Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Clinical Guidelines |2 October 2007

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline Free

Roger Chou, MD; Laurie Hoyt Huffman, MS

Roger Chou, MD
From the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Laurie Hoyt Huffman, MS
From the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
  • From the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

    Disclaimer: No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of the American Pain Society.

    Acknowledgments: The authors thank Jayne Schablaske and Michelle Pappas for administrative support.

    Grant Support: This article is based on research conducted at the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, with funding from the American Pain Society.

    Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

    Requests for Single Reprints: Roger Chou, MD, Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mailcode BICC, Portland, OR 97239; e-mail, chour@ohsu.edu.

    Current Author Addresses: Dr. Chou and Ms. Huffman: Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mailcode BICC, Portland, OR 97239.

×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link
  • CiteULike Link

Abstract

Background:

Many nonpharmacologic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain.

Purpose:

To assess benefits and harms of acupuncture, back schools, psychological therapies, exercise therapy, functional restoration, interdisciplinary therapy, massage, physical therapies (interferential therapy, low-level laser therapy, lumbar supports, shortwave diathermy, superficial heat, traction, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasonography), spinal manipulation, and yoga for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain).

Data Sources:

English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts.

Study Selection:

Systematic reviews and randomized trials of 1 or more of the preceding therapies for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain) that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction.

Data Extraction:

We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials.

Data Synthesis:

We found good evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are all moderately effective for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain. Benefits over placebo, sham therapy, or no treatment averaged 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, 2 to 4 points on the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, or a standardized mean difference of 0.5 to 0.8. We found fair evidence that acupuncture, massage, yoga (Viniyoga), and functional restoration are also effective for chronic low back pain. For acute low back pain (<4 weeks' duration), the only nonpharmacologic therapies with evidence of efficacy are superficial heat (good evidence for moderate benefits) and spinal manipulation (fair evidence for small to moderate benefits). Although serious harms seemed to be rare, data on harms were poorly reported. No trials addressed optimal sequencing of therapies, and methods for tailoring therapy to individual patients are still in early stages of development. Evidence is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of therapies for sciatica.

Limitations:

Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non–English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews.

Conclusions:

Therapies with good evidence of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation. For acute low back pain, the only therapy with good evidence of efficacy is superficial heat.

Many nonpharmacologic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain. In 1 study of primary care clinicians, 65% reported recommending massage therapy; 55% recommended therapeutic ultrasonography; and 22% recommended, prescribed, or performed spinal manipulation (1). In another study, 38% of patients with spine disorders were referred to a physical therapist for exercise therapy, physical therapies, or other interventions (2). Other noninvasive interventions are also available, including psychological therapies, back schools, yoga, and interdisciplinary therapy.
Clinicians managing low back pain vary substantially in the noninvasive therapies they recommend (3). Although earlier reviews found little evidence demonstrating efficacy of most noninvasive therapies for low back pain (4–6), many more randomized trials are now available. This article summarizes current evidence on noninvasive therapies for low back pain in adults. It is part of a larger evidence review commissioned by the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians to guide recommendations for management of low back pain (7). Pharmacologic therapies are reviewed in a separate article in this issue (8).

Methods

Data Sources and Searches

An expert panel convened by the American Pain Society and American College of Physicians determined which nonpharmacologic therapies would be included in this review. Appendix Table 1 shows the 17 therapies chosen by the panel and how we defined and grouped them. Several therapies that have not been studied in the United States or are not widely available (such as acupressure, neuroreflexotherapy, spa therapy, and percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) are reviewed in the complete evidence review (7). Therapies solely involving advice or back education are also reviewed separately, as are surgical and interventional pain procedures.

Appendix Table 1. Included Interventions

Appendix Table 1. Included Interventions
We searched MEDLINE (1966 through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4) for relevant systematic reviews, combining terms for low back pain with a search strategy for identifying systematic reviews. When higher-quality systematic reviews were not available for a particular intervention, we conducted additional searches for primary studies (combining terms for low back pain with the therapy of interest) on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PEDro. Full details of the search strategies are available in the complete evidence report (7). Electronic searches were supplemented by reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. We did not include trials published only as conference abstracts.

Evidence Selection

We included all randomized, controlled trials meeting all of the following criteria: 1) reported in English, or in a non-English language but included in an English-language systematic review; 2) evaluated nonpregnant adults (>18 years of age) with low back pain (alone or with leg pain) of any duration; 3) evaluated a target therapy; and 4) reported at least 1 of the following outcomes: back-specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, or patient satisfaction (9, 10).
We excluded trials of low back pain associated with acute major trauma, cancer, infection, the cauda equina syndrome, fibromyalgia, and osteoporosis or vertebral compression fracture.
Because of the large number of studies on therapies for low back pain, our primary source for trials was systematic reviews. When multiple systematic reviews were available for a target therapy, we excluded outdated systematic reviews, which we defined as systematic reviews with a published update or those published before 2000. When a higher-quality systematic review was not available for a particular therapy, we included all relevant randomized, controlled trials. We also supplemented systematic reviews with data from recent, large (>250 patients) trials.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

For each included systematic review, we abstracted information on search methods; inclusion criteria; methods for rating study quality; characteristics of included studies; methods for synthesizing data; and results, including the number and quality of trials for each comparison and outcome in patients with acute (<4 weeks' duration) low back pain, chronic/subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain, and back pain with sciatica. If specific data on duration of trials were not provided, we relied on the categorization (acute or chronic/subacute) assigned by the systematic review. For each trial not included in a systematic review, we abstracted information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions, and results.
We considered mean improvements of 5 to 10 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale (or equivalent) to be small or slight; 10 to 20 points, moderate; and more than 20 points, large or substantial. For back-specific functional status, we classified mean improvements of 2 to 5 points on the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ; scale, 0 to 24) and 10 to 20 points on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; scale, 0 to 100) as moderate (11). We considered standardized mean differences of 0.2 to 0.5 to be small or slight; 0.5 to 0.8, moderate; and greater than 0.8, large (12). Some evidence suggests that our classification of mean improvements and standardized mean differences for pain and functional status are roughly concordant in patients with low back pain (13–18). Because few trials reported the proportion of patients meeting specific thresholds (such as >30% reduction in pain score) for target outcomes, it was usually not possible to report numbers needed to treat for benefit. When those were reported, we considered a relative risk of 1.25 to 2.00 for the proportion of patients reporting greater than 30% pain relief to indicate a moderate benefit.
Two reviewers independently rated the quality of each included trial. Discrepancies were resolved through joint review and a consensus process. We assessed internal validity (quality) of systematic reviews by using the Oxman criteria (Appendix Table 2) (19, 20). According to this system, systematic reviews receiving a score of 4 or less (on a scale of 1 to 7) have potential major flaws and are more likely to produce positive conclusions about effectiveness of interventions (20, 21). We classified such systematic reviews as “lower quality”; those receiving scores of 5 or more were graded as “higher quality.”

Appendix Table 2. Quality Rating System for Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 2. Quality Rating System for Systematic Reviews
We did not abstract results of individual trials if they were included in a higher-quality systematic review. Instead, we relied on results and quality ratings for the trials as reported by the systematic reviews. We considered trials receiving more than half of the maximum possible quality score to be “higher quality” for any quality rating system used (22, 23).
We assessed internal validity of randomized clinical trials not included in a higher-quality systematic review by using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group (Appendix Table 3) (24). When blinding was not feasible, we removed blinding of providers (for studies of acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and massage) or blinding of patients and providers (for studies of back schools, exercise, psychological interventions, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, and functional restoration) as a quality criterion; thus, the maximum score was 10 or 9, respectively. We considered trials receiving more than half of the total possible score to be “higher quality” and those receiving less than or equal to half to be “lower quality” (22, 23).

Appendix Table 3. Quality Rating System for Randomized, Controlled Trials

Appendix Table 3. Quality Rating System for Randomized, Controlled Trials

Data Synthesis

We assessed overall strength of evidence for a body of evidence by using methods adapted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (25). To assign an overall strength of evidence (good, fair, or poor), we considered the number, quality and size of studies; consistency of results among studies; and directness of evidence. Minimum criteria for fair and good quality ratings are shown in Appendix Table 4.

Appendix Table 4. Methods for Grading the Overall Strength of Evidence for an Intervention

Appendix Table 4. Methods for Grading the Overall Strength of Evidence for an Intervention
Consistent results from many higher-quality studies across a broad range of populations support a high degree of certainty that the results of the studies are true (the entire body of evidence would be considered good quality). For a fair-quality body of evidence, results could be due to true effects or to biases operating across some or all of the studies. For a poor-quality body of evidence, any conclusion is uncertain.
To evaluate consistency, we classified conclusions of trials and systematic reviews as positive (the therapy is beneficial), negative (the therapy is harmful or not beneficial), or uncertain (the estimates are imprecise, the evidence unclear, or the results inconsistent) (20). We defined “inconsistency” as greater than 25% of trials reaching discordant conclusions (positive vs. negative), 2 or more higher-quality systematic reviews reaching discordant conclusions, or unexplained heterogeneity (for pooled data).

Role of the Funding Source

The funding source had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this review or in the decision to publish the manuscript.

Results

Size of Literature Reviewed

We reviewed 1292 abstracts identified by searches for systematic reviews of low back pain. Of these, 96 seemed potentially relevant and were retrieved. A total of 40 systematic reviews (26–70) met inclusion criteria (see Appendix Table 5 for quality ratings and Appendix Table 6 for characteristics and results of the systematic reviews that evaluated efficacy). We excluded 59 systematic reviews (71–129), most frequently because they met our criteria for outdated reviews or did not report results for patients with low back pain (Appendix Table 7). Five recent, large (>200 patients) trials of acupuncture (130–132) and spinal manipulation or exercise (133, 134) supplemented the systematic reviews.

Appendix Table 5. Quality Ratings for Included Systematic Reviews of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 5. Quality Ratings for Included Systematic Reviews of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 6. Systematic Reviews of Efficacy of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 6. Systematic Reviews of Efficacy of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 7. Excluded Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 7. Excluded Systematic Reviews
We found no systematic reviews of interferential therapy, low-level laser therapy, shortwave diathermy, ultrasonography, or yoga for low back pain. We identified 532 citations from 5 searches for randomized trials of these interventions. Three trials of interferential therapy (135–137), 7 trials of low-level laser therapy (138–144), 3 trials of shortwave diathermy (145–147), 3 trials of ultrasonography (148–150), and 3 trials of yoga (151–153) met inclusion criteria.

Spinal Manipulation, Massage, and Acupuncture

Spinal Manipulation

Sixty-nine unique trials on efficacy of spinal manipulation were included in 12 systematic reviews (15, 55–63, 68–71). Four other systematic reviews focused on harms associated with spinal manipulation (21, 64–67).
For acute low back pain, a higher-quality Cochrane review found spinal manipulation to be slightly to moderately superior to sham manipulation for short-term pain relief in a meta-regression analysis (weighted mean difference, −10 points on a 100-point visual analogue scale [95% CI, −17 to −2 points]) (15, 55). However, this estimate is mainly based on a lower-quality trial of patients with acute or subacute sacroiliac pain (154). Short-term effects on the RDQ (2 trials, 1 higher-quality) were moderate but did not reach statistical significance (weighted mean difference, −2.8 points [CI, −5.6 to 0.1 points]). Differences between spinal manipulation and therapies judged ineffective or harmful (traction, bed rest, home care, topical gel, no treatment, diathermy, and minimal massage) did not reach clinical significance for pain (weighted mean difference, −4 points [CI, −8 to −1 points]) and reached clinical but not statistical significance on the RDQ (weighted mean difference, −2.1 points [CI, −4.4 to 0.2 points]). There were no clear differences between spinal manipulation and usual care or analgesics (3 trials), physical therapy or exercises (5 trials), and back schools (2 trials).
For chronic low back pain, the Cochrane review found spinal manipulation moderately superior to sham manipulation (3 trials) and therapies thought to be ineffective or harmful (5 trials). Against sham manipulation, differences in short- and long-term pain averaged 10 and 19 points on a 100-point visual analogue scale, and differences for short-term function averaged 3.3 points on the RDQ. There were no differences between manipulation and general practitioner care or analgesics (6 trials), physical therapy or exercises (4 trials), and back school (3 trials). Evidence was insufficient to conclude that effectiveness of spinal manipulation varies depending on the presence or absence of radiating pain or the profession or training of the manipulator.
Five higher-quality systematic reviews reached conclusions generally consistent with those of the Cochrane review (58, 60, 61, 69, 70). Two recent, large trials (133, 134) not included in the systematic reviews also reported consistent results (Appendix Table 8 [130, 132–134, 155]). For low back pain of unspecified duration, 1 higher-quality trial (681 patients) found no differences in pain, functional status, or other outcomes between patients randomly assigned to chiropractic versus medical management (133). The other trial (1334 patients) found spinal manipulation to be slightly superior to usual care for pain and disability (about 5 points on 100-point scales) after 3 months in patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, although effects were not as pronounced after 12 months, and differences on the RDQ did not reach clinical significance (about 1 point) (134). Manipulation and exercise did not significantly differ, and the addition of manipulation to exercise therapy was no better than exercise alone.

