Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline.     

The effectiveness of walking as an intervention for low back pain: a systematic review

As current low back pain (LBP) guidelines do not specifically advocate walking as an intervention, this review has explored for the effectiveness of walking in managing acute and chronic LBP. CINAHL, Medline, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases, as well as a hand search of reference lists of retrieved articles, were searched. The search was restricted to studies in the English language. Studies were included when walking was identified as an intervention. Four studies met inclusion criteria, and were assessed with a quality checklist. Three lower ranked studies reported a reduction in LBP from a walking intervention, while the highest ranked study observed no effect. Heterogeneity of study design made it difficult to draw comparisons between studies. There is only low–moderate evidence for walking as an effective intervention strategy for LBP. Further investigation is required to investigate the strength of effect for walking as a primary intervention in the management of acute and chronic LBP.     

Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature

The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients’ expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Cost-effectiveness of a classification-based system for sub-acute and chronic low back pain

Purpose

Identifying relevant subgroups in patients with low back pain (LBP) is considered important to guide physical therapy practice and to improve outcomes. The aim of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a modified version of Delitto’s classification-based treatment approach compared with usual physical therapy care in patients with sub-acute and chronic LBP with 1 year follow-up.

Methods

All patients were classified using the modified version of Delitto’s classification-based system and then randomly assigned to receive either classification-based treatment or usual physical therapy care. The main clinical outcomes measured were; global perceived effect, intensity of pain, functional disability and quality of life. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Multiple imputations were used for missing data. Uncertainty surrounding cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was estimated using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.

Results

In total, 156 patients were included. The outcome analyses showed a significantly better outcome on global perceived effect favoring the classification-based approach, and no differences between the groups on pain, disability and quality-adjusted life-years. Mean total societal costs for the classification-based group were €2,287, and for the usual physical therapy care group €2,020. The difference was €266 (95% CI €-720 to €1,612) and not statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the classification-based approach was not cost-effective in comparison with usual physical therapy care for any clinical outcome measure.

Conclusion

The classification-based treatment approach as used in this study was not cost-effective in comparison with usual physical therapy care in a population of patients with sub-acute and chronic LBP.     

The relationship between physical activity and low back pain outcomes: a systematic review of observational studies

Although clinical guidelines advocate exercise and activity in the management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), the link between levels of physical activity and outcomes is unclear. This systematic review investigated the relationships between free living activity levels after onset of low back pain (LBP) and measures of pain, and disability in patients with NSLBP. Cohort and cross-sectional studies were located using OVID, CINAHL, Medline, AMED, Embase, Biomed, PubMed-National Library of Medicine, Proquest and Cochrane Databases, and hand searches of reference lists. Studies were included if a statistical relationship was investigated between measures of free living physical activity (PA) in subjects with LBP and LBP outcome measures. Twelve studies (seven cohort and five cross-sectional) were included. One prospective study reported a statistically significant relationship between increased leisure time activity and improved LBP outcomes, and one cross-sectional study found that lower levels of sporting activity were associated with higher levels of pain and disability. All other studies (n = 10) found no relationship between measures of activity levels and either pain or disability. Heterogeneity of study designs, particularly in terms of activity measurement, made comparisons between studies difficult. These data suggest that the activity levels of patients with NSLBP are neither associated with, nor predictive of, disability or pain levels. Validated activity measurement in prospective research is required to better evaluate the relationships between PA and LBP.     

Acupuncture therapy for chronic lower back pain: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain is a common condition affecting a significant proportion of the population and has large economic implications on the society. Acupuncture has grown in popularity as an alternative therapy for chronic low back pain. Recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on low back pain offer a course of acupuncture as a baseline treatment option according to patient preference. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if this treatment option is justified in view of recent evidence available on the efficacy of acupuncture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies included were identified by a PubMed search for relevant, randomised, controlled trials on the 23 July 2009. A systematic review was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomised controlled trials were identified. Of these, four met the eligibility criteria and were critically appraised. These trials suggest acupuncture can be superior to usual care in treating chronic low back pain, especially, when patients have positive expectations about acupuncture.

CONCLUSIONS

NICE guidelines of a course of acupuncture, offered according to patient preference as a treatment option for chronic low back pain, are justified.     

Computed tomography for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review

Aim  

In low back pain if serious pathology is suspected diagnostic imaging could be performed. One of the imaging techniques available for this purpose is computed tomography (CT), however, insight in the diagnostic performance of CT is unclear.     

