The use of electro-acupuncture in conjunction with exercise for the treatment of chronic low-back pain. Evaluation of a program to reduce back pain in nursing personnel. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. Evidence for use of an extension-mobilization category in acute low back syndrome: a prescriptive validation pilot study. Acute low back pain. Comparison of two conservative treatment approaches. [Effects of elastic lumbar belts on the effect of a muscle training program for patients with chronic back pain]. Manual therapy and exercise therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. A randomized clinical trial of three active therapies for chronic low back pain. The efficacy of active rehabilitation in chronic low back pain. Effect on pain intensity, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability. Graded activity for low back pain in occupational health care: a randomized, controlled trial. Intensive group training versus cognitive intervention in sub-acute low back pain: short-term results of a single-blind randomized controlled trial. The use of a back class teaching extension exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain in primary care. Effects of functional restoration versus 3 hours per week physical therapy: a randomized controlled study. Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial. [Cesar therapy is temporarily more effective in patients with chronic low back pain than the standard treatment by family practitioner: randomized, controlled and blinded clinical trial with 1 year follow-up]. Conservative treatment in patients sick-listed for acute low-back pain: a prospective randomised study with 12 months' follow-up. The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain: a randomized prospective clinical study with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach. The effect of a Mensendieck exercise program as secondary prophylaxis for recurrent low back pain. A randomized, controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. [Use of isokinetic techniques vs standard physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain. Preliminary results]. Effects of spinal flexion and extension exercises on low-back pain and spinal mobility in chronic mechanical low-back pain patients. Effectiveness of behavioral therapy for chronic low back pain: a component analysis. Prolotherapy injections, saline injections, and exercises for chronic low-back pain: a randomized trial. Randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy compared with advice for low back pain. Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain. A randomized, observer-blind trial. Stabilizing training compared with manual treatment in sub-acute and chronic low-back pain. [Mobilizing or stabilizing exercise in degenerative disk disease in the lumbar region?]. A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. Does folk medicine work? A randomized clinical trial on patients with prolonged back pain. The treatment of acute low back pain--bed rest, exercises, or ordinary activity? An open study of diflunisal, conservative and manipulative therapy in the management of acute mechanical low back pain. Effect of exercise on sick leave due to low back pain. A randomized, comparative, long-term study. The effect of dynamic strength back exercise and/or a home training program in 57-year-old women with chronic low back pain. Results of a prospective randomized study with a 3-year follow-up period. The effect of McKenzie therapy as compared with that of intensive strengthening training for the treatment of patients with subacute or chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Combined physiotherapy and education is efficacious for chronic low back pain. Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. Efficiency and costs of medical exercise therapy, conventional physiotherapy, and self-exercise in patients with chronic low back pain. A pragmatic, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. A randomized trial of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain. Evaluation of a specific home exercise program for low back pain. Conservative treatment of acute low-back pain. A prospective randomized trial: McKenzie method of treatment versus patient education in "mini back school". Endurance training of the trunk extensor muscles in people with subacute low back pain. Lumbar strengthening in chronic low back pain patients. Physiologic and psychological benefits. The impact of modified Hatha yoga on chronic low back pain: a pilot study. Efficacy of low power laser therapy and exercise on pain and functions in chronic low back pain. Long-term effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low back pain. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. Physical therapy on low back pain and sciatica. An attempt at evaluation. Treatment of chronic lower back pain with lumbar extension and whole-body vibration exercise: a randomized controlled trial. Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Lumbar disc disease: comparative analysis of physical therapy treatments. An experimental controlled study on postural sway and therapeutic exercise in subjects with low back pain. The efficacy of an aerobic exercise and health education program for treatment of chronic low back pain. Functional restoration versus outpatient physical training in chronic low back pain: a randomized comparative study. Active treatment programs for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study.
To determine the effect of a series of electro-acupuncture (EA) treatment in conjunction with exercise on the pain, disability, and functional improvement scores of patients with chronic low-back pain (LBP).
                A blinded prospective randomized controlled study. Subjects and interventions: A total of 52 patients were randomly allocated to an exercise group (n = 26) or an exercise plus EA group (n = 26) and treated for 12 sessions.
                Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Aberdeen LBP scale, lumbar spinal active range of movement (AROM), and the isokinetic strength were assessed by a blinded observer. Repeated measures analysis of variance (R-ANOVA) with factors of group and time was used to compare the outcomes between the two groups at baseline (before treatment), immediately after treatment, 1-month follow-up, and 3-month follow-up. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05.
                Significantly better scores in the NRS and Aberdeen LBP scale were found in the exercise plus EA group immediately after treatment and at 1-month follow-up. Higher scores were also seen at 3-month follow-up. No significant differences were observed in spinal AROM and isokinetic trunk concentric strength between the two groups at any stage of follow-up.
                This study provides additional data on the potential role of EA in the treatment of LBP, and indicates that the combination of EA and back exercise might be an effective option in the treatment of pain and disability associated with chronic LBP. To evaluate the effectiveness of a program designed to reduce back pain in nursing aides.
                Female nursing aides from a university hospital who had suffered episodes of back pain for at least six months were included in the study. Participants were randomly divided into a control group and an intervention group. The intervention program involved a set of exercises and an educational component stressing the ergonomic aspect, administered twice a week during working hours for four months. All subjects answered a structured questionnaire and the intensity of pain was assessed before and after the program using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Student's t-test or the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for independent samples, and Chi-square test or the Exact Fisher test for categorical analysis, were used. The McNemar test and the Wilcoxon matched pairs test were used to compare the periods before and after the program.
                There was a statistically significant decrease in the frequency of cervical pain in the last two months and in the last seven days in the intervention group. There was also a reduction in cervical pain intensity in the two periods (2 months, 7 days) and lumbar pain intensity in the last 7 days.
                The results suggest that a program of regular exercise with an emphasis on ergonomics can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms in nursing personnel. There are few data on the relative effectiveness and costs of treatments for low back pain. We randomly assigned 321 adults with low back pain that persisted for seven days after a primary care visit to the McKenzie method of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, or a minimal intervention (provision of an educational booklet). Patients with sciatica were excluded. Physical therapy or chiropractic manipulation was provided for one month (the number of visits was determined by the practitioner but was limited to a maximum of nine); patients were followed for a total of two years. The bothersomeness of symptoms was measured on an 11-point scale, and the level of dysfunction was measured on the 24-point Roland Disability Scale.
                After adjustment for base-line differences, the chiropractic group had less severe symptoms than the booklet group at four weeks (P=0.02), and there was a trend toward less severe symptoms in the physical therapy group (P=0.06). However, these differences were small and not significant after transformations of the data to adjust for their non-normal distribution. Differences in the extent of dysfunction among the groups were small and approached significance only at one year, with greater dysfunction in the booklet group than in the other two groups (P=0.05). For all outcomes, there were no significant differences between the physical-therapy and chiropractic groups and no significant differences among the groups in the numbers of days of reduced activity or missed work or in recurrences of back pain. About 75 percent of the subjects in the therapy groups rated their care as very good or excellent, as compared with about 30 percent of the subjects in the booklet group (P<0.001). Over a two-year period, the mean costs of care were $437 for the physical-therapy group, $429 for the chiropractic group, and $153 for the booklet group.
                For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation had similar effects and costs, and patients receiving these treatments had only marginally better outcomes than those receiving the minimal intervention of an educational booklet. Whether the limited benefits of these treatments are worth the additional costs is open to question. The prescriptive validity of a treatment-oriented extension-mobilization category for patients with low back syndrome (LBS) was examined.
                Of a total of 39 patients with LBS referred for physical therapy, 24 patients (14 male, 10 female), aged 14 to 50 years (means = 31.3, SD = 11.6), were classified as having signs and symptoms indicating treatment with an extension-mobilization approach. The remaining subjects were dismissed from the study. Patients in the extension-mobilization category were randomly assigned to either an experimental (treatment) group (n = 14) or a comparison group (n = 10).
                The experimental and comparison group subjects were treated with either mobilization and extension (a treatment matched to the category) or a flexion exercise regimen (an unmatched treatment). Outcome was assessed with a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire administered initially and at 3 and 5 days after initiation of treatment. Data were analyzed with a 2 x 3 (treatment group x treatment period) analysis of variance.
