative picture of the body or at least suggest that the body is prominently used to express negative ideas and emotions. This is particularly striking for the idioms associated with the back. CONCLUSION: The analysis of idioms referring to the body allows us to 'see with our own eyes' another aspect of the representations of the body and the back, as they are conveyed in the French language.

Cedraschi C, Robert J, Goerg D, Perrin E, Fischer W, Vischer TL. · Rheumatology Division, University Cantonal Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. · Br J Gen Pract. · Pubmed #10736885 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (LBP) accounts for the majority of the disability and costs for LBP. However, the definition of chronicity is unclear. AIM: To elicit practitioners' definitions of chronic LBP patients, both in general and in the patients they were treating; to assess the most common characteristics of these practitioners' chronic LBP patients; and to assess the stability of chronicity in a sample of the general population. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 practitioners working in private practice, 71 LBP patients and their therapists, and 252 employees of a chain store who were assessed yearly in a prospective study. RESULTS: The therapists' definitions of chronic LBP patients generally included psychosocial aspects. Only physical symptoms and signs were stressed in the patients they were treating. These patients displayed common characteristics with reference to pain, functional problems, and contact with health care services. Duration of symptoms was not sufficient to define chronicity. In the employee population, chronicity defined according to pain duration was unstable. However, the same was true when chronicity was measured according to the criteria defined in the patient population. CONCLUSION: There is a discrepancy between theory and practice regarding the definition of chronic LBP. This discrepancy concerns not only the literature but also clinical practice itself. The term 'chronic' LBP as currently used is therefore equivocal.