Appendix Table 8. Additional, Large Trials of Acupuncture, Exercise, and Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain Not Included in Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 8. Additional, Large Trials of Acupuncture, Exercise, and Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain Not Included in Systematic Reviews
Two lower-quality systematic reviews found spinal manipulation superior to some other effective interventions (57, 68). However, these conclusions were based on sparse data (1 to 3 trials, often lower-quality and often with small sample sizes).
Five systematic reviews consistently found that serious adverse events after spinal manipulation (such as worsening lumbar disc herniation or the cauda equina syndrome) were very rare (64–67, 69). One systematic review found no serious complications reported in more than 70 controlled clinical trials (65). Including data from observational studies, the risk for a serious adverse event was estimated as less than 1 per 1 million patient visits (66, 67).
One higher-quality randomized trial evaluated a decision tool for identifying patients more likely to benefit from spinal manipulation (156). It found that patients who met at least 4 of 5 predefined criteria had a higher likelihood of greater than 50% improvement in ODI scores when randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (odds ratio [OR], 60.8 [CI, 5.2 to 704.7]) compared with those who had negative findings according to the rule who were randomly assigned to manipulation (OR, 2.4 [CI, 0.83 to 6.9]) and those with positive findings according to the rule who were randomly assigned to exercise (OR, 1.0 [CI, 0.28 to 3.6]). However, no studies have examined how applying the decision tool versus not using the tool affects clinical outcomes, and the decision tool may not be practical for many primary care settings because it requires the clinician to perform and interpret potentially unfamiliar physical examination maneuvers and administer a specific questionnaire. A more pragmatic version of the decision tool has not been prospectively validated (157).

Massage

Eight unique trials of massage were included in 2 systematic reviews (26, 27, 69). For acute low back pain, evidence is insufficient to determine efficacy of massage (1 lower-quality trial evaluating a minimal massage intervention [158]). One higher-quality trial found combined treatment with massage, exercise, and education to be superior to exercise and education alone for subacute or chronic low back pain 1 month after treatment (159).
For chronic low back pain, a higher-quality Cochrane review found no clear differences between massage and manipulation at the end of a course of treatment (3 lower-quality trials) (26, 27). Superficial massage was inferior to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relieving pain in 1 higher-quality trial (160). Single trials found massage similar in effectiveness to corsets and exercise and moderately superior to relaxation therapy, acupuncture, sham laser, and self-care education (26, 27). Nearly all trials assessed outcomes only during or shortly after (within 1 month) a course of treatment. However, 1 higher-quality trial found that beneficial effects of massage compared with acupuncture and self-care education persisted for 1 year (161). Results of a second systematic review are consistent with the Cochrane review (69).
Only 1 trial (rated higher-quality) directly compared different massage techniques. It found acupuncture massage superior to classical (Swedish) massage (162). Massage seemed more effective in trials that used a trained massage therapist with many years of experience or a licensed massage therapist (26, 27). Evidence was insufficient to determine effects of the number or duration of massage sessions on efficacy. Several trials with negative results evaluated superficial massage techniques, brief treatment sessions (10 to 15 minutes), or few sessions (<5).

Acupuncture

Fifty-one unique trials on efficacy of acupuncture were included in 3 systematic reviews (16–18, 69). All of the systematic reviews identified substantial methodological shortcomings in most trials. About one third of the trials were conducted in Asia. A fourth systematic review focused on adverse events associated with acupuncture and included observational studies (163).
For acute low back pain, 2 higher-quality systematic reviews found sparse, inconclusive evidence from 4 small trials on efficacy of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture or other interventions (16–18).
For chronic low back pain, both systematic reviews found acupuncture moderately more effective than no treatment or sham treatments for short-term (<6 weeks' [16] or <3 months' [17, 18] duration) pain relief. Acupuncture was also associated with moderate short-term improvements in functional status compared with no treatment (standardized mean differences, 0.62 [CI, 0.30 to 0.95] [16], and 0.63 [CI, 0.19 to 1.08] [17, 18]), but not compared with sham therapies. A recent, higher-quality trial not included in the systematic reviews found no differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture for pain or function (Appendix Table 8) (130).
Evidence of longer-term benefits from acupuncture is mixed. Acupuncture was moderately superior for long-term (>6 weeks' duration) pain relief compared with sham TENS in 2 trials and compared with no additional treatment in 5 trials, although there were no significant differences compared with sham acupuncture (16). One higher-quality trial found no differences in pain 1 year after acupuncture therapy compared with provision of a self-care education book (161). A higher-quality trial not included in the systematic reviews found clinically insignificant differences (<5 points on 100-point scales) between acupuncture and no acupuncture for pain and function after 6 months (Appendix Table 8) (132). Another recent, higher-quality trial found acupuncture slightly superior to usual care on Short Form-36 pain scores after 24 months (weighted mean difference, 8 points [CI, 0.7 to 15.3 points]) and for recent use of medications for low back pain (60% vs. 41%), although ODI scores and other outcomes did not differ (131).
Efficacy does not clearly differ between acupuncture and massage, analgesic medication, or TENS (each evaluated in 1 to 4 trials) (16–18). Although 2 trials found acupuncture inferior to spinal manipulation for short-term pain relief, both were rated lower-quality (16). The addition of acupuncture to a variety of noninvasive interventions significantly improved pain and function through 3 to 12 months in 4 higher-quality trials (17, 18).
Few higher-quality trials directly compared different acupuncture techniques. One trial found deep-stimulation acupuncture to be superior to superficial stimulation for immediate outcomes (164). Another found no difference between manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture (165).
Only 14 of 35 trials of acupuncture reported any complications or side effects (17, 18). Minor complications occurred in 5% (13 of 245) of patients receiving acupuncture. A systematic review of acupuncture for various conditions (data from >250 000 treatments) found wide variation in rates of adverse events, ranging from 1% to 45% for needle pain and 0.03% to 38% for bleeding (163). Feelings of faintness and syncope occurred after 0% to 0.3% of treatments. Serious adverse events were rare. Pneumothorax was reported in 2 patients, and there were no cases of infections.

Exercise Therapy, Yoga, and Back Schools

Exercise Therapy

Seventy-nine unique trials of exercise therapy were included in 6 systematic reviews (34–40).
For acute low back pain, a higher-quality Cochrane review found exercise therapy superior to usual care or no treatment in 2 of 9 trials (35, 36). Among trials that could be pooled, exercise therapy and no exercise did not differ for pain relief or functional outcomes. There were also no differences between exercise therapy and other noninvasive treatments for acute low back pain or between exercise therapy and placebo or usual care for subacute low back pain.
For chronic low back pain (43 trials), the Cochrane review found exercise slightly to moderately superior to no treatment for pain relief at earliest follow-up (weighted mean difference, 10 points on a 100-point scale [CI, 1.31 to 19.09 points]), although not for functional outcomes (35, 36). Results were similar at later follow-up. Exercise therapy was associated with statistically significant but small effects on pain (weighted mean difference, 5.93 points [CI, 2.21 to 9.65 points]) and function (weighted mean difference, 2.37 points [CI, 0.74 to 4.0 points]) compared with other noninvasive interventions.
Three systematic reviews were less comprehensive than the Cochrane review but reached consistent conclusions (34, 38, 40). A fourth, higher-quality systematic review focusing on work outcomes (14 trials) found that exercise slightly reduced sick leave during the first year (standardized mean difference, −0.24 [CI, −0.36 to −0.11]) and decreased the proportion of patients who had not returned to work at 1 year (relative risk, 0.73 [CI, 0.56 to 0.95]), although no benefit was observed in the severely disabled subgroup (>90 days of sick leave) or in patients receiving disability payments (37).
Results of a large (1334 patients), recently published trial are consistent with those of the systematic reviews (Appendix Table 8) (134). It found exercise therapy to be marginally superior to usual care for pain and disability in patients with low back pain for more than 28 days, but no differences were seen between exercise therapy and manipulation.
The authors of the Cochrane review also conducted a meta-regression analysis and found that exercise therapy using individualized regimens, supervision, stretching, and strengthening was associated with the best outcomes (36). They estimated that exercise therapy incorporating all of these features would improve pain scores by 18.1 points (95% credible interval, 11.1 to 25.0 points) compared with no treatment and would improve function by 5.5 points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 10.5 points). However, no trials of such an intervention have been conducted. The Cochrane review also found addition of exercise to other noninvasive therapies to be associated with small improvements in pain (about 5 points on a 100-point scale) and function (about 2 points on a 100-point scale). One recent, higher-quality systematic review found no clear differences between the McKenzie method and other exercise regimens (39).

Yoga

We identified no systematic reviews of yoga for low back pain. From 27 citations, 3 trials (all in patients with chronic low back pain) met inclusion criteria (Appendix Table 9) (151–153). One higher-quality trial (101 patients) found 6 weeks of Viniyoga (a therapeutically oriented style) to be slightly superior to conventional exercise (mean difference in RDQ scores, −1.8 [CI, −3.5 to −0.1]) and moderately superior to a self-care education book (mean difference in RDQ scores, −3.4 [CI, −5.1 to −1.6]) in terms of RDQ scores at 12 weeks, but only superior to the self-care book at 26 weeks (mean difference in RDQ scores, −3.6 [CI, −5.4 to −1.8]) (152). Effects on symptom bothersomeness scores were similar at 12 weeks for all 3 interventions, although yoga was substantially superior to the self-care book at 26 weeks (mean difference, −2.2 on a 0 to 10 scale [CI, −3.2 to −1.2]). Yoga was also associated with decreased medication use at week 26 (21% of patients) compared with exercise (50%) and the self-care book (59%), although the rate of back pain–related health care provider visits did not differ.

Appendix Table 9. Trials of Interferential Therapy, Low-Level Laser Therapy, Shortwave Diathermy, Ultrasonography, and Yoga for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 9. Trials of Interferential Therapy, Low-Level Laser Therapy, Shortwave Diathermy, Ultrasonography, and Yoga for Low Back Pain
Two lower-quality, smaller trials (60 and 22 patients) evaluated Iyengar yoga, a commonly practiced style of Hatha yoga that frequently uses physical props (151, 153). Results were inconclusive. Although 1 trial found Iyengar yoga more effective than exercise instruction for reducing disability through 3 months after treatment, effects on pain were small and were statistically significant only when adjusted for baseline differences (153). The other, smaller trial found no significant differences between Iyengar yoga and standard exercise (151).

Back Schools

Thirty-one unique trials of back schools were included in 3 systematic reviews (28–31). For acute or subacute low back pain, a higher-quality Cochrane review (19 trials) included 1 lower-quality trial (166) that found back schools superior to sham diathermy for short-term recovery and return to work, but not for pain or long-term recurrences (29, 30).
For chronic low back pain, the Cochrane review found inconsistent evidence on efficacy of back schools versus placebo or wait-list controls (8 trials), although most studies found no benefits (29, 30). Results were generally better in trials of back schools conducted in an occupational setting and for more intensive programs based on the original Swedish back school, although benefits were small. Conclusions of 2 other systematic reviews of back schools are consistent with those of the Cochrane review (28, 31).

Psychological Therapies, Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation, and Functional Restoration

Psychological Therapies

Thirty-five unique trials of psychological therapies for chronic low back pain were included in 2 systematic reviews (32, 33). One of the systematic reviews included trials of psychological therapies as part of interdisciplinary therapy (32).
A higher-quality Cochrane review (33) included 4 trials (1 higher-quality [167]) that found cognitive-behavioral therapy to be moderately superior to a wait-list control for short-term pain intensity (standardized mean difference, 0.59 [CI, 0.10 to 1.09]), but not for functional status (standardized mean difference, 0.31 [CI, −0.20 to 0.82]). It also included 2 lower-quality trials that found progressive relaxation to be associated with large effects on short-term pain (standardized mean difference, 1.16 [CI, 0.47 to 1.85]) and behavioral outcomes (standardized mean difference, 1.31 [CI, 0.61 to 2.01]). Results in the electromyography biofeedback group compared with those in the wait-list control group were mixed. Although 3 trials found biofeedback superior for pain intensity (standardized mean difference, 0.84 [CI, 0.32 to 1.35]), a fourth trial found no differences. There were no differences between patients receiving operant treatment and wait-list control participants. Conclusions of another higher-quality systematic review (22 trials) are consistent with those of the Cochrane review (32).
No differences were seen between psychological therapies and other active therapies (such as exercise or usual care) for most outcomes, although 1 systematic review found small to moderate effects on short-term (standardized mean difference, 0.36 [CI, 0.06 to 0.65]; 3 trials) and long-term (standardized mean difference, 0.53 [CI, 0.19 to 0.86]; 4 trials) disability (32).
Psychological therapies did not improve outcomes when added to a variety of other noninvasive therapies (6 lower-quality trials), although diversity in both psychological and nonpsychological therapies limits interpretability of this finding (33).

Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation and Functional Restoration

Twenty-eight unique trials were included in 4 systematic reviews of interdisciplinary rehabilitation (43–47) or functional restoration (41, 42). For subacute low back pain, a higher-quality Cochrane review found interdisciplinary rehabilitation with a workplace visit more effective than usual care for subacute low back pain, but only 2 lower-quality trials were included (45, 46).
For chronic low back pain, a second higher-quality Cochrane review included 3 trials (1 higher-quality) that found intensive (>100 hours), daily interdisciplinary rehabilitation to be moderately superior to noninterdisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care for short- and long-term functional status (standardized mean differences, −0.40 to −0.90 at 3 to 4 months and −0.56 to −1.07 at 60 months) (43, 44). Interdisciplinary rehabilitation was also moderately superior for pain outcomes at 3 to 4 months in 2 trials (standardized mean differences, −0.56 and −0.74, respectively), although long-term (60 months) results were inconsistent (standardized mean differences, −0.51 and 0.00, respectively) (168, 169). Evidence was also inconsistent regarding effects on return to work and sick leave. In contrast to more intensive interventions, less intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation was no better than noninterdisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care (5 trials, 2 higher-quality) (43, 44). A smaller (5 trials) systematic review reported results consistent with those of the Cochrane review (47).
Functional restoration often involves a multidisciplinary component (41, 42). For acute low back pain, a higher-quality Cochrane review found functional restoration no better than usual care, normal activities, or standard exercise therapy in 3 trials (2 higher-quality) (41, 42). For chronic low back pain, the Cochrane review found functional restoration with a cognitive-behavioral component more effective than usual care, normal activities, or standard exercise therapy for reducing time lost from work, but little evidence that functional restoration without a cognitive-behavioral component is effective.

Physical Therapies

Interferential Therapy

We identified no systematic reviews of interferential therapy for low back pain. From 8 citations, 3 trials met inclusion criteria (Appendix Table 9) (135–137). In 2 trials (1 higher-quality [136]), there were no clear differences between interferential therapy and either spinal manipulation or traction for subacute or chronic back pain (137). A third, lower-quality trial found interferential therapy superior to a self-care book for improvements in RDQ scores in patients with subacute low back pain, but it reported large baseline differences (135). Median RDQ scores after 3 months were identical in the 2 groups.

Low-Level Laser Therapy

We identified no systematic reviews of low-level laser therapy for low back pain. From 218 citations, 7 trials met inclusion criteria (Appendix Table 9) (138–144). The trials were generally small (20 to 120 patients) and evaluated heterogeneous outcome measures and different types of lasers at varying doses. In addition, language or publication bias is possible because low-level laser therapy is more commonly used in Russia and Asia.
For chronic low back pain or back pain of unspecified duration, 4 trials (138, 141, 143, 144) (3 higher-quality) found laser therapy superior to sham for pain or functional status up to 1 year after treatment, but another higher-quality trial (140) found no differences between laser and sham in patients also receiving exercise. One lower-quality trial found laser, exercise, and the combination of laser plus exercise similar for pain and back-specific functional status (139).
One trial reported 1 transient adverse event in both the laser and sham laser groups (138). In a systematic review of low-level laser therapy for various musculoskeletal conditions, 6 of 11 trials evaluating higher doses reported no adverse events (95).

Lumbar Supports

Six trials of lumbar supports for treatment of low back pain were included in a higher-quality Cochrane review (48, 49). For low back pain of unspecified duration, the Cochrane review found insufficient evidence from 1 small (30 patients), lower-quality trial (170) to assess efficacy of a lumbar support compared with no lumbar support. For chronic or subacute low back pain, 1 higher-quality trial found lumbar support to be superior to superficial massage for RDQ scores, but not for ODI scores or pain relief (171, 172). There were no differences between lumbar support and spinal manipulation or transcutaneous muscular stimulation. Evidence from 3 lower-quality trials was insufficient to determine efficacy of lumbar supports compared with other interventions (48, 49).

Shortwave Diathermy

We identified no systematic reviews of shortwave diathermy for low back pain. From 14 citations, 3 lower-quality trials met inclusion criteria (Appendix Table 9) (145–147). For acute low back pain, 1 small (24 patients) trial found shortwave diathermy to be inferior to spinal manipulation for pain relief after 2 weeks, but no details about the diathermy intervention were provided (146). For chronic low back pain (145) or low back pain lasting more than 1 week (147), 2 trials found no differences between shortwave diathermy versus sham diathermy or spinal manipulation (145) or shortwave diathermy versus sham diathermy, extension exercises, or traction (147).

Superficial Heat

Nine trials of superficial heat or cold were included in a higher-quality Cochrane review (50). For acute low back pain, the Cochrane review found consistent evidence from 3 higher-quality trials that heat wrap therapy or a heated blanket is moderately superior to placebo or a nonheated blanket for short-term pain relief and back-specific functional status. A higher-quality trial (173) also found heat wrap therapy to be moderately superior to oral acetaminophen or ibuprofen for short-term (3 to 4 days' duration) pain relief (differences of 0.66 and 0.93 on a 6-point scale, respectively) and RDQ scores (differences of about 2 points). For acute low back pain, another higher-quality trial (174) found heat wrap therapy superior to an educational booklet, but not exercise, for early pain relief, although benefits were no longer present after 1 week. Adverse events in trials of superficial heat were minor and mainly consisted of mild skin irritation (50).

Traction

Twenty-four unique trials of traction were included in 3 systematic reviews (51–53, 70). For low back pain of varying duration (with or without sciatica) a higher-quality Cochrane review included 2 higher-quality trials (175–177) that found traction no more effective than placebo, sham, or no treatment for any reported outcome (51, 52). For sciatica of mixed duration, autotraction was more effective than placebo, sham, or no treatment in 2 lower-quality trials (178, 179), but continuous or intermittent traction was not effective (8 trials, 1 higher-quality [180]). There was no clear evidence that various types of traction are more effective than other interventions (51, 52). Two other systematic reviews found no evidence traction is effective (70) or insufficient evidence to draw reliable conclusions (53).
Adverse events associated with traction include aggravation of neurologic signs and symptoms and subsequent surgery, but these were inconsistently and poorly reported (harms were not mentioned in 16 of 24 trials) (51, 52).

TENS

Eleven unique trials of TENS were included in a higher-quality Cochrane review of TENS (54) and 5 systematic reviews of other interventions (15, 16, 26, 27, 50–52, 55). For chronic low back pain, the Cochrane review included 1 lower-quality trial that found TENS superior to placebo, but a larger, higher-quality trial (181) found no differences between TENS and sham TENS for any measured outcome (54). A systematic review of acupuncture for low back pain also found no difference in short- or long-term pain relief between TENS and acupuncture in 4 trials (16). One higher-quality trial found TENS superior to superficial massage (160). Evidence from single, lower-quality trials is insufficient to accurately judge efficacy of TENS versus other interventions for chronic low back pain or for acute low back pain. For subacute low back pain, 1 higher-quality trial found TENS moderately inferior to spinal manipulation for subacute low back pain (171, 172).
The Cochrane review found that one third of patients randomly assigned to either active or sham TENS had minor skin irritation, with 1 patient (in the sham group) discontinuing therapy because of severe dermatitis (54).

Ultrasonography

We identified no systematic reviews of ultrasonography for low back pain. From 265 potentially relevant citations, 3 lower-quality trials met inclusion criteria (Appendix Table 9) (148–150). For chronic low back pain (148) or low back pain of unspecified duration (150), 2 small (10 and 36 patients, respectively) trials reported inconsistent results for ultrasonography versus sham ultrasonography, with the larger trial reporting no differences. For acute sciatica, a nonrandomized trial (73 patients) found ultrasonography superior to sham ultrasonography or analgesics for pain relief, with patients in all groups also prescribed bed rest (149).

Discussion

This review synthesizes evidence from systematic reviews and randomized, controlled trials of 17 nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain. Nearly all therapies were evaluated in patients with nonspecific low back pain or in mixed populations of patients with and without sciatica. Main results are summarized in Appendix Tables 10 (acute low back pain), 11 (chronic or subacute low back pain), and 12 (back pain with sciatica).

Appendix Table 10. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 10. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 11. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Chronic or Subacute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 11. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Chronic or Subacute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 12. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Radiculopathy or Sciatica

Appendix Table 12. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Radiculopathy or Sciatica
We found good evidence that psychological interventions (cognitive-behavioral therapy and progressive relaxation), exercise, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, functional restoration, and spinal manipulation are effective for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain. Compared with placebo or sham therapies, these interventions were associated with moderate effects, with differences for pain relief in the range of 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, 2 to 4 points on the RDQ, or a standardized mean difference of 0.5 to 0.8. The exception was exercise therapy, which was associated with small to moderate (10 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale) effects on pain. We found fair evidence that acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture, and fair evidence that massage is similar in efficacy to other noninvasive interventions for chronic low back pain. We found little evidence of clinically meaningful, consistent differences between most interventions found effective. One exception was intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, which was moderately more effective than noninterdisciplinary rehabilitation for improving pain and function. We also found fair evidence that Viniyoga is slightly superior to traditional exercises for functional status and use of analgesic medications.
For acute low back pain (<4 weeks' duration), the only nonpharmacologic therapies with evidence of efficacy are superficial heat (good evidence for moderate benefits) and spinal manipulation (fair evidence for small to moderate benefits). Other noninvasive therapies (back schools, interferential therapy, low-level laser therapy, lumbar supports, TENS, traction, and ultrasonography) have not been shown to be effective for either chronic or subacute or acute low back pain.
We found only rare reports of serious adverse events for all of the noninvasive therapies evaluated in this review. However, assessment and reporting of harms were generally suboptimal. For example, less than half of the trials of acupuncture reported adverse events (17). Better reporting of harms is needed for more balanced assessments of interventions (182).
Our evidence synthesis has several potential limitations. First, because of the large number of published trials, our primary source of data was systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews depends on how well they are conducted. We therefore focused on findings from higher-quality systematic reviews, which are less likely than lower-quality systematic reviews to report positive findings (20, 21). In addition, when multiple recent systematic reviews were available for an intervention, we found overall conclusions to be generally consistent. Second, we only included randomized, controlled trials for assessments of efficacy. Although well-conducted randomized, controlled trials are less susceptible to bias than other study designs, nearly all trials were conducted in ideal settings and selected populations, usually with short-term follow-up. “Effectiveness” trials in less highly selected populations could provide additional information on benefits in real-world practice. Third, language bias could affect our results because we included non–English-language trials only if already included in English-language systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews of acupuncture included Asian-language trials (16, 17), and systematic reviews of other interventions with no language restrictions identified few non–English-language studies (55, 183). Fourth, reliable assessments for potential publication bias were not possible for most of the interventions included in this review because of small numbers of trials (184). For the interventions evaluated in the most trials, assessments of potential publication bias varied. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in trials of exercise therapy (36), was not present in trials of spinal manipulation (15) or behavioral therapy (32), and could not be reliably interpreted for trials of acupuncture (16). Finally, we did not include cost-effectiveness analyses. Although many noninvasive interventions for chronic low back pain appear to have similar effects on clinical outcomes, other factors, such as cost or convenience, may vary widely. However, systematic reviews of economic analyses of low back pain interventions have found few full cost-effectiveness analyses and important methodological deficiencies in the available cost studies (185–188).
We also identified several research gaps that limited our ability to reach more definitive conclusions about optimal use of the interventions included in this review. We found no trials on optimal sequencing of interventions, and only limited evidence on methods to guide selection of therapy for individual patients. Although initial studies are promising, decision tools and other methods for individualizing and selecting optimal therapy are still in fairly early stages of development (156). More research on methods for selecting optimal therapy that are practical for use by primary care clinicians is urgently needed. We also found few trials assessing efficacy of adding one noninvasive intervention to another. Although several trials found acupuncture plus another therapy to be more effective than the other therapy alone, other trials found little or no additional benefit from adding exercise therapy (36), behavioral interventions (33), or spinal manipulation (134) to other therapies. Finally, few trials specifically evaluated patients with sciatica (Appendix Table 12) or spinal stenosis. One systematic review of interventions for sciatica identified only 8 trials of therapies included in this review (70). Most trials included in our review enrolled mixed populations of patients with or without sciatica, or did not enroll patients with sciatica. It remains unclear whether optimal nonpharmacologic treatments for sciatica or spinal stenosis differ from those for nonspecific low back pain, although in the case of spinal manipulation, presence or absence of radiating pain did not appear to affect conclusions (55).
In summary, evidence of effective nonpharmacologic therapies for acute low back pain is quite limited. This is not surprising, as the natural history of acute low back pain is for substantial early improvement in most patients (125). On the other hand, several noninvasive therapies seem to be similarly effective for chronic low back pain. Although evidence on effectiveness of therapies specifically for subacute low back pain is sparse (125), many trials enrolled mixed populations of patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Factors to consider when choosing among noninvasive therapies are patient preferences, cost, convenience, and availability of skilled providers for specific therapies. Clinicians should avoid interventions not proven effective, as many therapies have at least fair evidence of moderate benefits.

