Objective
The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with ...non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010.
Method
The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines.
Results
We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments.
Graphical abstract
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of ...Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.
Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).
24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).
Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.
PROSPERO CRD42021269997.
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data ...sources Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions.Results 12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference −0.5, 95% confidence interval −2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, −1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, −0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (−3.7, −5.5 to −1.9) and disability (−2.9, −4.9 to −0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. “High quality” evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain.Conclusions Paracetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines.Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.
To investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific neck pain and low back pain.
Systematic review of economic evaluations.
The search was ...performed in 5 clinical and 3 economic electronic databases.
We included economic evaluations performed alongside randomised controlled trials. Differences in costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, if possible, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were descriptively analysed.
Twenty-two studies were included. On average, exercise therapy was associated with lower costs and larger effects for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective (based on ICUR). Exercise therapy had similar costs and effect for QALY in comparison with other interventions for neck pain from a societal perspective, and subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective. There was limited or inconsistent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with usual care for neck pain and acute low back pain, other interventions for acute low back pain and different types of exercise therapy for neck pain and low back pain.
Exercise therapy seems to be cost-effective compared with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was not (more) cost-effective compared with other interventions for neck pain and low back pain. The cost-utility estimates are rather uncertain, indicating that more economic evaluations are needed.
PROSPERO, CRD42017059025.
Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.
To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining ...the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.
Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.
Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.
To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of ...Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.
Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.
Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.
33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.
Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.
PROSPERO CRD42020158521.
The aim of this study was to present and compare the content of (inter)national clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain. To rationalise the management of low back pain, evidence-based ...clinical guidelines have been issued in many countries. Given that the available scientific evidence is the same, irrespective of the country, one would expect these guidelines to include more or less similar recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. We updated a previous review that included clinical guidelines published up to and including the year 2000. Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted mainly of primary health care professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, Finnish, Spanish, Norwegian, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. This updated review includes national clinical guidelines from 13 countries and 2 international clinical guidelines from Europe published from 2000 until 2008. The content of the guidelines appeared to be quite similar regarding the diagnostic classification (diagnostic triage) and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Consistent features for acute low back pain were the early and gradual activation of patients, the discouragement of prescribed bed rest and the recognition of psychosocial factors as risk factors for chronicity. For chronic low back pain, consistent features included supervised exercises, cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary treatment. However, there are some discrepancies for recommendations regarding spinal manipulation and drug treatment for acute and chronic low back pain. The comparison of international clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations are generally similar. There are also some differences which may be due to a lack of strong evidence regarding these topics or due to differences in local health care systems. The implementation of these clinical guidelines remains a challenge for clinical practice and research.
Summary Background Regular paracetamol is the recommended first-line analgesic for acute low-back pain; however, no high-quality evidence supports this recommendation. We aimed to assess the efficacy ...of paracetamol taken regularly or as-needed to improve time to recovery from pain, compared with placebo, in patients with low-back pain. Methods We did a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, placebo controlled trial across 235 primary care centres in Sydney, Australia, from Nov 11, 2009, to March 5, 2013. We randomly allocated patients with acute low-back pain in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive up to 4 weeks of regular doses of paracetamol (three times per day; equivalent to 3990 mg paracetamol per day), as-needed doses of paracetamol (taken when needed for pain relief; maximum 4000 mg paracetamol per day), or placebo. Randomisation was done according to a centralised randomisation schedule prepared by a researcher who was not involved in patient recruitment or data collection. Patients and staff at all sites were masked to treatment allocation. All participants received best-evidence advice and were followed up for 3 months. The primary outcome was time until recovery from low-back pain, with recovery defined as a pain score of 0 or 1 (on a 0–10 pain scale) sustained for 7 consecutive days. All data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTN 12609000966291. Findings 550 participants were assigned to the regular group (550 analysed), 549 were assigned to the as-needed group (546 analysed), and 553 were assigned to the placebo group (547 analysed). Median time to recovery was 17 days (95% CI 14–19) in the regular group, 17 days (15–20) in the as-needed group, and 16 days (14–20) in the placebo group (regular vs placebo hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·87–1·14; as-needed vs placebo 1·05, 0·92–1·19; regular vs as-needed 1·05, 0·92–1·20). We recorded no difference between treatment groups for time to recovery (adjusted p=0·79). Adherence to regular tablets (median tablets consumed per participant per day of maximum 6; 4·0 IQR 1·6–5·7 in the regular group, 3·9 1·5–5·6 in the as-needed group, and 4·0 1·5–5·7 in the placebo group), and number of participants reporting adverse events (99 18·5% in the regular group, 99 18·7% in the as-needed group, and 98 18·5% in the placebo group) were similar between groups. Interpretation Our findings suggest that regular or as-needed dosing with paracetamol does not affect recovery time compared with placebo in low-back pain, and question the universal endorsement of paracetamol in this patient group. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and GlaxoSmithKline Australia.
Opioid analgesics are commonly used for acute low back pain and neck pain, but supporting efficacy data are scarce. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a judicious short course of an ...opioid analgesic for acute low back pain and neck pain.
OPAL was a triple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) presenting to one of 157 primary care or emergency department sites in Sydney, NSW, Australia, with 12 weeks or less of low back or neck pain (or both) of at least moderate pain severity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using statistician-generated randomly permuted blocks to guideline-recommended care plus an opioid (oxycodone–naloxone, up to 20 mg oxycodone per day orally) or guideline-recommended care and an identical placebo, for up to 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity at 6 weeks measured with the pain severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (10-point scale), analysed in all eligible participants who provided at least one post-randomisation pain score, by use of a repeated measures linear mixed model. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000775516).
Between Feb 29, 2016, and March 10, 2022, 347 participants were recruited (174 to the opioid group and 173 to the placebo group). 170 (49%) of 346 participants were female and 176 (51%) were male. 33 (19%) of 174 participants in the opioid group and 25 (15%) of 172 in the placebo group had discontinued from the trial by week 6, due to loss to follow-up and participant withdrawals. 151 participants in the opioid group and 159 in the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Mean pain score at 6 weeks was 2·78 (SE 0·20) in the opioid group versus 2·25 (0·19) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference 0·53, 95% CI –0·00 to 1·07, p=0·051). 61 (35%) of 174 participants in the opioid group reported at least one adverse event versus 51 (30%) of 172 in the placebo group (p=0·30), but more people in the opioid group reported opioid-related adverse events (eg, 13 7·5% of 174 participants in the opioid group reported constipation vs six 3·5% of 173 in the placebo group).
Opioids should not be recommended for acute non-specific low back pain or neck pain given that we found no significant difference in pain severity compared with placebo. This finding calls for a change in the frequent use of opioids for these conditions.
Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, and ReturnToWorkSA.
PDF
