Back Pain: Chou R

Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, Rosenquist RW, Atlas SJ, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Grabois M, Murphy DR, Resnick DK, Stanos SP, Shaffer WO, Wall EM, Anonymous00055. · Department of Medicine, Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #19363457 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgeries, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain of any duration, with or without leg pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of patients with persistent and disabling low back pain remains a clinical challenge. A number of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies and surgery are available and their use is increasing, but in some cases their utility remains uncertain or controversial. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has also been proposed as a potentially effective noninvasive intervention for persistent and disabling low back pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was convened by the American Pain Society. Its recommendations were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from randomized controlled trials. Recommendations were graded using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 3348 abstracts. A total of 161 randomized trials were deemed relevant to the recommendations in this guideline. The panel developed a total of 8 recommendations. CONCLUSION: Recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are presented. Due to important trade-offs between potential benefits, harms, costs, and burdens of alternative therapies, shared decision-making is an important component of a number of the recommendations.

Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT, Shekelle P, Owens DK, Anonymous00367, Anonymous00368, Anonymous00369. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #17909209 links to  free full text

Abstract: RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause. The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors, which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should not routinely obtain imaging or other diagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should perform diagnostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic deficits are present or when serious underlying conditions are suspected on the basis of history and physical examination (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: Clinicians should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging (preferred) or computed tomography only if they are potential candidates for surgery or epidural steroid injection (for suspected radiculopathy) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: Clinicians should provide patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about effective self-care options (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of medications with proven benefits in conjunction with back care information and self-care. Clinicians should assess severity of baseline pain and functional deficits, potential benefits, risks, and relative lack of long-term efficacy and safety data before initiating therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For most patients, first-line medication options are acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RECOMMENDATION 7: For patients who do not improve with self-care options, clinicians should consider the addition of nonpharmacologic therapy with proven benefits-for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, yoga, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or progressive relaxation (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Chou R. · No affiliation provided · Clin J Pain. · Pubmed #18936592 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Resnick DK, Shaffer WO, Loeser JD. · Department of Medicine, Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, OR Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #19363455 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess benefits and harms of surgery for nonradicular back pain with common degenerative changes, radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc, and symptomatic spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although back surgery rates continue to increase, there is uncertainty or controversy about utility of back surgery for various conditions. METHODS: Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of the above therapies. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: For nonradicular low back pain with common degenerative changes, we found fair evidence that fusion is no better than intensive rehabilitation with a cognitive-behavioral emphasis for improvement in pain or function, but slightly to moderately superior to standard (nonintensive) nonsurgical therapy. Less than half of patients experience optimal outcomes (defined as no more than sporadic pain, slight restriction of function, and occasional analgesics) following fusion. Clinical benefits of instrumented versus noninstrumented fusion are unclear. For radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc, we found good evidence that standard open discectomy and microdiscectomy are moderately superior to nonsurgical therapy for improvement in pain and function through 2 to 3 months. For symptomatic spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, we found good evidence that decompressive surgery is moderately superior to nonsurgical therapy through 1 to 2 years. For both conditions, patients on average experience improvement either with or without surgery, and benefits associated with surgery decrease with long-term follow-up in some trials. Although there is fair evidence that artificial disc replacement is similarly effective compared to fusion for single level degenerative disc disease and that an interspinous spacer device is superior to nonsurgical therapy for 1- or 2-level spinal stenosis with symptoms relieved with forward flexion, insufficient evidence exists to judge long-term benefits or harms. CONCLUSION: Surgery for radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc and symptomatic spinal stenosis is associated with short-term benefits compared to nonsurgical therapy, though benefits diminish with long-term follow-up in some trials. For nonradicular back pain with common degenerative changes, fusion is no more effective than intensive rehabilitation, but associated with small to moderate benefits compared to standard nonsurgical therapy.

Chou R, Fu R, Carrino JA, Deyo RA. · Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Lancet. · Pubmed #19200918 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions. METHODS: We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model. FINDINGS: We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0.19, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.39 for pain and 0.11, -0.29 to 0.50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0.04, -0.15 to 0.07 for pain and 0.01, -0.17 to 0.19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings. INTERPRETATION: Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition.