References

  1. Di Iorio
    D
    ,  
    Henley
    E
    ,  
    Doughty
    A
    .  
    A survey of primary care physician practice patterns and adherence to acute low back problem guidelines.
    Arch Fam Med
    2000
    9
    1015
    21
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  2. Freburger
    JK
    ,  
    Carey
    TS
    ,  
    Holmes
    GM
    .  
    Physician referrals to physical therapists for the treatment of spine disorders.
    Spine J
    2005
    5
    530
    41
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  3. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Wheeler K, Ciol MA. Physician views about treating low back pain. The results of a national survey. Spine. 1995;20:1-9; discussion 9-10. [PMID: 7709266]
  4. Bigos SJ, Boyer OR, Braen GR, Brown K, Deyo R, Haldeman S, et al. Acute low back problems in adults. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 4. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; December 1994. AHCPR publication no. 95-0642. Accessed at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat6.chapter.25870 on 30 July 2007.
  5. van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials of the most common interventions.
    Spine
    1997
    22
    2128
    56
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  6. Deyo
    RA
    .  
    Conservative therapy for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy.
    JAMA
    1983
    250
    1057
    62
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  7. Chou R, Huffman L. Evaluation and management of low back pain. Glenview, Illinois: American Pain Soc; 2007 [In press].
  8. Chou
    R
    ,  
    Huffman
    LH
    .  
    Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline.
    Ann Intern Med
    2007
    147
    505
    14
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  9. Bombardier
    C
    .  
    Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations.
    Spine
    2000
    25
    3100
    3
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  10. Deyo
    RA
    ,  
    Battie
    M
    ,  
    Beurskens
    AJ
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Croft
    P
    ,  
    Koes
    B
    .  
    et al
    Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.
    Spine
    1998
    23
    2003
    13
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  11. Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Hayden
    J
    ,  
    Beaton
    DE
    .  
    Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures.
    J Rheumatol
    2001
    28
    431
    8
    PubMed
    PubMed
  12. Cohen
    J
    .  
    Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.
    Mahwah, NJ
    Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
    1988
  13. Hagen
    KB
    ,  
    Hilde
    G
    ,  
    Jamtvedt
    G
    ,  
    Winnem
    M
    .  
    Bed rest for acute low-back pain and sciatica.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2004
    CD001254
    PubMed
  14. Hagen
    KB
    ,  
    Jamtvedt
    G
    ,  
    Hilde
    G
    ,  
    Winnem
    MF
    .  
    The updated cochrane review of bed rest for low back pain and sciatica.
    Spine
    2005
    30
    542
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  15. Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    Morton
    SC
    ,  
    Yu
    EI
    ,  
    Suttorp
    MJ
    ,  
    Shekelle
    PG
    .  
    Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2004
    CD000447
    PubMed
  16. Manheimer
    E
    ,  
    White
    A
    ,  
    Berman
    B
    ,  
    Forys
    K
    ,  
    Ernst
    E
    .  
    Meta-analysis: acupuncture for low back pain.
    Ann Intern Med
    2005
    142
    651
    63
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  17. Furlan
    AD
    ,  
    van Tulder
    M
    ,  
    Cherkin
    D
    ,  
    Tsukayama
    H
    ,  
    Lao
    L
    ,  
    Koes
    B
    .  
    et al
    Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration.
    Spine
    2005
    30
    944
    63
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  18. Furlan
    AD
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Cherkin
    DC
    ,  
    Tsukayama
    H
    ,  
    Lao
    L
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    et al
    Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2005
    CD001351
    PubMed
  19. Oxman
    AD
    ,  
    Guyatt
    GH
    .  
    Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    1991
    44
    1271
    8
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  20. Furlan
    AD
    ,  
    Clarke
    J
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Sinclair
    S
    ,  
    Irvin
    E
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    .  
    A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain.
    Spine
    2001
    26
    155
    62
    PubMed
    CrossRef
  21. Jadad
    AR
    ,  
    McQuay
    HJ
    .  
    Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    1996
    49
    235
    43
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  22. Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Nachemson
    AL
    .  
    The Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for spinal disorders [Editorial].
    Spine
    1997
    22
    837
    40
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  23. Editorial Board of the Back Review Group
    Cochrane back review group [Editorial].
    Spine
    2003
    28
    1215
    8
    PubMed
    PubMed
  24. Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
    Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group.
    Spine
    2003
    28
    1290
    9
    PubMed
    PubMed
  25. Methods Work Group
    Third US Preventive Services Task Force
    Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.
    Am J Prev Med
    2001
    20
    21
    35
    PubMed
  26. Furlan
    AD
    ,  
    Brosseau
    L
    ,  
    Imamura
    M
    ,  
    Irvin
    E
    .  
    Massage for low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2002
    CD001929
    PubMed
  27. Furlan
    AD
    ,  
    Brosseau
    L
    ,  
    Imamura
    M
    ,  
    Irvin
    E
    .  
    Massage for low-back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
    Spine
    2002
    27
    1896
    910
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  28. Elders
    LA
    ,  
    van der Beek
    AJ
    ,  
    Burdorf
    A
    .  
    Return to work after sickness absence due to back disorders—a systematic review on intervention strategies.
    Int Arch Occup Environ Health
    2000
    73
    339
    48
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  29. Heymans
    MW
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Back schools for non-specific low-back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2004
    CD000261
    PubMed
  30. Heymans
    MW
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
    Spine
    2005
    30
    2153
    63
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  31. Maier-Riehle
    B
    ,  
    Härter
    M
    .  
    The effects of back schools—a meta-analysis.
    Int J Rehabil Res
    2001
    24
    199
    206
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  32. Hoffman
    BM
    ,  
    Papas
    RK
    ,  
    Chatkoff
    DK
    ,  
    Kerns
    RD
    .  
    Meta-analysis of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.
    Health Psychol
    2007
    26
    1
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  33. Ostelo
    RW
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Vlaeyen
    JW
    ,  
    Linton
    SJ
    ,  
    Morley
    SJ
    ,  
    Assendelft
    WJ
    .  
    Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2005
    CD002014
    PubMed
  34. Clare
    HA
    ,  
    Adams
    R
    ,  
    Maher
    CG
    .  
    A systematic review of efficacy of McKenzie therapy for spinal pain.
    Aust J Physiother
    2004
    50
    209
    16
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  35. Hayden
    JA
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2005
    CD000335
    PubMed
  36. Hayden
    JA
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Tomlinson
    G
    .  
    Systematic review: strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain.
    Ann Intern Med
    2005
    142
    776
    85
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  37. Kool
    J
    ,  
    de Bie
    R
    ,  
    Oesch
    P
    ,  
    Knüsel
    O
    ,  
    van den Brandt
    P
    ,  
    Bachmann
    S
    .  
    Exercise reduces sick leave in patients with non-acute non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis.
    J Rehabil Med
    2004
    36
    49
    62
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  38. Liddle
    SD
    ,  
    Baxter
    GD
    ,  
    Gracey
    JH
    .  
    Exercise and chronic low back pain: what works?
    Pain
    2004
    107
    176
    90
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  39. Machado
    LA
    ,  
    de Souza
    MS
    ,  
    Ferreira
    PH
    ,  
    Ferreira
    ML
    .  
    The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis approach.
    Spine
    2006
    31
    254
    62
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  40. McNeely
    ML
    ,  
    Torrance
    G
    ,  
    Magee
    DJ
    .  
    A systematic review of physiotherapy for spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.
    Man Ther
    2003
    8
    80
    91
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  41. Schonstein
    E
    ,  
    Kenny
    D
    ,  
    Keating
    J
    ,  
    Koes
    B
    ,  
    Herbert
    RD
    .  
    Physical conditioning programs for workers with back and neck pain: a Cochrane systematic review.
    Spine
    2003
    28
    391
    5
    PubMed
    CrossRef
  42. Schonstein
    E
    ,  
    Kenny
    DT
    ,  
    Keating
    J
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2003
    CD001822
    PubMed
  43. Guzmán
    J
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Karjalainen
    K
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    Irvin
    E
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    .  
    Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.
    BMJ
    2001
    322
    1511
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  44. Guzmán
    J
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Karjalainen
    K
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    Irvin
    E
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    .  
    Multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2002
    CD000963
    PubMed
  45. Karjalainen
    K
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    van Tulder
    M
    ,  
    Roine
    R
    ,  
    Jauhiainen
    M
    ,  
    Hurri
    H
    .  
    et al
    Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2003
    CD002194
    PubMed
  46. Karjalainen
    K
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    van Tulder
    M
    ,  
    Roine
    R
    ,  
    Jauhiainen
    M
    ,  
    Hurri
    H
    .  
    et al
    Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain in working-age adults: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
    Spine
    2001
    26
    262
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  47. Tveito
    TH
    ,  
    Hysing
    M
    ,  
    Eriksen
    HR
    .  
    Low back pain interventions at the workplace: a systematic literature review.
    Occup Med (Lond)
    2004
    54
    3
    13
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  48. Jellema
    P
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    van Poppel
    MN
    ,  
    Nachemson
    AL
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.
    Spine
    2001
    26
    377
    86
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  49. Van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Jellema
    P
    ,  
    van Poppel
    MN
    ,  
    Nachemson
    AL
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    Lumbar supports for prevention and treatment of low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2000
    CD001823
    PubMed
  50. French
    SD
    ,  
    Cameron
    M
    ,  
    Walker
    BF
    ,  
    Reggars
    JW
    ,  
    Esterman
    AJ
    .  
    Superficial heat or cold for low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2006
    CD004750
    PubMed
  51. Clarke
    JA
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Blomberg
    SE
    ,  
    de Vet
    HC
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Bronfort
    G
    .  
    Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2005
    CD003010
    PubMed
  52. Clarke
    J
    ,  
    van Tulder
    M
    ,  
    Blomberg
    S
    ,  
    de Vet
    H
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    G
    ,  
    Bronfort
    G
    .  
    Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration.
    Spine
    2006
    31
    1591
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  53. Harte
    AA
    ,  
    Baxter
    GD
    ,  
    Gracey
    JH
    .  
    The efficacy of traction for back pain: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    2003
    84
    1542
    53
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  54. Khadilkar
    A
    ,  
    Milne
    S
    ,  
    Brosseau
    L
    ,  
    Robinson
    V
    ,  
    Saginur
    M
    ,  
    Shea
    B
    .  
    et al
    Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low-back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2005
    CD003008
    PubMed
  55. Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    Morton
    SC
    ,  
    Yu
    EI
    ,  
    Suttorp
    MJ
    ,  
    Shekelle
    PG
    .  
    Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies.
    Ann Intern Med
    2003
    138
    871
    81
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  56. Avery
    S
    ,  
    O'Driscoll
    ML
    .  
    Randomised controlled trials on the efficacy of spinal manipulation therapy in the treatment of low back pain.
    Physical Therapy Reviews
    2004
    9
    146
    52
    CrossRef
  57. Bronfort
    G
    ,  
    Haas
    M
    ,  
    Evans
    RL
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    Efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis.
    Spine J
    2004
    4
    335
    56
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  58. Brown
    A
    ,  
    Angus
    A
    ,  
    Chen
    S
    ,  
    Tang
    Z
    ,  
    Milne
    S
    ,  
    Pfaff
    J
    .  
    et al
    Costs and outcomes of chiropractic treatment for low back pain, Report No. 56.
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology
    2005
  59. Ernst
    E
    ,  
    Canter
    P
    .  
    Chiropractic spinal manipulation treatment for back pain? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
    Physical Therapy Reviews
    2003
    8
    85
    91
    CrossRef
  60. Ferreira
    ML
    ,  
    Ferreira
    PH
    ,  
    Latimer
    J
    ,  
    Herbert
    R
    ,  
    Maher
    CG
    .  
    Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain?
    Aust J Physiother
    2002
    48
    277
    84
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  61. Ferreira
    ML
    ,  
    Ferreira
    PH
    ,  
    Latimer
    J
    ,  
    Herbert
    R
    ,  
    Maher
    CG
    .  
    Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain of less than three months' duration.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    2003
    26
    593
    601
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  62. Gay
    RE
    ,  
    Bronfort
    G
    ,  
    Evans
    RL
    .  
    Distraction manipulation of the lumbar spine: a review of the literature.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    2005
    28
    266
    73
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  63. Licciardone
    JC
    ,  
    Brimhall
    AK
    ,  
    King
    LN
    .  
    Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord
    2005
    6
    43
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  64. Ernst
    E
    .  
    Prospective investigations into the safety of spinal manipulation.
    J Pain Symptom Manage
    2001
    21
    238
    42
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  65. Meeker
    WC
    ,  
    Haldeman
    S
    .  
    Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine.
    Ann Intern Med
    2002
    136
    216
    27
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  66. Oliphant
    D
    .  
    Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    2004
    27
    197
    210
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  67. Stevinson
    C
    ,  
    Ernst
    E
    .  
    Risks associated with spinal manipulation.
    Am J Med
    2002
    112
    566
    71
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  68. Woodhead
    T
    ,  
    Clough
    A
    .  
    A systematic review of the evidence for manipulation in the treatment of low back pain.
    Journal of Orthopaedic Medicine
    2005
    27
    99
    120
    CrossRef
  69. Cherkin
    DC
    ,  
    Sherman
    KJ
    ,  
    Deyo
