How many days of bed rest for acute low back pain? A randomized clinical trial. Does 48 hours' bed rest influence the outcome of acute low back pain? Westeinde sciatica trial: randomized controlled study of bed rest and physiotherapy for acute sciatica. How many days of bed rest for acute low back pain? Objective assessment of trunk function. The treatment of acute low back pain--bed rest, exercises, or ordinary activity? Acute low-back pain. An objective analysis of conservative therapy. Lack of effectiveness of bed rest for sciatica. Clinical trial of common treatments for low back pain in family practice. Bed rest or normal activity for patients with acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Bed rest is usually recommended for acute low back pain. Although the optimal duration of bed rest is uncertain, a given prescription may directly affect the number of days lost from work or other activities. In a randomized trial, we compared the consequences of recommending two days of bed rest (Group I) with those of recommending seven days (Group II). The subjects were 203 walk-in patients with mechanical low back pain; 78 percent had acute pain (less than or equal to 30 days), and none had marked neurologic deficits. Follow-up data were obtained at three weeks (93 percent) and three months (88 percent). Although compliance with the recommendation of bed rest was variable, patients randomly assigned to Group I missed 45 percent fewer days of work than those assigned to Group II (3.1 vs. 5.6 days, P = 0.01), and no differences were observed in other functional, physiologic, or perceived outcomes. For many patients without neuromotor deficits, clinicians may be able to recommend two days of bed rest rather than longer periods, without any perceptible difference in clinical outcome. If widely applied, this policy might substantially reduce absenteeism from work and the resulting indirect costs of low back pain for both patients and employers. Bed rest is a traditional treatment for back pain, yet only in recent years has the therapeutic benefit of this been questioned.
                The aim of this pilot study was to ascertain whether or not 48 hours' bed rest had an effect on the outcome of acute low back pain.
                The study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial to compare a prescription of 48 hours' strict bed rest with controls; the control subjects were encouraged to remain mobile and to have no daytime rest. Nine general practitioners from practices in the West Midlands recruited patients in the age range 16-60 years who presented with low back pain of less than seven days' duration, with or without pain radiation. The outcome measures assessed were: change in straight leg raise and lumbar flexion after seven days, Oswestry and Roland-Morris disability scores after seven days and 28 days, and time taken from work.
                Forty two patients were recruited: 20 were allocated to bed rest and 22 as controls. Compared with the bed rest group the control group had statistically better Roland-Morris scores at day seven (P < 0.05) but not at day 28. At day seven, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in straight leg raise or lumbar flexion measurements although the control group had a better mean lumbar flexion than the bed rest group. The improvement in disability scores at day seven compared with day one was similar for the two groups but more of the control group had fully recovered (defined as scores of one or zero on the Roland-Morris disability scale and five or less on the Oswestry disability scale) by day seven. Remaining mobile did not appear to cause any adverse effects. The number of days lost from work in both groups was equal. A large number of self-remedies and physical therapies were recorded by subjects from both groups.
                The results of this pilot study did not indicate whether bed rest or remaining mobile was superior for the treatment of acute low back pain; however, the study sample was small. Subjects in the control group possibly fared better as they appeared to have better lumbar flexion at day seven. It appears that 48 hours' bed rest cannot be recommended for the treatment of acute low back pain on the basis of this small study. Large-scale definitive trials are required to detect clinically significant differences. The authors conducted a study to compare the efficacies of three nonsurgical treatment strategies in patients with sciatica. Their hypothesis was that bed rest, physiotherapy, and continuation of activities of daily living (ADLs) (control treatment) are each of equivalent efficacy.