Chou R, Huffman LH, Anonymous00372, Anonymous00373. · Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #17909211 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Medications are the most frequently prescribed therapy for low back pain. A challenge in choosing pharmacologic therapy is that each class of medication is associated with a unique balance of risks and benefits. PURPOSE: To assess benefits and harms of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptic drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, opioid analgesics, tramadol, and systemic corticosteroids for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain). DATA SOURCES: English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews and randomized trials of dual therapy or monotherapy with 1 or more of the preceding medications for acute or chronic low back pain that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found good evidence that NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief. The magnitude of benefit was moderate (effect size of 0.5 to 0.8, improvement of 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, or relative risk of 1.25 to 2.00 for the proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant pain relief), except in the case of tricyclic antidepressants (for which the benefit was small to moderate). We also found fair evidence that opioids, tramadol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin (for radiculopathy) are effective for pain relief. We found good evidence that systemic corticosteroids are ineffective. Adverse events, such as sedation, varied by medication, although reliable data on serious and long-term harms are sparse. Most trials were short term (< or =4 weeks). Few data address efficacy of dual-medication therapy compared with monotherapy, or beneficial effects on functional outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non-English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Medications with good evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain). Evidence is insufficient to identify one medication as offering a clear overall net advantage because of complex tradeoffs between benefits and harms. Individual patients are likely to differ in how they weigh potential benefits, harms, and costs of various medications.

Chou R, Huffman LH, Anonymous00370, Anonymous00371. · Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #17909210 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Many nonpharmacologic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain. PURPOSE: To assess benefits and harms of acupuncture, back schools, psychological therapies, exercise therapy, functional restoration, interdisciplinary therapy, massage, physical therapies (interferential therapy, low-level laser therapy, lumbar supports, shortwave diathermy, superficial heat, traction, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasonography), spinal manipulation, and yoga for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain). DATA SOURCES: English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews and randomized trials of 1 or more of the preceding therapies for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain) that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found good evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are all moderately effective for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain. Benefits over placebo, sham therapy, or no treatment averaged 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, 2 to 4 points on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, or a standardized mean difference of 0.5 to 0.8. We found fair evidence that acupuncture, massage, yoga (Viniyoga), and functional restoration are also effective for chronic low back pain. For acute low back pain (<4 weeks' duration), the only nonpharmacologic therapies with evidence of efficacy are superficial heat (good evidence for moderate benefits) and spinal manipulation (fair evidence for small to moderate benefits). Although serious harms seemed to be rare, data on harms were poorly reported. No trials addressed optimal sequencing of therapies, and methods for tailoring therapy to individual patients are still in early stages of development. Evidence is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of therapies for sciatica. LIMITATIONS: Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non-English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Therapies with good evidence of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation. For acute low back pain, the only therapy with good evidence of efficacy is superficial heat.

Chou R, Peterson K, Helfand M. · Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. · J Pain Symptom Manage. · Pubmed #15276195 No free full text.

Abstract: Skeletal muscle relaxants are a heterogeneous group of medications used to treat two different types of underlying conditions: spasticity from upper motor neuron syndromes and muscular pain or spasms from peripheral musculoskeletal conditions. Although widely used for these indications, there appear to be gaps in our understanding of the comparative efficacy and safety of different skeletal muscle relaxants. This systematic review summarizes and assesses the evidence for the comparative efficacy and safety of skeletal muscle relaxants for spasticity and musculoskeletal conditions. Randomized trials (for comparative efficacy and adverse events) and observational studies (for adverse events only) that included oral medications classified as skeletal muscle relaxants by the FDA were sought using electronic databases, reference lists, and pharmaceutical company submissions. Searches were performed through January 2003. The validity of each included study was assessed using a data abstraction form and predefined criteria. An overall grade was allocated for the body of evidence for each key question. A total of 101 randomized trials were included in this review. No randomized trial was rated good quality, and there was little evidence of rigorous adverse event assessment in included trials or observational studies. There is fair evidence that baclofen, tizanidine, and dantrolene are effective compared to placebo in patients with spasticity (primarily multiple sclerosis). There is fair evidence that baclofen and tizanidine are roughly equivalent for efficacy in patients with spasticity, but insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of dantrolene compared to baclofen or tizanidine. There is fair evidence that although the overall rate of adverse effects between tizanidine and baclofen is similar, tizanidine is associated with more dry mouth and baclofen with more weakness. There is fair evidence that cyclobenzaprine, carisoprodol, orphenadrine, and tizanidine are effective compared to placebo in patients with musculoskeletal conditions (primarily acute back or neck pain). Cyclobenzaprine has been evaluated in the most clinical trials and has consistently been found to be effective. There is very limited or inconsistent data regarding the effectiveness of metaxalone, methocarbamol, chlorzoxazone, baclofen, or dantrolene compared to placebo in patients with musculoskeletal conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative efficacy or safety of cyclobenzaprine, carisoprodol, orphenadrine, tizanidine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and chlorzoxazone. Dantrolene, and to a lesser degree chlorzoxazone, have been associated with rare serious hepatotoxicity.

