Journal article
A structured protocol of evidence-based conservative care compared with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain: A randomized clinical trial
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol.93(1), pp.11-20
2012
Abstract
Objective: To compare a protocol of evidence-based conservative care with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) of less than 6 weeks' duration.
Design: Parallel-group randomized trial.
Setting: Three practices in the United Kingdom.
Participants: Convenience sample of 149 eligible patients were invited to participate in the study, with 118 volunteers being consented and randomly allocated to a treatment group.
Interventions: The experimental group received evidence-based treatments for acute nonspecific LBP as prescribed in a structured protocol of care developed for this study. The control group received usual conservative care. Participants in both groups could receive up to 7 treatments over a 4-week period.
Main Outcome Measures: Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (ODD, visual analog scale (VAS), and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, alongside estimation of clinically meaningful outcomes.
Results: Total dropout rate was 14% (n=16), with 13% of data missing. Missing data were replaced using a multiple imputation method. Participants in both groups received an average of 6 treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in disability ODI scores at the end of week 4 (P=.33), but there was for pain (VAS) scores (P <.001). Interestingly, there were statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both disability and pain measures at the midpoint of the treatment period (P <.001). Patient satisfaction with care was equally high (85%) in both groups. Minimally clinically important differences in scores and number needed to treat scores (NNT < 6) indicated that the experimental treatment (protocol of care) offered a clinically meaningful benefit over the control treatment (usual care), particularly at the midpoint of the treatment period.
Conclusions: Overall, the 2 treatment groups were similar based on primary or secondary outcome measure scores for the full treatment period (4 weeks, with up to 7 treatments). However, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in both disability and pain scores at week 2 (midpoint) with 4 treatments, suggesting that the protocol of care had a more rapid effect than usual care.
Details
- Title
- A structured protocol of evidence-based conservative care compared with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain: A randomized clinical trial
- Authors/Creators
- G.F. Parkin-Smith (Author/Creator)I.J. Norman (Author/Creator)E. Briggs (Author/Creator)E. Angier (Author/Creator)T.G. Wood (Author/Creator)J.W. Brantingham (Author/Creator)
- Publication Details
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol.93(1), pp.11-20
- Publisher
- W. B. Saunders Co., Ltd.
- Identifiers
- 991005543492807891
- Copyright
- © 2012 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
- Murdoch Affiliation
- School of Chiropractic and Sports Science
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Journal article
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
Source: InCites
Metrics
33 Record Views
InCites Highlights
These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output
- Collaboration types
- Domestic collaboration
- International collaboration
- Citation topics
- 1 Clinical & Life Sciences
- 1.129 Back pain
- 1.129.98 Low Back Pain
- Web Of Science research areas
- Rehabilitation
- Sport Sciences
- ESI research areas
- Clinical Medicine