                This randomized controlled trial was designed for comparison of bed rest, physiotherapy, and continuation of ADLs. The setting was an outpatient clinic. General practitioners were asked to refer patients for treatment as soon as possible. The authors enrolled 250 patients (< 60 years of age) with sciatica of less than 1-month's duration and who had not yet been treated with bed rest or physiotherapy. Primary outcome measures were radicular pain (based on a visual analog pain scale [VAPS]) and hampered ADLs (Quebec Disability Scale [QDS]). Secondary outcome measures were the rates of treatment-related failure and surgical treatment. Measures were assessed at baseline and during follow up at 1, 2, and 6 months. Mean differences in VAPS and QDS scores between bed rest and control treatment were 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] -6.4 to 11.4) and -4.8 (95% CI -10.6 to 0.9) at 1 month and 0.9 (95% CI -8.7 to 10.4) and -2.7 (95% CI -9.9 to 4.4) at 2 months, respectively. The respective differences between physiotherapy and control treatment were 0.8 (95% CI -8.2 to 9.8) and -0.5 (95% CI -6.3 to 5.3) at 1 month and -0.3 (95% CI -9.4 to 10) and 0.0 (95% CI -7.2 to 7.3) at 2 months. The respective odds ratios for treatment failure and surgical treatment of bed rest compared with control treatment were 1.6 (95% CI 0.8-3.5) and 1.5 (95% CI 0.7-3.6) at 6 months. When physiotherapy was compared with control treatment, these ratios were 1.5 (95% CI 0.7-3.2) and 1.2 (95% CI 0.5-2.9) at 6 months, respectively.
                Bed rest and physiotherapy are not more effective in acute sciatica than continuation of ADLs. Bed rest is usually considered an efficient treatment for acute low back pain. However, the optimal duration of bed rest is still being discussed. The recommended periods vary from 2 days to 2 weeks. The duration of optimum length is an important topic given the economical and physiological drawbacks of prolonged inactivity. The purpose of this work is to measure objectively the efficacy of two different durations of bed rest through a dynamometric measure of trunk function. Some 51 male patients, students or self-employed, being treated for acute low back pain were randomized into two groups. Group I was prescribed a bed rest period of 3 days and group II, a period of 7 days. We used a multi-axis isoinertial trunk testing dynamometric device (Isostation B200, Isotechnologies, USA). Patients were all assessed on day 1 and also on day 5 for group I or on day 9 for group II. The variables measured in the sagittal plane were isometric torques in flexion and extension, unresisted range of motion, average dynamic torques and average velocities. Patients were also asked to fill in a visual analogue pain scale on both assessment days. The improvement of all performance measures were important and highly significant (P < 0.001) in both groups. The results of the functional testing and the visual analogue pain scale showed no significant differences between the groups. In these relatively young and motivated patients, a duration of bed rest of 3 days resulted in the same objective functional improvement of trunk function and pain rating as a period of 7 days. This shorter duration should be considered as preferable, given the same objective results but important physiological and economical advantages. Bed rest and back-extension exercises are often prescribed for patients with acute low back pain, but the effectiveness of these two competing treatments remains controversial.
                We conducted a controlled trial among employees of the city of Helsinki, Finland, who presented to an occupational health care center with acute, nonspecific low back pain. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: bed rest for two days (67 patients), back-mobilizing exercises (52 patients), or the continuation of ordinary activities as tolerated (the control group; 67 patients). Outcomes and costs were assessed after 3 and 12 weeks.
                After 3 and 12 weeks, the patients in the control group had better recovery than those prescribed either bed rest or exercises. There were statistically significant differences favoring the control group in the duration of pain, pain intensity, lumbar flexion, ability to work as measured subjectively, the Oswestry back-disability index, and number of days absent from work. Recovery was slowest among the patients assigned to bed rest. The overall costs of care did not differ significantly among the three groups.