                The subjects' rate of improvement, as indicated by the Oswestry questionnaire scores, was dependent on the treatment group to which they were assigned. Subjects treated with extension and mobilization positively responded at a faster rate than did those treated with a flexion-oriented program.
                This study illustrates that a priori classification of selected patients with LBS into a treatment category of extension and mobilization and subsequently treating the patients accordingly with specified interventions can be an effective approach to conservative management of selected patients. In a controlled clinical trial, we allocated 48 subjects with acute low back pain but without neurological signs, at random to two treatment groups. The conservative treatments compared were passive mobilisation and manipulation of the lumbar spine and a regimen of microwave diathermy, isometric abdominal exercises and ergonomic instructions. The duration of low back pain symptoms was significantly shorter for subjects receiving mobilisation and manipulation; they also achieved symptom-free status with fewer treatment sessions. While the duration of symptoms before first treatment, the treatment administered, and the pretest forward flexion movement indices accounted for 44% of the variance in the duration of symptoms, a stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that treatment is the most significant factor in predicting the length of time before a subject achieves symptom-free status. Aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of elastic lumbar belts on the effect of muscle training for patients with low back pain.
                97 male subjects aged from 23 to 42 years with and without low back pain participated in the investigation. The low back pain patients (n = 63) were randomized into a training group without and a training group with elastic lumbar belts and a control group. The subjects with healthy backs (n = 34) were divided age-matched into a training group with elastic lumbar belts and a control group. The three training groups took part in a muscle strenghtening program over 8 weeks. The control groups did not receive any alternative physiotherapeutic treatment. All groups were tested at the beginning, after 8 weeks and further 6 months later.
                The data obtained for the control groups remained virtually unchanged over the period of investigation. However, a significant increase of the muscle flexibility of the lower limbs could be proved for the training groups. Furthermore the coordination between the lumbar spine and pelvis when flexing the trunk deeply forward was more leveled out for the training groups with patients suffered low back pain. The results confirmed a reduction for pain severity and for limitations in activities of daily living as well. The modifications for the criteria investigated were significant stronger for the training group with patients using the elastic lumbar belt.
                The effectiveness of the muscle strengthening program for patients with low back pain could be improved significantly by means of the elastic lumbar belt as an applicable therapy instrument in the functional rehabilitation of spinal injuries. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.
                To compare the effect of manual therapy to exercise therapy in sick-listed patients with chronic low back pain (>8 wks).
                The effect of exercise therapy and manual therapy on chronic low back pain with respect to pain, function, and sick leave have been investigated in a number of studies. The results are, however, conflicting.
                Patients with chronic low back pain or radicular pain sick-listed for more than 8 weeks and less than 6 months were included. A total of 49 patients were randomized to either manual therapy (n = 27) or to exercise therapy (n = 22). Sixteen treatments were given over the course of 2 months. Pain intensity, functional disability (Oswestry disability index), general health (Dartmouth COOP function charts), and return to work were recorded before, immediately after, at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after the treatment period. Spinal range of motion (Schober test) was measured before and immediately after the treatment period only.
                Although significant improvements were observed in both groups, the manual therapy group showed significantly larger improvements than the exercise therapy group on all outcome variables throughout the entire experimental period. Immediately after the 2-month treatment period, 67% in the manual therapy and 27% in the exercise therapy group had returned to work (P < 0.01), a relative difference that was maintained throughout the follow-up period.
                Improvements were found in both intervention groups, but manual therapy showed significantly greater improvement than exercise therapy in patients with chronic low back pain. The effects were reflected on all outcome measures, both on short and long-term follow-up. A randomized clinical trial.
                To examine the relative efficacy of three active therapies for chronic low back pain.
                There is much evidence documenting the efficacy of exercise in the conservative management of chronic low back pain, but many questions remain regarding its exact prescription and method of application. The most successful method must be identified to enable refinement of future rehabilitation programs to target the specific needs of the patient with chronic low back pain and the budget of the healthcare provider.
