Introduction. Analgesic drugs are often prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP). Recommendations for non-invasive pharmacological management of LBP from recent clinical practice guidelines were compared with each other and with the best available evidence on drug efficacy. Methods. Guideline recommendations concerning opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants from national primary care guidelines published within the last 3 years were included in this review. For each pharmacotherapy, the most recent systematic review was included as the best available evidence on drug efficacy and common adverse effects were summarized. Results. Eight recent national clinical practice guidelines were included in this review (from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, UK and US). Guidelines are universally moving away from pharmacotherapy due to the limited efficacy and the risk of adverse effects. NSAIDs have replaced paracetamol as the first choice analgesics for LBP in many guidelines. Opioids are considered to be a last resort in all guidelines, but prescriptions of these medications have been increasing over recent years. Only limited evidence exists for the efficacy of antidepressants and anticonvulsants in chronic LBP. Muscle relaxants are one of the analgesics of first choice in the US, but aren't widely available and thus not widely recommended in most other countries. Conclusions. Upcoming guideline updates should shift their focus from pain to function and from pharmacotherapy to non-pharmacologic treatment options. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review has been supported by a program grant of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation

Purpose and Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches. Methods and Results. We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks. Conclusion. This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. This study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Background. Routine imaging (radiography, CT, MRI) provides no health benefits for low back pain (LBP) patients and is not recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Whether imaging leads to increased costs, healthcare utilization or absence from work is unclear. Purpose. To systematically review if imaging in patients with LBP increases costs, leads to higher health care utilization or increases absence from work. METHODS. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs), comparing imaging versus no imaging on targeted outcomes were extracted from medical databases until October 2017. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of the body of evidence was determined using GRADE methodology. Results. Moderate quality evidence (1 RCT; n=421) supports that direct costs increase for patients undergoing radiography. Low quality evidence (3 OSs; n=9535) supports that early MRI leads to a large increase in costs. Moderate quality evidence (2 RCTs, 6 OSs; n=19392) supports that performing MRI, radiography or CT is associated with increased healthcare utilization. Two RCTs (n=667) showed no significant differences between radiography or MRI groups compared with no imaging groups on absence from work. However, the results of two observational studies (n=7765) did show significantly greater absence from work in the imaging groups compared to the no imaging-groups. Conclusions. Imaging in LBP is associated with higher medical costs and increased healthcare utilisation. There are indications that it also leads to higher absence from work. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Purpose and Background. Traditional physiotherapy methods utilised in the management of NSCLBP have small effects on pain and disability and this is reflected by data previously collected by the host physiotherapy service. O'Sullivan has validated a novel classification system and matching treatment strategy known as Classification Based–Cognitive Functional Therapy (CB-CFT) for people with NSCLBP. Briefly, CB-CFT is a behavioural and functional management approach to NSCLBP. A recent RCT employing CB-CFT has demonstrated superior outcomes in comparison to traditional physiotherapy methods advocated by clinical practice guidelines. It was unknown if CB-CFT improved outcomes for people with NSCLBP attending an NHS physiotherapy service, therefore an evaluation of practice was proposed. Methods and Results. People referred to physiotherapy with NSCLBP were assessed and treated by a physiotherapist trained in the delivery of CB-CFT. Primary outcomes of interest included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). A retrospective evaluation was performed for sixty-one people referred to physiotherapy with NSCLBP. Statistically significant improvements in disability (ODI p<0.001) and pain (NPRS p<0.001) were demonstrated. 88% of people achieved minimum clinically important change, defined as >10 points for the ODI and 75% of people achieved minimum clinically important change, defined as >2 on NPRS. Mean improvement of 24.7 points for the ODI and 3.0 for NPRS was observed immediately following CB-CFT, demonstrating large effect sizes of 1.56 and 1.21 respectively. Conclusion. CB-CFT can be successfully implemented into a NHS Physiotherapy Service producing outcomes that are superior to those previously reported for NSCLBP

Background. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) are not necessarily translated into practice. Multiple research studies have investigated different strategies to implement best evidence into practice yet no synthesis of these studies is available. Objectives. To systematically review available studies to determine whether implementation efforts in this field have been successful; to identify which strategies have been most successful in changing healthcare practitioner behaviours and patient outcomes. Methods. A systematic review was undertaken, searching electronic databases, hand searching, writing to key authors and using prior knowledge of the field to identify papers. Included papers evaluated a strategy to implement best evidence about management of NSLBP into practice; measured key outcomes regarding change in practitioner behaviour/patient outcomes and subjected their data to statistical analysis. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) recommendations about data extraction and synthesis were followed. Study inclusion, data extraction and study risk of bias assessments were conducted independently. Results. Of 7654 potentially eligible citations, 17 papers reporting on 14 studies were included. Single/one-off implementation efforts were consistently unsuccessful. Increasing the frequency and duration of strategies led to greater success with those continuously ongoing over time the most successful. Risk of bias was highly variable with 7 of 17 papers rated at high risk. Conclusions. One-off implementation strategies may seem attractive but are largely unsuccessful in effecting meaningful change in practice. Increasing frequency and duration of strategies results in greater success and the most successful implementation strategies use consistently sustained interventions

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether early surgical treatment results in better neurological recovery 12 months after injury than late surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI).