Advice and education are considered vital components of back pain care within national guidelines. However, a recent systematic review only found low grade evidence for a small average effect. They also reported wide heterogeneity in intervention design and delivery. This review aimed to understand why intervention design varied and what limited effectiveness by examining the underlying theoretical foundations of the studies from that review. Population, context, selection criteria, intervention(s), control, outcome measures, how the intervention was hypothesised to produce outcomes and author recommendations based on results of the study were extracted from text records. The extent to which the advice included matched a published international consensus statement on evidence-based advice for back pain was recorded. Whether interventions or settings were complex was determined using the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation guidance and the extent to which they met complexity reporting criteria was recorded.Background
Method
To investigate the feasibility of undertaking a definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) to determine the effectiveness of early physiotherapy for sciatica. Patients over 18 presenting to their G.P with sciatica were eligible to participate in the study, those without a clear understanding of English or had co-morbidities preventing rehabilitation were ineligible. Process and patient reported outcomes including self-rated disability, pain and general health, were collected at baseline, 6,12 and 26 weeks post randomisation. Participants were randomised into either early physiotherapy, receiving treatment within 2 weeks after randomisation or usual care with physiotherapy commencing 6 weeks post randomisation. Both groups received up to 6 treatment sessions of a patient-centred, goal orientated physiotherapy programme specific to their needs.Purpose of the study
Methods
The aims of the study were to explore the experiences of sciatica sufferers, their perceptions of physiotherapy and healthcare service provision. This was the qualitative element of a mixed methods study investigating the feasibility of early physiotherapy for sciatica. Participants in the pilot trial consented to take part in semi-structured interviews before and after they had undertaken an individualised physiotherapy programme. Data from the interviews was examined line by line using a thematic analysis approach with key themes and sub-themes emerging.Purpose of the study
Methods
The primary aim of the study was to test the feasibility of conducting a full RCT with economic analysis and help to inform the provision of physiotherapy in a specific sub-group of patients with sciatica 60 patients waiting for primary, unilateral, single level, lumbar micro-discectomy surgery were recruited and randomised into two groups. The intervention group received a new spinal physiotherapy regimen. Primary outcome measure was the number of patients who did not require surgery at the time of consent clinic. Secondary measures were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EQ5DL, taken at recruitment, 1 week before surgery and 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery.Purpose of study and background
Methods
To investigate the views and experiences of patients with sciatica who have undergone a bespoke physiotherapy programme whilst awaiting primary lumbar microdiscectomy. This is a qualitative study, nested within a preliminary RCT. All patients were listed for primary, single-level microdiscectomy surgery. In the experimental arm of the study 29 patients had up to 6 sessions of physiotherapy over an 8 week period while on the waiting list for lumbar microdiscectomy. After surgery, they were invited to participate in an in-depth semi-structured interview. At this time patients had either decided not to have the surgery, or had undergone surgery. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Two researchers were involved in the analysis of the data to ensure the interpretation of the findings was robust, credible and trustworhy.Objectives
Methods
To question the reliability of Thoracic Spine pain as a red flag and symptoms of a possible cause of Serious Spinal Pathology (SSP). The clinical notes and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) results of patients presenting to the Sheffield Spinal Service with Thoracic spine symptoms but no signs were retrospectively reviewed over the period of 2 year (September 2008-August 2010). The clinical reason for request of Thoracic MRIs were noted and the patient notes were reviewed to determine their presentation, length of time of symptoms, age and also it was noted whether any other recognized red flag symptoms were present. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients referred with known SSP or myelopathic symptoms.Purpose
Methods
To evaluate the competencies of spinal extended scope physiotherapists (ESP) following the introduction of requesting rights for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) one year later. From September 2009 to August 2010 each MRI scan requested by the 2 spinal ESPs within the orthopaedic clinic was recorded along with their clinical diagnosis to ascertain why the scan was requested. This was indicated on a four point scale of likelihood of pathology which had been introduced to give evidence for MRI requesting rights. This was then audited to determine the total number of scans requested along with the accuracy or justification of the request.Purpose
Methods
Results: The Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated for the group using SPSS v.13. The results show low negative correlations for the whole group with low to moderate negative correlations for the male group. There were no statistically significant correlations for the physical performance measures and ODI in the female sub-group.
Group 4 = Very high suspicion of pathology (n=41) Group 3 = Moderate suspicion of pathology (n=21) Group 2 = Some suspicion of pathology (n=10) Group 1 = Pathology unlikely but scan indicated eg thoracic pain (n=4).
Group 4: 88% Group 3: 67% Group 2: 40% Group 1: 0%