Routine primary care management of acute low back pain: adherence to clinical guidelines

One of the major challenges for general practitioners is to manage individuals with acute low back pain appropriately to reduce the risk of chronicity. A prospective study was designed to assess the actual management of acute low back pain in one primary care setting and to determine whether existing practice patterns conform to published guidelines. Twenty-four family physicians from public primary care centers of the Basque Health Service in Bizkaia, Basque Country (Spain), participated in the study. A total of 105 patients aged 18–65 years presenting with acute low back pain over a 6-month period were included. Immediately after consultation, a research assistant performed a structured clinical interview. The patients care provided by the general practitioner was compared with the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines and guidelines issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners. The diagnostic process showed a low rate of appropriate use of history (27%), physical examination (32%), lumbar radiographs (31%), and referral to specialized care (33%). Although the therapeutic process showed a relatively high rate of appropriateness in earlier mobilization (77%) and educational advice (65%), only 23% of patients were taught about the benign course of back pain. The study revealed that management of acute low back pain in the primary care setting is far from being in conformance with published clinical guidelines.This study was supported by a grant from Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS 96/0324), Madrid, Spain. There were no conflicts of interest     

Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review

Purpose  

In about 5% of all cases LBP is associated with serious underlying pathology requiring diagnostic confirmation and directed treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used for this diagnostic purpose yet its role remains controversial. Consequently, this review aimed to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for identifying lumbar spinal pathology in adult low back pain (LPB) or sciatica patients.     

Risk factors for low back pain and sciatica: an umbrella review

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition and it is associated with significant disability and work absenteeism worldwide. A variety of environmental and individual characteristics have been reported to increase the risk of LBP. To our knowledge, there has been no previous attempt to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews of risk factors for LBP or sciatica.

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations

Purpose

Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.

Methods

Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors’ databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

Results

A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences.

Conclusion

At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.     

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Context

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

Screening for malignancy in low back pain patients: a systematic review

To describe the accuracy of clinical features and tests used to screen for malignancy in patients with low back pain. A systematic review was performed on all available records on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL electronic databases. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated a cohort of low back pain patients, used an appropriate reference standard, and reported sufficient data on the diagnostic accuracy of tests. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data to calculate positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios. Six studies evaluating 22 different clinical features and tests were identified. The prevalence of malignancy ranged from 0.1 to 3.5%. A previous history of cancer (LR+ = 23.7), elevated ESR (LR+ = 18.0), reduced hematocrit (LR+ = 18.2), and overall clinician judgement (LR+ = 12.1) increased the probability of malignancy when present. A combination of age ≥50 years, a previous history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, and failure to improve after 1 month had a reported sensitivity of 100%. Overall, there was poor reporting of methodological quality items, and very few studies were performed in community primary care settings. Malignancy is rare as a cause of low back pain. The most useful features and tests are a previous history of cancer, elevated ESR, reduced hematocrit, and clinician judgement.     

NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain

Background context

Low back pain (LBP) continues to be a very prevalent, disabling, and costly spinal disorder. Numerous interventions are routinely used for symptoms of acute LBP. One of the most common approaches is spinal manipulation therapy (SMT).

Purpose

To assess the current scientific literature related to SMT for acute LBP.

Patient sample

Not applicable.

Outcome measures

Not applicable.

Design

Systematic review (SR).

Methods

Literature was identified by searching MEDLINE using indexed and free text terms. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, and SMT was administered to a group of patients with LBP of less than 3 months. RCTs included in two previous SRs were also screened, as were reference lists of included studies. Combined search results were screened for relevance by two reviewers. Data related to methods, risk of bias, harms, and results were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

Results

The MEDLINE search returned 699 studies, of which six were included; an additional eight studies were identified from two previous SRs. There were 2,027 participants in the 14 included RCTs, which combined SMT with education (n=5), mobilization (MOB) (n=4), exercise (n=3), modalities (n=3), or medication (n=2). The groups that received SMT were most commonly compared with those receiving physical modalities (n=7), education (n=6), medication (n=5), exercise (n=5), MOB (n=3), or sham SMT (n=2). The most common providers of SMT were chiropractors (n=5) and physical therapists (n=5). Most studies (n=6) administered 5 to 10 sessions of SMT over 2 to 4 weeks for acute LBP. Outcomes measured included pain (n=10), function (n=10), health-care utilization (n=6), and global effect (n=5). Studies had a follow-up of less than 1 month (n=7), 3 months (n=1), 6 months (n=3), 1 year (n=2), or 2 years (n=1). When compared with various control groups, results for improvement in pain in the SMT groups were superior in three RCTs and equivalent in three RCTs in the short term, equivalent in four RCTs in the intermediate term, and equivalent in two RCTs in the long term. For improvement in function, results from the SMT groups were superior in one RCT and equivalent in four RCTs in the short term, superior in one RCT and equivalent in one RCT in the intermediate term, and equivalent in one RCT and inferior in one RCT in the long term. No harms related to SMT were reported in these RCTs.

Conclusions

Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Spine care clinicians should discuss the role of SMT as a treatment option for patients with acute LBP who do not find adequate symptomatic relief with self-care and education alone.     

Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain

Clinical practice guidelines state that the tissue source of low back pain cannot be specified in the majority of patients. However, there has been no systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests used to identify the source of low back pain. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests available to clinicians to identify the disc, facet joint or sacroiliac joint (SIJ) as the source of low back pain. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched up to February 2006 with citation tracking of eligible studies. Eligible studies compared index tests with an appropriate reference test (discography, facet joint or SIJ blocks or medial branch blocks) in patients with low back pain. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) > 2 or negative likelihood ratios (-LR) < 0.5 were considered informative. Forty-one studies of moderate quality were included; 28 investigated the disc, 8 the facet joint and 7 the SIJ. Various features observed on MRI (high intensity zone, endplate changes and disc degeneration) produced informative +LR (> 2) in the majority of studies increasing the probability of the disc being the low back pain source. However, heterogeneity of the data prevented pooling. +LR ranged from 1.5 to 5.9, 1.6 to 4.0, and 0.6 to 5.9 for high intensity zone, disc degeneration and endplate changes, respectively. Centralisation was the only clinical feature found to increase the likelihood of the disc as the source of pain: +LR = 2.8 (95%CI 1.4–5.3). Absence of degeneration on MRI was the only test found to reduce the likelihood of the disc as the source of pain: −LR = 0.21 (95%CI 0.12–0.35). While single manual tests of the SIJ were uninformative, their use in combination was informative with +LR of 3.2 (95%CI 2.3–4.4) and −LR of 0.29 (95%CI 0.12–0.35). None of the tests for facet joint pain were found to be informative. The results of this review demonstrate that tests do exist that change the probability of the disc or SIJ (but not the facet joint) as the source of low back pain. However, the changes in probability are usually small and at best moderate. The usefulness of these tests in clinical practice, particularly for guiding treatment selection, remains unclear. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Low back pain in general practice: cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychosocial intervention versus usual care

An intervention that can prevent low back pain (LBP) becoming chronic, may not only prevent great discomfort for patients, but also save substantial costs for the society. Psychosocial factors appear to be of importance in the transition of acute to chronic LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of an intervention aimed at psychosocial factors to usual care in patients with (sub)acute LBP. The study design was an economic evaluation alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, conducted from a societal perspective with a follow-up of 1 year. Sixty general practitioners in 41 general practices recruited 314 patients with non-specific LBP of less than 12 weeks’ duration. General practitioners in the minimal intervention strategy (MIS) group explored and discussed psychosocial prognostic factors. Usual care (UC) was not protocolized. Clinical outcomes were functional disability (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire), perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (EuroQol). Cost data consisted of direct and indirect costs and were measured by patient cost diaries and general practitioner registration forms. Complete cost data were available for 80% of the patients. Differences in clinical outcomes between both the groups were small and not statistically significant. Differences in cost data were in favor of MIS. However, the complete case analysis and the sensitivity analyses with imputed cost data were inconsistent with regard to the statistical significance of this difference in cost data. This study presents conflicting points of view regarding the cost-effectiveness of MIS. We conclude that (Dutch) general practitioners, as yet, should not replace their usual care by this new intervention.     

A systematic review of paracetamol for non-specific low back pain

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the treatment of pain and disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of paracetamol in the treatment of pain and disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. A search for randomized controlled trials was conducted using the Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases. Trials were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials comparing paracetamol to no treatment, placebo or another treatment in patients with non-specific low back pain. Two of the authors independently assessed trials for methodological quality on the PEDro Scale and extracted data. Continuous pain and disability data were converted to a common 0–10 scale; ordinal data were dichotomized (e.g., no pain, pain). The data was analyzed using the MIX version 1.61 meta-analysis software. Out of 205 unique articles found in the searches, 7 eligible trials were identified. The trials enrolled a total of 676 participants with 5 investigating acute low back pain, 1 investigating chronic low back pain and 1 investigating both. No trial provided data comparing paracetamol to placebo and only one trial compared paracetamol to no treatment. In general the trials were small (only 1 trial had >25 subjects per group) and of low methodological quality (only 2 had a score above 6 on the quality scale). All but one of the trials provided imprecise estimates of the effects of treatment with confidence intervals spanning clinically important beneficial and also harmful effects of paracetamol. No trial reported a statistically significant difference in favor of paracetamol. There is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy of paracetamol in patients with low back pain. There is a clear need for large, high quality randomized controlled trials evaluating paracetamol, to provide reliable evidence of paracetamol’s effectiveness in patients with low back pain and to establish the validity of the recommendations in clinical guidelines.     

Effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered by non-psychologists on low back pain and disability: a qualitative systematic review

Background Context

Psychological treatments delivered by non-psychologists have been proposed as a way to increase access to care to address important psychological barriers to recovery in people with low back pain (LBP).