                Among patients with acute low back pain, continuing ordinary activities within the limits permitted by the pain leads to more rapid recovery than either bed rest or back-mobilizing exercises. The roles of bedrest, antiinflammatory medication, and analgesic medication in the treatment of acute back strain were objectively analyzed to determine whether they have a measurable effect on the return of patients to full daily activities as well as on the relief of pain. Two hundred patients were studied prospectively. Each patient had the diagnosis of acute back strain, which was defined as nonradiating low-back pain. The results of the patient's neurologic examination, straight leg raising test, and lumbosacral spine roentgenograms had to be within normal limits for the patient to be included in the study. The results showed that bedrest, as compared with ambulation, will decrease the amount of time lost from work by 50%. Bedrest will also decrease the amount of discomfort by 60%. Analgesic medication, when combined with bedrest, will further decrease the amount of pain incurred, particularly when used in the first three days of the healing process. However, analgesic medication will not allow a more prompt return to work. Antiinflammatory medication, when added to bedrest in the treatment of lumbago, does not provide an advantage over bedrest alone. Bed rest is widely advocated for sciatica, but its effectiveness has not been established. To study the effectiveness of bed rest in patients with a lumbosacral radicular syndrome of sufficient severity to justify treatment with bed rest for two weeks, we randomly assigned 183 subjects to either bed rest or watchful waiting for this period. The primary outcome measures were the investigator's and patient's global assessments of improvement after 2 and 12 weeks, and the secondary outcome measures were changes in functional status and in pain scores (after 2, 3, and 12 weeks), absenteeism from work, and the need for surgical intervention. Neither the investigators who assessed the outcomes nor those involved in data entry and analysis were aware of the patients' treatment assignments.
                After two weeks, 64 of the 92 patients in the bed-rest group (70 percent) reported improvement, as compared with 59 of the 91 patients in the control (watchful-waiting) group (65 percent) (adjusted odds ratio for improvement in the bed-rest group, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 2.3). After 12 weeks, 87 percent of the patients in both groups reported improvement. The results of assessments of the intensity of pain, the bothersomeness of symptoms, and functional status revealed no significant differences between the two groups. The extent of absenteeism from work and rates of surgical intervention were similar in the two groups.
                Among patients with symptoms and signs of a lumbosacral radicular syndrome, bed rest is not a more effective therapy than watchful waiting. The results of a multicentered randomised clinical trial are reported of bed rest and of a physiotherapy and education programme for patients who presented in family practice with an acute episode of low back pain. No beneficial effect of either treatment was observed on several clinical outcome measures, including straight leg raising, lumbar flexion, activities of daily living, and pain. In fact the results favoured early mobilisation over bed rest and suggested that the physiotherapy and education programme was doing more harm than good. Moreover, additional analyses, which focused on clinically interesting patient subgroups, discovered no subset of patients who benefited from either of the treatments under study. Having failed to identify any clinically important benefits, or other explanations for these negative results, we can only conclude that family doctors have little reason to prescribe either bed rest or isometric exercises to patients who suffer from low back pain. The management of common low back pain has two principal objectives: to relieve acute pain and to attempt prevention of transition to chronicity. Several studies have shown the ineffectiveness of prolonged periods of bed rest.
                To compare 4 days of bed rest with continued normal daily activity in acute low back pain, taking into account the type of work (physical or sedentary labor).
                This open, comparative multicenter study enrolled 281 ambulatory patients, ages 18 to 65 years, with low back pain (onset < 72 hours). The subjects did not have pain radiating below the buttocks and did not have work-related injuries. They were randomized into two treatment groups: one instructed to continue normal activity (insofar as the pain allowed), and the other prescribed 4 days of bed rest. After inclusion, patients were seen at three visits: on day 6 or 7, after 1 month, and after 3 months.
                On day 6 or 7, pain intensity was similar for both groups, as was the overall judgment of the treatment by patients and physicians. At 1 and 3 months, the groups again had equivalent intensity of back pain, functional disability, and vertebral stiffness. A higher proportion of patients in the bed rest group than in the normal activity group had an initial sick leave (86% vs 52%; P < 0.0001). This difference was greater for the patients whose work was sedentary.
                For patients with acute low back pain, normal activity is at least equivalent to bed rest. The findings of this study indicate that prescriptions for bed rest, and thus for sick leaves, should be limited when the physical demands of the job are similar to those for daily life activities.
Moderate quality evidence shows that patients with acute LBP may experience small benefits in pain relief and functional improvement from advice to stay active compared to advice to rest in bed; patients with sciatica experience little or no difference between the two approaches. Low quality evidence suggests little or no difference between those who received advice to stay active, exercises or physiotherapy. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change our confidence in it.