    RA
    ,  
    Shekelle
    PG
    .  
    A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain.
    Ann Intern Med
    2003
    138
    898
    906
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  70. Vroomen
    PC
    ,  
    de Krom
    MC
    ,  
    Slofstra
    PD
    ,  
    Knottnerus
    JA
    .  
    Conservative treatment of sciatica: a systematic review.
    J Spinal Disord
    2000
    13
    463
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  71. Ernst
    E
    ,  
    White
    A
    .  
    Life-threatening adverse reactions after acupuncture? A systematic review.
    Pain
    1997
    71
    123
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  72. Ernst
    E
    ,  
    White
    AR
    .  
    Acupuncture for back pain: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
    Arch Intern Med
    1998
    158
    2235
    41
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  73. Ezzo
    J
    ,  
    Berman
    B
    ,  
    Hadhazy
    VA
    ,  
    Jadad
    AR
    ,  
    Lao
    L
    ,  
    Singh
    BB
    .  
    Is acupuncture effective for the treatment of chronic pain? A systematic review.
    Pain
    2000
    86
    217
    25
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  74. Patel
    M
    ,  
    Gutzwiller
    F
    ,  
    Paccaud
    F
    ,  
    Marazzi
    A
    .  
    A meta-analysis of acupuncture for chronic pain.
    Int J Epidemiol
    1989
    18
    900
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  75. Smith
    LA
    ,  
    Oldman
    AD
    ,  
    McQuay
    HJ
    ,  
    Moore
    RA
    .  
    Teasing apart quality and validity in systematic reviews: an example from acupuncture trials in chronic neck and back pain.
    Pain
    2000
    86
    119
    32
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  76. Strauss
    A
    .  
    Acupuncture and the treatment of chronic low-back pain: a review of the literature.
    Chiropractic Journal of Australia
    1999
    29
    213
  77. ter Riet
    G
    ,  
    Kleijnen
    J
    ,  
    Knipschild
    P
    .  
    Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    1990
    43
    1191
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  78. van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Cherkin
    DC
    ,  
    Berman
    B
    ,  
    Lao
    L
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    The effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of acute and chronic low back pain. A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.
    Spine
    1999
    24
    1113
    23
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  79. Cohen
    JE
    ,  
    Goel
    V
    ,  
    Frank
    JW
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Peloso
    P
    ,  
    Guillemin
    F
    .  
    Group education interventions for people with low back pain. An overview of the literature.
    Spine
    1994
    19
    1214
    22
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  80. Keijsers
    JF
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    ,  
    Meertens
    RM
    .  
    Validity and comparability of studies on the effects of back schools.
    Physiotherapy: Theory and Practice
    1991
    7
    177
    84
    CrossRef
  81. Koes
    BW
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    van der Windt
    WM
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    The efficacy of back schools: a review of randomized clinical trials.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    1994
    47
    851
    62
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  82. Nentwig
    CG
    .  
    [Effectiveness of the back school. A review of the results of evidence-based evaluation].
    Orthopade
    1999
    28
    958
    65
    PubMed
  83. van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Bombardier
    C
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Back schools for non-specific low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2000
    CD000261
    PubMed
  84. Morley
    S
    ,  
    Eccleston
    C
    ,  
    Williams
    A
    .  
    Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults, excluding headache.
    Pain
    1999
    80
    1
    13
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  85. van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Ostelo
    R
    ,  
    Vlaeyen
    JW
    ,  
    Linton
    SJ
    ,  
    Morley
    SJ
    ,  
    Assendelft
    WJ
    .  
    Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.
    Spine
    2001
    26
    270
    81
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  86. Cleland
    J
    ,  
    Schulte
    C
    ,  
    Durall
    C
    .  
    The role of therapeutic exercise in treating instability-related lumbar spine pain: A systematic review.
    Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
    2002
    16
    105
    15
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  87. Colle
    F
    ,  
    Rannou
    F
    ,  
    Revel
    M
    ,  
    Fermanian
    J
    ,  
    Poiraudeau
    S
    .  
    Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    2002
    83
    1745
    52
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  88. Faas A. Exercises: which ones are worth trying, for which patients, and when? Spine. 1996;21:2874-8; discussion 2878-9. [PMID: 9112711]
  89. Hilde
    G
    ,  
    Bo
    K
    .  
    Effect of exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review, emphasising type and dose of exercise.
    Physical Therapy Reviews
    1998
    3
    107
    17
    CrossRef
  90. Koes
    BW
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    ,  
    Beckerman
    H
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Knipschild
    PG
    .  
    Physiotherapy exercises and back pain: a blinded review.
    BMJ
    1991
    302
    1572
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  91. Maher
    C
    ,  
    Latimer
    J
    ,  
    Refshauge
    K
    .  
    Prescription of activity for low back pain: What works?
    Aust J Physiother
    1999
    45
    121
    132
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  92. van Tulder
    M
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Koes
    B
    .  
    Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration back review group.
    Spine
    2000
    25
    2784
    96
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  93. van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    A
    ,  
    Esmail
    R
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Exercise therapy for low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2000
    CD000335
    PubMed
  94. Beckerman
    H
    ,  
    de Bie
    RA
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    ,  
    De Cuyper
    HJ
    ,  
    Oostendorp
    RA
    .  
    The efficacy of laser therapy for musculoskeletal and skin disorders: a criteria-based meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
    Phys Ther
    1992
    72
    483
    91
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  95. Bjordal
    JM
    ,  
    Couppé
    C
    ,  
    Chow
    RT
    ,  
    Tunér
    J
    ,  
    Ljunggren
    EA
    .  
    A systematic review of low level laser therapy with location-specific doses for pain from chronic joint disorders.
    Aust J Physiother
    2003
    49
    107
    16
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  96. de Bie
    R
    .  
    Efficacy of 904 nm laser therapy in musculoskeletal disorders.
    Physical Therapy Reviews
    1998
    3
    1
    14
    CrossRef
  97. Gam
    AN
    ,  
    Thorsen
    H
    ,  
    Lønnberg
    F
    .  
    The effect of low-level laser therapy on musculoskeletal pain: a meta-analysis.
    Pain
    1993
    52
    63
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  98. Koes
    BW
    .  
    Efficacy of bed rest and orthoses for low back pain: a review of randomized clinical trials.
    European Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
    1994
    4
    86
    93
  99. van Poppel
    MN
    ,  
    de Looze
    MP
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    ,  
    Smid
    T
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    Mechanisms of action of lumbar supports: a systematic review.
    Spine
    2000
    25
    2103
    13
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  100. Ernst
    E
    .  
    Massage therapy for low back pain: a systematic review.
    J Pain Symptom Manage
    1999
    17
    65
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  101. Abenhaim
    L
    ,  
    Bergeron
    AM
    .  
    Twenty years of randomized clinical trials of manipulative therapy for back pain: a review.
    Clin Invest Med
    1992
    15
    527
    35
    PubMed
    PubMed
  102. Anderson
    R
    ,  
    Meeker
    WC
    ,  
    Wirick
    BE
    ,  
    Mootz
    RD
    ,  
    Kirk
    DH
    ,  
    Adams
    A
    .  
    A meta-analysis of clinical trials of spinal manipulation.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    1992
    15
    181
    94
    PubMed
    PubMed
  103. Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    The efficacy of chiropractic manipulation for back pain: blinded review of relevant randomized clinical trials.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    1992
    15
    487
    94
    PubMed
    PubMed
  104. Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    ,  
    Knipschild
    PG
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.
    JAMA
    1995
    274
    1942
    8
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  105. Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    ,  
    Knipschild
    PG
    .  
    Complications of spinal manipulation: a comprehensive review of the literature.
    J Fam Pract
    1996
    42
    475
    80
    PubMed
    PubMed
  106. Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    The effectiveness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain: an update and attempt at statistical pooling.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    1996
    19
    499
    507
    PubMed
    PubMed
  107. Brox
    JI
    ,  
    Hagen
    KB
    ,  
    Juel
    NG
    ,  
    Storheim
    K
    .  
    [Is exercise therapy and manipulation effective in low back pain?].
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen
    1999
    119
    2042
    50
    PubMed
    PubMed
  108. Di Fabio
    RP
    .  
    Efficacy of manual therapy.
    Phys Ther
    1992
    72
    853
    64
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  109. Ernst
    E
    .  
    Does spinal manipulation have specific treatment effects?
    Fam Pract
    2000
    17
    554
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  110. Ernst
    E
    ,  
    Harkness
    E
    .  
    Spinal manipulation: a systematic review of sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials.
    J Pain Symptom Manage
    2001
    22
    879
    89
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  111. Ernst
    E
    .  
    Cerebrovascular complications associated with spinal manipulation.
    Physical Therapy Reviews
    2004
    9
    5
    15
    CrossRef
  112. Koes
    BW
    ,  
    Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    ,  
    Knipschild
    PG
    .  
    Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review.
    BMJ
    1991
    303
    1298
    303
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  113. Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM. Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine. 1996;21:2860-71; discussion 2872-3. [PMID: 9112710]
  114. Mohseni-Bandpei
    M
    .  
    Spinal manipulation in the treatment of low back pain: a review of the literature with particular emphasis on randomized, controlled clinical trials.
    Physical Therapy Reviews
    1998
    3
    185
    94
    CrossRef
  115. Ottenbacher
    K
    ,  
    DiFabio
    RP
    .  
    Efficacy of spinal manipulation/mobilization therapy. A meta-analysis.
    Spine
    1985
    10
    833
    7
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  116. Shekelle
    PG
    ,  
    Adams
    AH
    ,  
    Chassin
    MR
    ,  
    Hurwitz
    EL
    ,  
    Brook
    RH
    .  
    Spinal manipulation for low-back pain.
    Ann Intern Med
    1992
    117
    590
    8
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  117. Brosseau
    L
    ,  
    Milne
    S
    ,  
    Robinson
    V
    ,  
    Marchand
    S
    ,  
    Shea
    B
    ,  
    Wells
    G
    .  
    et al
    Efficacy of the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis.
    Spine
    2002
    27
    596
    603
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  118. Flowerdew
    M
    ,  
    Gadsby
    G
    .  
    A review of the treatment of chronic low back pain with acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.
    Complementary Therapies in Medicine
    1997
    5
    193
    201
    CrossRef
  119. Gadsby
    JG
    ,  
    Flowerdew
    MW
    .  
    Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2000
    CD000210
    PubMed
  120. Milne
    S
    ,  
    Welch
    V
    ,  
    Brosseau
    L
    ,  
    Saginur
    M
    ,  
    Shea
    B
    ,  
    Tugwell
    P
    .  
    et al
    Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low back pain.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev
    2001
    CD003008
    PubMed
  121. van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Beurskens
    AJ
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    ,  
    Assendelft
    WJ
    ,  
    de Vet
    HC
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    The efficacy of traction for back and neck pain: a systematic, blinded review of randomized clinical trial methods.
    Phys Ther
    1995
    75
    93
    104
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  122. van der Windt
    DA
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    van den Berg
    SG
    ,  
    ter Riet
    G
    ,  
    de Winter
    AF
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    .  
    Ultrasound therapy for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review.
    Pain
    1999
    81
    257
    71
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  123. Beckerman
    H
    ,  
    Bouter
    LM
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    de Bie
    RA
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Efficacy of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal disorders: what can we learn from research?
    Br J Gen Pract
    1993
    43
    73
    7
    PubMed
    PubMed
  124. Di Fabio
    RP
    .  
    Efficacy of comprehensive rehabilitation programs and back school for patients with low back pain: a meta-analysis.
    Phys Ther
    1995
    75
    865
    78
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  125. Pengel
    HM
    ,  
    Maher
    CG
    ,  
    Refshauge
    KM
    .  
    Systematic review of conservative interventions for subacute low back pain.
    Clin Rehabil
    2002
    16
    811
    20
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  126. Scheer
    SJ
    ,  
    Radack
    KL
    ,  
    O'Brien
    DR
    Jr
    .  
    Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 1. Acute interventions.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    1995
    76
    966
    73
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  127. Scheer
    SJ
    ,  
    Watanabe
    TK
    ,  
    Radack
    KL
    .  
    Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain. Part 3. Subacute/chronic pain interventions.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    1997
    78
    414
    23
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  128. Turner JA. Educational and behavioral interventions for back pain in primary care. Spine. 1996;21:2851-7; discussion 2858-9. [PMID: 9112709]
  129. van der Weide
    WE
    ,  
    Verbeek
    JH
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    .  
    Vocational outcome of intervention for low-back pain.
    Scand J Work Environ Health
    1997
    23
    165
    78
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  130. Brinkhaus
    B
    ,  
    Witt
    CM
    ,  
    Jena
    S
    ,  
    Linde
    K
    ,  
    Streng
    A
    ,  
    Wagenpfeil
    S
    .  
    et al
    Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
    Arch Intern Med
    2006
    166
    450
    7
    PubMed
    PubMed
  131. Thomas
    KJ
    ,  
    MacPherson
    H
    ,  
    Thorpe
    L
    ,  
    Brazier
    J
    ,  
    Fitter
    M
    ,  
    Campbell
    MJ
    .  
    et al
    Randomised controlled trial of a short course of traditional acupuncture compared with usual care for persistent non-specific low back pain.
    BMJ
    2006
    333
    623
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  132. Witt
    CM
    ,  
    Jena
    S
    ,  
    Selim
    D
    ,  
    Brinkhaus
    B
    ,  
    Reinhold
    T
    ,  
    Wruck
    K
    .  
    et al
    Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain.
    Am J Epidemiol
    2006
    164
    487
    96
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  133. Hurwitz