Chou R, Atlas SJ, Stanos SP, Rosenquist RW. · Department of Medicine, Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #19363456 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess benefits and harms of nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back and radicular pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although use of certain interventional therapies is common or increasing, there is also uncertainty or controversy about their efficacy. METHODS: Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of local injections, botulinum toxin injection, prolotherapy, epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, therapeutic medial branch block, sacroiliac joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, chemonucleolysis, radiofrequency denervation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation, Coblation nucleoplasty, and spinal cord stimulation. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and by Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: For sciatica or prolapsed lumbar disc with radiculopathy, we found good evidence that chemonucleolysis is moderately superior to placebo injection but inferior to surgery, and fair evidence that epidural steroid injection is moderately effective for short-term (but not long-term) symptom relief. We found fair evidence that spinal cord stimulation is moderately effective for failed back surgery syndrome with persistent radiculopathy, though device-related complications are common. We found good or fair evidence that prolotherapy, facet joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, and percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation are not effective. Insufficient evidence exists to reliably evaluate other interventional therapies. CONCLUSION: Few nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain have been shown to be effective in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Hayden JA, Chou R, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. · Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · J Clin Epidemiol. · Pubmed #19136234 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews of prognostic factors for low back pain vary substantially in design and conduct. The objective of this study was to identify, describe, and synthesize systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis, and explore the potential impact of review methods on the conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified 17 low back pain prognosis reviews published between 2000 and 2006. One reviewer extracted and a second checked review characteristics and results. Two reviewers independently assessed review quality. RESULTS: Review questions and selection criteria varied; there were both focused and broad reviews of prognostic factors. A quarter of reviews did not clearly define search strategies. The number of potential citations identified ranged from 15 to 4,458 and the number of included prognosis studies ranged from 3 to 32 (of 162 distinct citations included across reviews). Seventy percent of reviews assessed quality of included studies, but assessed only a median of four of six potential biases. All reviews reported associations based on statistical significance; they used various strategies for syntheses. Only a small number of important prognostic factors were consistently reported: older age, poor general health, increased psychological or psychosocial stress, poor relations with colleagues, physically heavy work, worse baseline functional disability, sciatica, and the presence of compensation. We found discrepancies across reviews: differences in some selection criteria influenced studies included, and various approaches to data interpretation influenced review conclusions about evidence for specific prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: There is an immediate need for methodological work in the area of prognosis systematic reviews. Because of methodological shortcomings in the primary and review literature, there remains uncertainty about reliability of conclusions regarding prognostic factors for low back pain.

Chou R. · The Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center, The Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. · Pain Pract. · Pubmed #17147579 No free full text.

Abstract: Low back pain has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists. Management of low back pain has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary, inappropriate, or ineffective. Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisals of the available literature. Evidence-based medicine, an approach to clinical problem solving, is predicated on the premise that high-quality health care will result from practices consistent with the best evidence. In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion, authority, and unsystematic clinical observations, evidence-based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisals of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making. Evidence-based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions. Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature, however, most clinicians are unable to keep up-to-date with all the new data. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Like primary studies, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high methodologic standards to reduce error and bias. As in other areas of medicine, the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings. In addition to more rigorous primary studies, an increasing number of high-quality systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available. Although some research gaps and methodologic shortcomings persist, the richer evidence base has greatly improved our understanding of what does and does not work for low back pain. Despite these advances, the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence-based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care. This article reviews basic principles of evidence-based medicine, discusses evidence-based medicine in the context of low back pain management, and summarizes some useful evidence-based medicine resources.

Chou R, Shekelle P, Qaseem A, Owens DK. · No affiliation provided · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18257154 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.