Articles: low-back-pain.
-
An international group of back pain researchers considered recommendations for standardized measures in clinical outcomes research in patients with back pain. ⋯ Standardized measurement of outcomes would facilitate scientific advances in clinical care. A short, 6-item questionnaire and a somewhat expanded, more precise battery of questionnaires can be recommended. Although many considerations support such recommendations, more data on responsiveness and the minimally important change in scores are needed for most of the instruments.
-
Despite the publication in the mid-1990s of comprehensive practice guidelines for the management of acute low-back pain, both in the United States and elsewhere, this ubiquitous health problem continues to be the main cause of workers' compensation claims in much of the Western world. This paper represents a synthesis of the intervention studies published in the last 4 years and is based on a new approach to categorizing these studies that emphasizes the stage or phase of back pain at the time of intervention and the site or agent of the intervention. ⋯ There is substantial evidence indicating that employers who promptly offer appropriately modified duties can reduce time lost per episode of back pain by at least 30%, with frequent spin-off effects on the incidence of new back-pain claims as well. Finally, newer studies of guidelines-based approaches to back pain in the workplace suggest that a combination of all these approaches, in a coordinated workplace-linked care system, can achieve a reduction of 50% in time lost due to back pain, at no extra cost and, in some settings, with significant savings.
-
Medical treatment of low back pain is at best palliative. While no drugs are specifically labeled for back pain treatment, analgesics, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids are used in practice to augment rest and exercise programs. ⋯ This article reviews the available literature on the various pharmacologic therapies. In addition, newly postulated outcome measures for future back pain studies are discussed.
-
One hundred years ago, the sacroiliac joint was considered to be the most common cause of sciatica; over time, however, it became increasingly apparent that the major back enterprise lay in disc extractions. Still, despite the lack of specific clinical tests, the same clinical symptoms suggesting lumbar disc and lumbar facet joint pathology may also justify consideration of the sacroiliac joint as the pain generator. Treatment approaches, including manual therapies, bracing, and exercises, may benefit both the facet and sacroiliac joints as well as intradiscal pathologies. The possibility of utilizing specific local intra-articular steroid injections into the sacroiliac joint may add another useful tool to the armamentarium of back pain relief strategies.
-
One shortcoming of clinical practice guidelines is that generic, one-for-all guideline recommendations do not account for differences among patients' views about the desirability (or undesirability) of specific health outcomes, such as low back pain. Because differences in patients' preferences may lead to differences in the preferred therapy, a clinical practice guideline that does not consider patients' preferences may provide recommendations that are not optimal. Recently developed methodologic approaches enable guideline developers to assess the role of patients' preferences in clinical decisions and guideline recommendations, and to develop preference-based guidelines. ⋯ These options range from informal discussions with patients to computer-based utility assessments. Patients' preferences are an important factor in clinical decisions regarding management of low-back pain, particularly in decisions about surgical management and symptom control. Although further research is needed to define the role of techniques for assessing patients' preferences in routine clinical practice, guideline developers can determine when patients' preferences should play a prominent role in guideline recommendations.