    EL
    ,  
    Morganstern
    H
    ,  
    Harber
    P
    ,  
    Kominslei
    GF
    ,  
    Berhin
    TR
    ,  
    Yu
    F
    .  
    et al
    University of California-Los Angeles
    A randomized trial of medical care with and without physical therapy and chiropractic care with and without physical modalities for patients with low back pain: 6-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study.
    Spine
    2002
    27
    2193
    204
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  134. UK BEAM Trial Team
    United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care.
    BMJ
    2004
    329
    1377
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  135. Hurley
    DA
    ,  
    Minder
    PM
    ,  
    McDonough
    SM
    ,  
    Walsh
    DM
    ,  
    Moore
    AP
    ,  
    Baxter
    DG
    .  
    Interferential therapy electrode placement technique in acute low back pain: a preliminary investigation.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    2001
    82
    485
    93
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  136. Hurley
    DA
    ,  
    McDonough
    SM
    ,  
    Dempster
    M
    ,  
    Moore
    AP
    ,  
    Baxter
    GD
    .  
    A randomized clinical trial of manipulative therapy and interferential therapy for acute low back pain.
    Spine
    2004
    29
    2207
    16
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  137. Werners
    R
    ,  
    Pynsent
    PB
    ,  
    Bulstrode
    CJ
    .  
    Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting.
    Spine
    1999
    24
    1579
    84
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  138. Basford
    JR
    ,  
    Sheffield
    CG
    ,  
    Harmsen
    WS
    .  
    Laser therapy: a randomized, controlled trial of the effects of low-intensity Nd:YAG laser irradiation on musculoskeletal back pain.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    1999
    80
    647
    52
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  139. Gur
    A
    ,  
    Karakoc
    M
    .  
    Cevik
    R
    ,  
    Nas
    K
    ,  
    Sarac
    AJ
    ,  
    Karakoc
    M
    .  
    Efficacy of low power laser therapy and exercise on pain and functions in chronic low back pain.
    Lasers Surg Med
    2003
    32
    233
    8
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  140. Klein
    RG
    ,  
    Eek
    BC
    .  
    Low-energy laser treatment and exercise for chronic low back pain: double-blind controlled trial.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    1990
    71
    34
    7
    PubMed
    PubMed
  141. Longo
    L
    ,  
    Tamburini
    A
    ,  
    Monti
    A
    ,  
    Cattaneo
    L
    ,  
    Sesti
    A
    .  
    Treatment with 904 nm and 10 600 nm laser of acute lumbago: double-blind control.
    Laser Clinical Research
    1988
    3
    16
    20
  142. Monticone
    M
    ,  
    Barbarino
    A
    ,  
    Testi
    C
    ,  
    Arzano
    S
    ,  
    Moschi
    A
    ,  
    Negrini
    S
    .  
    Symptomatic efficacy of stabilizing treatment versus laser therapy for sub-acute low back pain with positive tests for sacroiliac dysfunction: a randomised clinical controlled trial with 1 year follow-up.
    Eura Medicophys
    2004
    40
    263
    8
    PubMed
    PubMed
  143. Soriano
    F
    ,  
    Rios
    R
    .  
    Gallium arsenide laser treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study.
    Laser Therapy
    1998
    10
    175
    80
    CrossRef
  144. Toya
    S
    ,  
    Motegi
    M
    ,  
    Inomata
    K
    ,  
    Ohshiro
    T
    ,  
    Maed
    T
    .  
    Report on a computer-randomized double-blind clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of the GaAlAs(830nm) diode laser for attenuation in selected pain groups.
    Laser Therapy
    1994
    6
    143
    8
    CrossRef
  145. Gibson
    T
    ,  
    Grahame
    R
    ,  
    Harkness
    J
    ,  
    Woo
    P
    ,  
    Blagrave
    P
    ,  
    Hills
    R
    .  
    Controlled comparison of short-wave diathermy treatment with osteopathic treatment in non-specific low back pain.
    Lancet
    1985
    1
    1258
    61
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  146. Rasmussen
    GG
    .  
    Manipulation in treatment of low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.
    Manuelle Medizin
    1979
    1
    8
    10
  147. Sweetman
    BJ
    ,  
    Heinrich
    I
    ,  
    Anderson
    JA
    .  
    A randomzied controlled trial of exercises, short wave diathermy, and traction for low back pain, with evidence of diagnosis-related response to treatment.
    Journal of Orthopaedic Rheumatology
    1993
    6
    159
    66
  148. Ansari
    NN
    ,  
    Ebadi
    S
    ,  
    Talebian
    S
    ,  
    Naghdi
    S
    ,  
    Mazaheri
    H
    ,  
    Olyaei
    G
    .  
    et al
    A randomized, single blind placebo controlled clinical trial on the effect of continuous ultrasound on low back pain.
    Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol
    2006
    46
    329
    36
    PubMed
    PubMed
  149. Nwuga
    VC
    .  
    Ultrasound in treatment of back pain resulting from prolapsed intervertebral disc.
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil
    1983
    64
    88
    9
    PubMed
    PubMed
  150. Roman
    MP
    .  
    A clinical evaluation of ultrasound by use of a placebo technic.
    Phys Ther Rev
    1960
    40
    649
    52
    PubMed
    PubMed
  151. Galantino
    ML
    ,  
    Bzdewka
    TM
    ,  
    Eissler-Russo
    JL
    ,  
    Holbrook
    ML
    ,  
    Mogck
    EP
    ,  
    Geigle
    P
    .  
    et al
    The impact of modified Hatha yoga on chronic low back pain: a pilot study.
    Altern Ther Health Med
    2004
    10
    56
    9
    PubMed
    PubMed
  152. Sherman
    KJ
    ,  
    Cherkin
    DC
    ,  
    Erro
    J
    ,  
    Miglioretti
    DL
    ,  
    Deyo
    RA
    .  
    Comparing yoga, exercise, and a self-care book for chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
    Ann Intern Med
    2005
    143
    849
    56
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  153. Williams
    KA
    ,  
    Petronis
    J
    ,  
    Smith
    D
    ,  
    Goodrich
    D
    ,  
    Wu
    J
    ,  
    Ravi
    N
    .  
    et al
    Effect of Iyengar yoga therapy for chronic low back pain.
    Pain
    2005
    115
    107
    17
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  154. Wreje
    U
    ,  
    Nordgren
    B
    ,  
    Aberg
    H
    .  
    Treatment of pelvic joint dysfunction in primary care—a controlled study.
    Scand J Prim Health Care
    1992
    10
    310
    5
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  155. Thomas
    K
    ,  
    MacPherson
    H
    ,  
    Ratcliffe
    J
    ,  
    Thorpe
    L
    ,  
    Brazier
    J
    ,  
    Campbell
    M
    .  
    Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain.
    NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme
    2005
    9
    32
  156. Childs
    JD
    ,  
    Fritz
    JM
    ,  
    Flynn
    TW
    ,  
    Irrgang
    JJ
    ,  
    Johnson
    KK
    ,  
    Majkowski
    GR
    .  
    et al
    A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study.
    Ann Intern Med
    2004
    141
    920
    8
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  157. Fritz
    JM
    ,  
    Childs
    JD
    ,  
    Flynn
    TW
    .  
    Pragmatic application of a clinical prediction rule in primary care to identify patients with low back pain with a good prognosis following a brief spinal manipulation intervention.
    BMC Fam Pract
    2005
    6
    29
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  158. Godfrey
    CM
    ,  
    Morgan
    PP
    ,  
    Schatzker
    J
    .  
    A randomized trial of manipulation for low-back pain in a medical setting.
    Spine
    1984
    9
    301
    4
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  159. Preyde
    M
    .  
    Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
    CMAJ
    2000
    162
    1815
    20
    PubMed
    PubMed
  160. Melzack
    R
    ,  
    Vetere
    P
    ,  
    Finch
    L
    .  
    Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for low back pain. A comparison of TENS and massage for pain and range of motion.
    Phys Ther
    1983
    63
    489
    93
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  161. Cherkin
    DC
    ,  
    Eisenberg
    D
    ,  
    Sherman
    KJ
    ,  
    Barlow
    W
    ,  
    Kaptchuk
    TJ
    ,  
    Street
    J
    .  
    et al
    Randomized trial comparing traditional Chinese medical acupuncture, therapeutic massage, and self-care education for chronic low back pain.
    Arch Intern Med
    2001
    161
    1081
    8
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  162. Franke
    A
    ,  
    Gebauer
    S
    ,  
    Franke
    K
    ,  
    Brockow
    T
    .  
    [Acupuncture massage vs Swedish massage and individual exercise vs group exercise in low back pain sufferers—a randomized, controlled clinical trial in a 2 × 2 factorial design].
    Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd
    2000
    7
    286
    93
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  163. Ernst
    E
    ,  
    White
    AR
    .  
    Prospective studies of the safety of acupuncture: a systematic review.
    Am J Med
    2001
    110
    481
    5
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  164. Ceccherelli
    F
    ,  
    Rigoni
    MT
    ,  
    Gagliardi
    G
    ,  
    Ruzzante
    L
    .  
    Comparison of superficial and deep acupuncture in the treatment of lumbar myofascial pain: a double-blind randomized, controlled study.
    Clin J Pain
    2002
    18
    149
    53
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  165. Carlsson
    CP
    ,  
    Sjölund
    BH
    .  
    Acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled study with long-term follow-up.
    Clin J Pain
    2001
    17
    296
    305
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  166. Bergquist-Ullman
    M
    ,  
    Larsson
    U
    .  
    Acute low back pain in industry. A controlled prospective study with special reference to therapy and confounding factors.
    Acta Orthop Scand
    1977
    1
    117
    PubMed
  167. Turner
    JA
    ,  
    Clancy
    S
    .  
    Comparison of operant behavioral and cognitive-behavioral group treatment for chronic low back pain.
    J Consult Clin Psychol
    1988
    56
    261
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  168. Bendix
    AF
    ,  
    Bendix
    T
    ,  
    Vaegter
    K
    ,  
    Lund
    C
    ,  
    Frølund
    L
    ,  
    Holm
    L
    .  
    Multidisciplinary intensive treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized, prospective study.
    Cleve Clin J Med
    1996
    63
    62
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  169. Bendix
    AF
    ,  
    Bendix
    T
    ,  
    Ostenfeld
    S
    ,  
    Bush
    E
    ,  
    Andersen
    .  
    Active treatment programs for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study.
    Eur Spine J
    1995
    4
    148
    52
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  170. Penrose
    KW
    ,  
    Chook
    K
    ,  
    Stump
    JL
    .  
    Acute and chronic effects of pneumatic lumbar support on muscular strength, flexibility, and functional impairment index.
    Sports Training Medicine and Rehabilitation
    1991
    2
    121
    9
    CrossRef
  171. Hsieh
    CY
    ,  
    Phillips
    RB
    ,  
    Adams
    AH
    ,  
    Pope
    MH
    .  
    Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized, controlled trial.
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther
    1992
    15
    4
    9
    PubMed
    PubMed
  172. Pope
    MH
    ,  
    Phillips
    RB
    ,  
    Haugh
    LD
    ,  
    Hsieh
    CY
    ,  
    MacDonald
    L
    ,  
    Haldeman
    S
    .  
    A prospective randomized three-week trial of spinal manipulation, transcutaneous muscle stimulation, massage and corset in the treatment of subacute low back pain.
    Spine
    1994
    19
    2571
    7
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  173. Nadler
    SF
    ,  
    Steiner
    DJ
    ,  
    Erasala
    GN
    ,  
    Hengehold
    DA
    ,  
    Hinkle
    RT
    ,  
    Beth Goodale
    M
    .  
    et al
    Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy provides more efficacy than Ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute low back pain.
    Spine
    2002
    27
    1012
    7
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  174. Mayer
    JM
    ,  
    Ralph
    L
    ,  
    Look
    M
    ,  
    Erasala
    GN
    ,  
    Verna
    JL
    ,  
    Matheson
    LN
    .  
    et al
    Treating acute low back pain with continuous low-level heat wrap therapy and/or exercise: a randomized, controlled trial.
    Spine J
    2005
    5
    395
    403
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  175. Beurskens
    AJ
    ,  
    de Vet
    HC
    ,  
    Köke
    AJ
    ,  
    Lindeman
    E
    ,  
    Regtop
    W
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    .  
    et al
    Efficacy of traction for non-specific low back pain: a randomised clinical trial.
    Lancet
    1995
    346
    1596
    600
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  176. Beurskens
    AJ
    ,  
    de Vet
    HC
    ,  
    Köke
    AJ
    ,  
    Regtop
    W
    ,  
    van der Heijden
    GJ
    ,  
    Lindeman
    E
    .  
    et al
    Efficacy of traction for nonspecific low back pain. 12-week and 6-month results of a randomized clinical trial.
    Spine
    1997
    22
    2756
    62
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  177. van der Heijden
    G
    ,  
    Beurskens
    A
    ,  
    Dirx
    M
    ,  
    Bouter
    L
    ,  
    Lindeman
    E
    .  
    Efficacy of lumbar traction: a randomised clinical trial.
    Physiotherapy
    1995
    81
    29
    35
    CrossRef
  178. Larsson
    U
    ,  
    Chöler
    U
    ,  
    Lidström
    A
    ,  
    Lind
    G
    ,  
    Nachemson
    A
    ,  
    Nilsson
    B
    .  
    et al
    Auto-traction for treatment of lumbago-sciatica. A multicentre controlled investigation.
    Acta Orthop Scand
    1980
    51
    791
    8
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  179. Lind
    G
    .  
    Auto-traction, treatment of lowback pain and sciatica. An electromyographic, radiographic and clinical study [Thesis].
    Linköping, Sweden
    University of Linköping
    1974
  180. Walker
    L
    ,  
    Svenkerud
    T
    ,  
    Weber
    H
    .  
    [Traksjonbehandling ved lumbago-ischias: en kontrollert undersolske med Spina-trac].
    Fysioterapeuten
    1982
    49
    161
    3, 177
  181. Deyo
    RA
    ,  
    Walsh
    NE
    ,  
    Martin
    DC
    ,  
    Schoenfeld
    LS
    ,  
    Ramamurthy
    S
    .  
    A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain.
    N Engl J Med
    1990
    322
    1627
    34
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  182. CONSORT Group
    Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.
    Ann Intern Med
    2004
    141
    781
    8
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  183. Hayden
    JA
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    ,  
    Malmivaara
    AV
    ,  
    Koes
    BW
    .  
    Meta-analysis: exercise therapy for nonspecific low back pain.
    Ann Intern Med
    2005
    142
    765
    75
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  184. Sterne
    JA
    ,  
    Egger
    M
    ,  
    Smith
    GD
    .  
    Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis.
    BMJ
    2001
    323
    101
    5
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  185. Baldwin
    ML
    ,  
    Côté
    P
    ,  
    Frank
    JW
    ,  
    Johnson
    WG
    .  
    Cost-effectiveness studies of medical and chiropractic care for occupational low back pain. a critical review of the literature.
    Spine J
    2001
    1
    138
    47
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  186. Thomsen
    AB
    ,  
    Sørensen
    J
    ,  
    Sjøgren
    P
    ,  
    Eriksen
    J
    .  
    Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary pain management in chronic pain patients: a qualitative systematic review.
    J Pain Symptom Manage
    2001
    22
    688
    98
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  187. Uhlig
    T
    ,  
    Finset
    A
    ,  
    Kvien
    TK
    .  
    Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of comprehensive rehabilitation programs.
    Curr Opin Rheumatol
    2003
    15
    134
    40
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  188. van der Roer
    N
    ,  
    Goossens
    ME
    ,  
    Evers
    SM
    ,  
    van Tulder
    MW
    .  
    What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review.
    Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol
    2005
    19
    671
    84
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed

Appendix Table 1. Included Interventions

Appendix Table 1. Included Interventions

Appendix Table 2. Quality Rating System for Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 2. Quality Rating System for Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 3. Quality Rating System for Randomized, Controlled Trials

Appendix Table 3. Quality Rating System for Randomized, Controlled Trials

Appendix Table 4. Methods for Grading the Overall Strength of Evidence for an Intervention

Appendix Table 4. Methods for Grading the Overall Strength of Evidence for an Intervention

Appendix Table 5. Quality Ratings for Included Systematic Reviews of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 5. Quality Ratings for Included Systematic Reviews of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 6. Systematic Reviews of Efficacy of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 6. Systematic Reviews of Efficacy of Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 7. Excluded Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 7. Excluded Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 8. Additional, Large Trials of Acupuncture, Exercise, and Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain Not Included in Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 8. Additional, Large Trials of Acupuncture, Exercise, and Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain Not Included in Systematic Reviews

Appendix Table 9. Trials of Interferential Therapy, Low-Level Laser Therapy, Shortwave Diathermy, Ultrasonography, and Yoga for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 9. Trials of Interferential Therapy, Low-Level Laser Therapy, Shortwave Diathermy, Ultrasonography, and Yoga for Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 10. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 10. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 11. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Chronic or Subacute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 11. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Chronic or Subacute Low Back Pain

Appendix Table 12. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Radiculopathy or Sciatica

Appendix Table 12. Summary of Evidence on Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Radiculopathy or Sciatica

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.


Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: Recommendations from the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

5 Comments

Jan M Bjordal

Inst. Physical Therapy, Bergen University College,

October 12, 2007

Why is a "fair" scientific grading higher for low level laser therapy than for other therapies?

Dear editor

In a recent systematic review of nonpharmacologic therapies for low back pain (LBP), the authors concluded that there is no evidence to support a recommendation for low level laser therapy (LLLT) (1). Although the review was largely based on previously published systematic reviews, no back-specific reviews were found for LLLT and four other therapies. For this reason a new literature search was undertaken which identified 5 randomized placebo-controlled trials and two comparative trials. The mechanisms behind LLLT have as yet not been fully understood. But recently it has been shown that all infrared wavelengths used in this review, reduce both inflammation and pain(2). In the current review, one small (n=20), medium quality trial (score 6/11) was reporting negative results. But as the authors in this trial used a dose of less than 10% of the other LLLT-trials, their negative findings are not surprising. All of the remaining 4 trials found significant results in favour of LLLT on relevant outcome measures such as pain, global improvement and Oswestry disability index (ODI). My own analyzes show that all combined outcomes were significantly better than placebo for the LLLT groups, and mean pain on VAS was reduced by 11.2 mm[1.2 "“ 22.3] even if the trial with insufficient dose (3) was included. For LLLT, the relative risk for global improvement was 2.55 [1.9 "“ 3-3] better than placebo and ODI was a mean 4.2 points better than placebo. It should be added that 3 of these trials yielded a high quality score(4-6), while the last trial just missed a "high" quality score by one criterion (5/11) (7). As for indirect evidence, an additional low quality trial found that LLLT was at least as effective as exercises (mean change 42mm vs 36 mm) for short-term pain relief (8). And the current review claims that exercises are moderately effective for subacute and chronic LBP. We can also add that a recent well-designed placebo-controlled LLLT-trial confirm the positive results of LLLT in subacute/chronic LBP for pain and disability measured by ODI (9), and that LLLT has recently been found effective in a Cochrane review for neck pain (10). Given the consistently positive results for adequate doses of LLLT, it is incomprehensible why LLLT evidence is rated as "poor". In comparison with other interventions for chronic/subacute LBP LLLT seems to have better evidence than yoga which was given a "fair" grading based on a single high quality with positive effects and two lower quality trials with largely non-significant results. And spinal manipulation was given a "fair" grading in acute LBP based on a single low quality trial in sacroiliac pain. Based on these comparisons I find the review conclusion for LLLT volatile and clearly deviating from the consistent positive evidence following from the published LLLT trials.

References

1. Chou, R. and L.H. Huffman, Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med, 2007. 147(7): 492-504.

2. Bjordal, J.M., et al., Photoradiation in acute pain: a systematic review of possible mechanisms of action and clinical effects in randomized placebo-controlled trials. Photomed Laser Surg, 2006. 24(2): 158-68.

3. Klein, R.G. and B.C. Eek, Low energy laser treatment and exercise for chronic low back pain: double blind controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehab, 1990. 71(1): 34-7.

4. Soriano, F. and R. Rios, Gallium Arsenide Laser treatment of chronic low back pain: A prospective , randomized and double blind study. Laser Therapy, 1998. 10: 175-180.

5. Toya, S., et al., Report on a computer-randomized double blind clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of the GaAlAs (830nm) diode laser for attenuation in selected pain groups. Laser therapy, 1994. 6: 143-148.

6. Basford, J.R., C.G. Sheffield, and W.S. Harmsen, Laser therapy: a randomized, controlled trial of the effects of low-intensity Nd:YAG laser irradiation on musculoskeletal back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1999. 80(6): 647-52.

7. Longo, L., A. Tamburini, and A. Monti, Treatment with 904 nm and 10600 nm laser of acute lumbago. Double-blind control laser J Eur Med Laser Ass, 1991. 3: 16-19.

8. Gur, A., et al., Efficacy of low power laser therapy and exercise on pain and functions in chronic low back pain. Lasers Surg Med, 2003. 32(3): 233-8.

9. Djavid, G.E., et al., In chronic low back pain, low level laser therapy combined with exercise is more beneficial than exercise alone in the long term: a randomised trial. Aust J Physiother, 2007. 53(3): 155-60.

10. Gross, A.R., et al., Conservative Management of Mechanical Neck Disorders: A Systematic Review. J Rheumatol, 2007.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Edzard Ernst

Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth

October 16, 2007

Risk of spinal manipulation

Chou et al(1) cite two of our reviews(2,3) stating that these and three further assessments "consistently found serious adverse events after serious manipulation (such as worsening lumber disc herniation or cauda equina syndrome) were very rare". Yet one of these articles(2) concludes that "the available data suggest that mild to moderate, transient adverse reactions occur in about 50% of patients after chiropractic spinal manipulation. Serious injuries are probably much rarer, but more conclusive studies are urgently needed", and the other one(3) states that "serious complications of spinal manipulation seem to be rare, whereas less serious adverse events occur frequently". The difference between Chou's "consistently very rare" and our attempts to express a high level of uncertainty about the risks is obvious.

The most worrying adverse events of spinal manipulation are not disc herniation or canda equina syndrome as Chou et al1 imply but cerebrovascular accidents.(2,3,4) Chou et al may have excluded these from their review on low back pain as these occur only after neck manipulation. This could be misleading as chiropractors, the profession using spinal manipulation more frequently than any other, consider the spine as an entity and will manipulate the upper spine, if they diagnose a subluxation in this area, even when patients consult them because of low back pain.

Reference List

1. Chou R,.Hoffman LH. Non pharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: A review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:492-504.

2. Ernst E. Prospective investigations into the safety of spinal manipulation. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001;21:238-42.

3. Stevinson C,.Ernst E. Risks associated with spinal manipulation. Am J Med 2002;112:566-70.

4. Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. J R Soc Med 2007;100:330-8.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Sumesh Thomas

Brockbridge Therapy, Inc.

December 3, 2007

Physical Therapy

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Dr. Roger Chou, MD and Ms. Laurie Hoyt Huffman, MS' article, "Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline", and found it very informative. I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding an impression I got about physical therapy from the article. In the article, the article search results were categorized into four major categories: spinal manipulation, massage and acupuncture; exercise therapy, yoga, and back schools; psychological therapies, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, and functional restoration; and physical therapies. Under the physical therapies category only a few passive modalities traditionally used by physical therapists and lumbar supports were listed. Unfortunately, this gives me and possibly other readers the impression that physical therapy is limited to the administration of passive modalities. Physical therapists, like me, are evidence based healthcare providers who are knowledgeable and skilled in the evaluation and management of low back pain. I traditionally screen my patients for symptoms associated with potentially serious medical conditions (e.g. cancer, cauda equine syndrome, etc.) that require medical referral; and for yellow flags (with validated and reliable outcome measures [e.g. Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) for worker's compensation patients with low back pain (Cleland, 2007)]) to determine if a different treatment approach (e.g. quota based exercise program [Kernan, 2007]) is indicated or if the expertise of a psycho-social expert would be beneficial.

My interventions for low back pain include educating my patients about their condition based on the information published in the Back Book, the use of spinal manipulation for patients with acute low back pain meeting a validated clinical prediction rule designed by Flynn et al (2002), and the use of manual therapy (e.g. mobilization) and various types of therapeutic exercises including (e.g. lumbar stabilization (Barr, 2007), extension oriented exercises (Browder, 2007), and flexion oriented exercises (Whitman, 2006) depending on the results of my physical examination. In a matter of fact, I and many of my colleagues don't use any of the modalities listed under "physical therapies" in the management of low back pain. Therefore, physical therapists do more than simply administer passive modalities. By integrating the best evidence into our practices we utilize the most effective interventions for our patients, which may include manual therapy (e.g. spinal manipulation), exercise, and or passive modalities just to name a few. If my impression is correct and readers of this article conclude that physical therapists simply administer passive modalities, then many patients, especially those with acute low back pain, may never be referred to physical therapy, and therefore may never receive appropriate and effective care in a timely manner. This would be extremely unfortunate. Sincerely, Dr. Sumesh Thomas, PT, DPT, OCS Brockbridge Therapy, Inc. Baltimore, MD

Barr KP, Griggs M, Cadby T. Lumbar stabilization: a review of core concepts and current literature, part 2. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;86(1):72-80.

Browder DA, Childs JD, Cleland JA, Fritz JM. Effectiveness of an Extension-Oriented Treatment Approach in a Subgroup of Subjects With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Phys Ther. 2007 Sep 25 [Epub ahead of print].

Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Brennan GP. Predictive validity of initial fear avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy: is the FABQ a useful screening tool for identifying patients at risk for a poor recovery? Eur Spine J. 2007 Oct 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Flynn T, Fritz J, Whitman J, Wainner R, Magel J, Rendeiro D, Butler B, Garber M, Allison S. A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvements with spinal manipulation. Spine. 2002 Dec; 27(24): 2835-2843.

Kernan T, Rainville J. Observed outcomes associated with a quota- based exercise approach on measure of kinesiophobia in patients with chronic low back pain. JOSPT. 2007 Oct; 37(11):679-687.

Whitman JM, Flynn TW, Childs JD, Wainner RS, Gill HE, Ryder MG, Garber MB, Bennett AC, Fritz JM. A comparison between two physical therapy treatment programs for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2006 Oct 15;31(22):2541-9.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Roger Chou

Oregon Health & Science University

December 5, 2007

In Response

In response:

We thank the authors of the letters for their comments on our low back pain guideline (1) and evidence reviews (2, 3). Dr. Bjordal notes some methodologic concerns with our reviews. To clarify, we performed a systematic review of a broad range of low back pain topics, and when prior systematic reviews were available and of sufficient quality, we included them. The idea that new systematic reviews of the primary literature should always be conducted when developing clinical practice guidelines is both unsupported by any empirical evidence and if implemented could be a poor use of scientific resources (4). Guideline panels need relevant, current, high-quality reviews of the evidence; if existing reviews fulfill those criteria then it is wasteful to ignore them and conduct new reviews. We included systematic reviews published in or after the year 2000 and identified higher-quality reviews using a validated quality rating instrument (5, 6). Although systematic reviews should be updated, there is no compelling reason to ignore higher-quality Cochrane reviews (7) that met our criteria for inclusion and were "withdrawn" only because they did not meet an updating deadline, not because of methodological deficiencies or the publication of contradictory trials (8).

Dr. Bjordal suggests that we graded evidence for acetaminophen too positively. In his letter, Dr. Bjordal describes one trial as evaluating acute low back pain when it actually evaluated chronic low back pain (9). Otherwise, our descriptions of the evidence are similar (Appendix Tables 10 and 11 (2)). We agree that our evidence ratings for acetaminophen were generous given some inconsistency among trials of acute low back pain, and lack of direct evidence and small benefits for chronic low back pain. We re-rated evidence for acetaminophen for acute low back pain fair quality with moderate benefits, and for chronic low back pain fair quality with small benefits (see Correction). Because of acetaminophen's favorable safety profile compared to other pharmacologic therapies, these changes do not change our recommendation to consider it as a first-line option for pharmacologic therapy (1).

For NSAIDs, skeletal muscle relaxants, and benzodiazepines, Dr. Bjordal's focus on single outcomes from placebo-controlled trials reported in Cochrane reviews ignores much of the available evidence. Our assessments are based on both placebo and active-controlled trials, non- Cochrane systematic reviews, data on various outcomes related to pain, function, and global efficacy, and indirect evidence from patients with other pain conditions (Appendix Tables 10 and 11 (2)). We also evaluated consistency between trials and across higher-quality systematic reviews (10). In addition, post-hoc analyses, such as those presented by Dr. Bjordal, can be misleading and should be interpreted cautiously. For example, excluding trials based on small differences in quality scores is problematic given unpredictable associations between summary quality rating scores and estimates of effects (11). We did not report data on mean improvement in pain scores from a Cochrane review of NSAIDs because of substantial, unexplained heterogeneity (p<0.0001) (7).

As Dr. Bjordal surmised, we inverted relative risks (1/relative risk) for "˜no pain relief' with skeletal muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines (as reported in a Cochrane review (12)) to present results for a positive outcome (achieving pain relief) (2). However, this transformation was incorrect, as relative risks (unlike odds ratios) are not a symmetric statistic. We will correct the article to show original results as reported in the Cochrane review (see Corrections). This correction does not change any conclusions, but we thank Dr. Bjordal for noting this error.

We disagree with Dr. Bjordal's assertion that there is enough evidence to establish efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). In the case of LLLT, there is substantial diversity across trials in doses and types of laser, some inconsistency among higher-quality trials, and the possibility of publication bias. Our conclusion of insufficient evidence is similar to a recently published Cochrane review (13). For TENS, the highest quality placebo-controlled trial found no benefit in chronic low back pain (14). In addition, it is inappropriate to pool studies of disparate populations and therapies (TENS and neuromuscular stimulation), as proposed by Dr. Bjordal, and two of the trials proposed for pooling found no benefits on pain or function with TENS versus placebo (15, 16).

We disagree with Dr. Ernst that our conclusions regarding rare risk of serious adverse events with spinal manipulation are misleading or downplay the risk of cerebrovascular events (3). Our review deals with low back pain and treatment with lumbar spinal manipulation. There are no reports of cerebrovascular events following lumbar spine manipulation or in patients being treated for low back pain (17, 18). Cervical manipulation is not a subject of our review or practice guideline.

Dr. Bjordal suggests that recommendations for therapy favor pharmacologic over non-pharmacologic options (1). In fact, we recommend either type of therapy as options (Figure 1, Box 9 (1)), and strength of evidence and magnitude of benefits were graded similarly for several pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies (Appendix Tables 5 and 6). However, recommendation 7 on non-pharmacologic therapies in general was graded "weak" because of relatively weak evidence for some suggested options (Appendix Tables 10 and 11 (3)), higher costs compared to first- line pharmacologic therapies, and less convenience (most non-pharmacologic options involving multiple provider visits). It would be appropriate to select a non-pharmacologic over pharmacologic therapy in patients who express such a preference, but the trade-offs should be discussed (19). Superficial heat is already recommended as a self-care option (Figure 2, Interventions box (1)).

Roger Chou, MD Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon

Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD Veterans Affairs Health Care System and RAND, Santa Monica, California

Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA The American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, and Stanford University, Stanford, California

References

1. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:478 -491.

2. Chou R, Huffman LH. Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147:505-514.

3. Chou R, Huffman LH. Non-pharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147:492-504.

4. Silagy CA, Stead LF, Lancaster T. Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation. BMJ. 2001;323:833-836.

5. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1996;49:235-243.

6. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1991;44(11):1271-1278.

7. van Tulder MW, Schotten RJPM, Koes BW, Deyo RA. Non-steroidal anti -inflammatory drugs for low-back pain Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000(2).

8. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? a survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224-233.

9. Hickey RF, Hickey RF. Chronic low back pain: a comparison of diflunisal with paracetamol. New Zealand Medical Journal. 1982;95(707):312 -4.

10. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490-1494.

11. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.

12. van Tulder MW, Touray T, Furlan AD, Solway S, Bouter LM. Muscle relaxants for non-specific low-back pain Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003(4).

13. Yousefi-Nooraie R, Schonstein E, Heidari K, et al. Low level laser therapy for nonspecific low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;2.

14. Deyo RA, Walsh NE, Martin DC, Schoenfeld LS, Ramamurthy S. A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. New England Journal of Medicine. 1990;322:1627-34.

15. Herman E, Williams R, Stratford P, Fargas-Babkak A, Trott M. A randomized controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (CODETRON) to determine its benefits in a rehabilitation program for acute occupational low back pain. Spine. 1994;19(5):561-568. 16. Moore SR, Shurman J. Combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for treatment of chronic back pain: a double-blind, repeated measures comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:55-60.

17. Ernst E. Cerebrovascular complications associated with spinal manipulation. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2004;9(1):5-15.

18. Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2007;100:330-338.

19. Schunemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, et al. An official ATS statement: Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:605-614.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Roger Chou

Oregon Health & Science University

December 5, 2007

Correction

Correction

We write to provide corrections to the recent joint guideline by the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society on diagnosis and treatment of low back pain (1) and supporting evidence reviews (2, 3). In the original print version of the guideline, the target populations were described incorrectly (1). The word "not" was inadvertently dropped from a sentence that described populations that were excluded from the guideline. Children or adolescents with low back pain; pregnant women; patients with low back pain from sources outside the back (nonspinal low back pain), fibromyalgia or other myofascial pain syndromes, and thoracic or cervical back pain are not covered by the guideline. The online version of guideline has already been corrected.

In response to a letter to the editor (4) we re-reviewed the evidence on acetaminophen and believe we originally graded the evidence too positively in the guideline and evidence review (1, 2). However, our guideline recommendations remain the same. Acetaminophen for acute low back pain should be rated "˜fair' rather than "˜good' quality. Acetaminophen for chronic low back pain should be rated "˜fair' rather than "˜good' quality and magnitude of benefit "˜small' rather than "˜moderate' (Appendix Tables 5 and 6 in the guideline (1) and Appendix Tables 10 and 11 in the evidence review (2)). The Abstract/Data Synthesis section of the evidence review should read: "We found good evidence that NSAIDs, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief"¦We also found fair evidence that acetaminophen, opioids, tramadol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin (for radiculopathy) are effective for pain relief (2)." The Abstract/Conclusions section should read: "Medications with good evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain)." Similar changes should be applied to the Discussion section. As noted, these changes do not affect Recommendation 6 suggesting acetaminophen as an option for first-line pharmacologic therapy (1). This recommendation is based in large part on the safety profile of acetaminophen, when taken in appropriate dosages in patients without a contraindication.

Reference 62 in the evidence review on medications for low back pain is incorrect and should refer to a different trial by the same first author (5).

In the evidence review on medications, we inverted (calculated 1/relative risk) results for "not achieving pain relief" as reported in a Cochrane review (6) in order to report the likelihood of achieving pain relief. This conversion was incorrect because relative risk is not a symmetric statistic. The evidence review (2) will be corrected to state results as originally reported in the Cochrane review: for skeletal muscle relaxants, relative risks for not achieving pain relief 0.80 [CI, 0.71 to 0.89] at 2-4 days and 0.67 [0.13 to 3.44] at 5-7 days and relative risks for not achieving global efficacy 0.49 [CI, 0.25 to 0.95] at 2-4 days and 0.68 [CI, 0.41 to 1.13] at 5-7 days; and for benzodiazepines, relative risks for not achieving pain relief 0.71 [CI, 0.54 to 0.93] and for not achieving global efficacy 0.63 [CI, 0.42 to 0.97] at 8-14 days (6). Similarly, in the evidence review on non-pharmacologic therapies (3), results for a systematic review by Kool et al (7) on exercise therapy should state a relative risk of 0.73 [CI, 0.56 to 0.95] for not returning to work after 1 year . None of these corrections affect conclusions of the evidence reviews or guidelines.

All corrections have been applied to the online version of the articles.

Roger Chou, MD Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon

Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD Veterans Affairs Health Care System and RAND, Santa Monica, California

Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA The American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, and Stanford University, Stanford, California References

1. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:478 -491.

2. Chou R, Huffman LH. Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147:505-514.

3. Chou R, Huffman LH. Non-pharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147:492-504.

4. Bjordal JM, Lopes-Martin RAB, Klovning A, Roland PH, Slordal L. Overviews are methodically inferior to systematic reviews and contribute to myths of effective drugs. Annals Online. 17 Oct 2007.

5. Berry H, Bloom B, Hamilton EBD, Swinson DR. Naproxen sodium, diflunisal, and placebo int he treatment of chronic back pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982;41:129-132.

6. van Tulder MW, Touray T, Furlan AD, Solway S, Bouter LM. Muscle relaxants for non-specific low-back pain Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003(4).

7. Kool J, de Bie R, Oesch P, Knusel O, van den Brandt P, Bachmann S. Exercise reduces sick leave in patients with non-acute non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2004;36(2):49-62.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Chou R, Huffman LH. Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med. ;147:492–504. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00007

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):492-504.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00007

©
2007 American College of Physicians
293 Citations

See Also

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society
Medications for Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline
Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: Recommendations from the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society
Correction: Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain
Overviews and Systematic Reviews on Low Back Pain
Overviews and Systematic Reviews on Low Back Pain
Overviews and Systematic Reviews on Low Back Pain
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (7): 493-505
Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (7): 514-530
Systemic Pharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (7): 480-492
Meta-Analysis: Exercise Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Annals of Internal Medicine; 142 (9): 765-775
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

In chronic nonspecific neck pain, adding Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture to usual care improved pain
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (6): JC29
Review: Evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture for pain is mixed
Annals of Internal Medicine; 155 (4): JC2-6
Immediate and delayed acupuncture reduced frequency and pain intensity of primary migraine or tension-type headaches
Annals of Internal Medicine; 150 (2): JC1-14
Adding single-point acupuncture to physiotherapy for painful shoulder improved function and reduced pain
Annals of Internal Medicine; 149 (8): JC4-12
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Low Back Pain
Annals of Internal Medicine; 160 (11): ITC6-1
Osteoarthritis
Annals of Internal Medicine; 147 (3): ITC8-1
Low Back Pain
Annals of Internal Medicine; 148 (9): ITC5-1
Sickle Cell Disease
Annals of Internal Medicine; 155 (5): ITC3-1
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Back Pain
Guidelines
Rheumatology

Back Pain, Guidelines, Rheumatology.

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×