                One hundred forty-eight patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to one of the following treatments, which they attended twice a week for 3 months: 1) modern active physiotherapy, 2) muscle reconditioning on training devices, or 3) low-impact aerobics. Pretherapy and posttherapy, objective measurements of lumbar mobility were performed, and questionnaires were administered inquiring about self-rated pain and disability, and psychosocial factors. Similar questionnaires were administered 6 months after therapy. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.
                Of the 148 patients, 16 (10.8%) dropped out of the therapy. One hundred thirty-seven questionnaires (93%) were available for analysis at all three time points. After therapy, significant reductions were observed in pain intensity, frequency, and disability; Fear-Avoidance Beliefs about physical activity (FABQactivity); and "praying/hoping," "catastrophizing," and "pain behavior" coping strategies--each with no group differences in the extent of the response. These effects were maintained over the subsequent 6 months, with the exception of disability and FABQactivity for the physiotherapy group. There were small but significant posttherapy increases in lumbar mobility, with aerobics and devices showing a greater response than physiotherapy.
                The general lack of treatment specificity suggests that the main effects of the therapies were educed not through the reversal of physical weaknesses targeted by the corresponding exercise modality, but rather through some "central" effect, perhaps involving an adjustment of perception in relation to pain and disability. The direct costs associated with administering physiotherapy were three times as great, and devices four times as great, as those for aerobics. Administration of aerobics as an efficacious therapy for chronic low back pain has the potential to relieve some of the huge financial burden associated with the condition. A randomized study comparing the results of active rehabilitation and passive control treatment in patients with chronic low back pain with follow-up at 6 months and 1 year.
                To study the efficacy of active rehabilitation on pain, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability.
                Exercises in an outpatient setting are widely used for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The efficacy of the active rehabilitation approach has been documented in randomized control studies, but these studies have seldom been focused on lumbar fatigability, which is now recognized as a frequent problem among patients with chronic low back pain.
                Fifty-nine middle-aged patients (37 men and 22 women) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to 12 weeks' active rehabilitation or to a passive control treatment (massage, thermal therapy). Pain and disability index, low back pain intensity (visual analog scale, 100 mm), and the objectively assessed lumbar muscle fatigability (spectral electromyogram, mean power frequency slope [MPFSLOPE]) in a new 90-second submaximal isoinertial back endurance test were recorded before and after the interventions and at 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits.
                Results of repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that back pain intensity (visual analog scale) and functional disability (pain and disability index score) decreased, and lumbar endurance (MPFSLOPE) improved significantly more (P < 0.05) in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group, when measured at a 1-year follow-up examination. The group difference in visual analog scale and pain and disability index changes became even more significant at the end of 1 year. The change in lumbar endurance was significantly greater in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group at the 6-month follow-up, but not at the 1-year follow-up.
                The active progressive treatment program was more successful in reducing pain and self-experienced disability and also in improving lumbar endurance than was the passive control treatment. However, the group difference in lumbar endurance tended to diminish at the 1-year follow-up. Low back pain is a common medical and social problem frequently associated with disability and absence from work. However, data on effective return to work after interventions for low back pain are scarce.
                To determine the effectiveness of a behavior-oriented graded activity program compared with usual care.
                Randomized, controlled trial.
                Occupational health services department of an airline company in the Netherlands.
                134 workers who were absent from work because of low back pain were randomly assigned to either graded activity (n = 67) or usual care (n = 67).
                Graded activity, a physical exercise program based on operant-conditioning behavioral principles, to stimulate a rapid return to work.
                Outcomes were the number of days of absence from work because of low back pain, functional status (Roland Disability Questionnaire), and severity of pain (11-point numerical scale).
                The median number of days of absence from work over 6 months of follow-up was 58 days in the graded activity group and 87 days in the usual care group. From randomization onward, graded activity was effective after 50 days of absence from work (hazard ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2 to 3.2]; P = 0.009). The graded activity group was more effective in improving functional status and pain than the usual care group. The effects, however, were small and not statistically significant.
                Graded activity was more effective than usual care in reducing the number of days of absence from work because of low back pain. To evaluate the short-term effect of physical exercise and a cognitive intervention in low back pain.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Ninety-three patients sick-listed for 8-12 weeks for sub-acute low back pain were randomized to an exercise regime (n = 30), a cognitive intervention (n = 34) or a control group (n = 29).
                Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, sick-listing and satisfaction with care. Secondary outcome measures were self-efficacy for pain and for function, fear-avoidance beliefs, emotional distress, generic health status and life satisfaction.
                Eighteen percent of subjects dropped out. Drop-out was most frequent in the exercise group. At 18 weeks after inclusion fear-avoidance beliefs were reduced in both intervention groups. The cognitive group demonstrated significant improvement in disability, self-efficacy for pain, emotional distress, general health and life satisfaction. Patients in the exercise group were significantly more satisfied with the treatment, and patients following the exercise protocol reduced pain significantly. No effect on sick-listing was seen.
                Cognitive intervention improved disability and may be feasible for most patients sick-listed in the sub-acute phase. Physical exercise reduced patients' symptoms, but requires high motivation by patients. Despite positive effects in intervention groups on variables considered as negative prognostic factors for long-term disability and sickness absence, interventions had no effect on sick-listing. Back extension exercises are commonly recommended to treat acute low back pain. Evidence of their beneficial effect is, however, weak.
                We aimed to demonstrate a benefit of teaching back extension exercises in addition to usual GP care for acute low back pain.
                Patients with acute simple low back pain of less than 28 days duration, presenting to a GP, were randomized either to attend a back class or to receive conventional management. Outcome was measured using changes in the Oswestry disability score and visual analogue pain scale (VAS) on six occasions during 1 year and also a VAS and patient assessment of degree of disability during the previous 6 months at 1 year.
                Seventy-five patients were recruited. The principal outcome measures showed no difference between the two groups. The treatment group reported less chronic disability at 1 year (50% versus 14%, P < 0.007).
                A treatment effect has not been demonstrated, but some patients who would otherwise have reported mild pain were pain free after 1 year. This approach to treating back pain has not been shown to be effective. More much larger studies, with more intensive treatment, are required in order to decide whether physical therapy in primary care is beneficial as treatment for acute back pain. Randomized parallel-group comparative trial with a 6-month follow-up period.
                To compare, in chronic low back pain patients, the effectiveness of a functional restoration program, including intensive physical training, occupational therapy, and psychological support to an active individual therapy consisting of 3 hours physical therapy per week during 5 weeks.
                Controlled studies conducted in the United States showed a benefit of functional restoration in patients with low back pain, especially on return to work. Randomized Canadian and European trials had less favorable results. In France, there has been up to now no randomized study. Controlled studies suggested a positive effect of functional restoration programs.
                Eighty-six patients with low back pain were randomized to either the functional restoration (44 patients) or the active individual therapy (42 patients) program. One person in each group never started the program. Two patients did not complete the functional restoration program, and one was lost to follow-up at 6 months. The mean number of sick-leave days in the 2 previous years was 6 months.
                After adjustment on the variable "workplace enrolled in an ergonomic program", the mean number of sick-leave days was significantly lower in the functional restoration group. Physical criteria and treatment appreciation were also better. There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain, the quality of life and functional indexes, the psychological characteristics, the number of contacts with the medical system, and the drug intake.
                This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a functional restoration program on important outcome measures, such as sick leave, in a country that has a social system that protects people facing difficulties at work. To study the relative efficacy of three different treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Two preplanned comparisons were made: (a) Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with trunk strengthening exercises (TSE) vs. SMT combined with trunk stretching exercises, and (b) SMT combined with TSE vs. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy combined with TSE.
                Interdisciplinary, prospective, observer-blinded, randomized clinical trial with a 1-yr follow-up period. The trial evaluated therapies in combination only and was not designed to test the individual treatment components.
                Primary contact, college out-patient clinic.
                In total, 174 patients aged 20-60 yr were admitted to the study.
                Patient-rated low back pain, disability, and functional health status at 5 and 11 wk.
                Five weeks of SMT or NSAID therapy in combination with supervised trunk exercise, followed by and additional 6 wk of supervised exercise alone.
                Individual group comparisons after 5 and 11 wk of intervention on all three main outcome measures did not reveal any clear clinically important or statistically significant differences. There seemed to be a sustained reduction in medication use at the 1-yr follow-up. in the SMT/TSE group. Continuance of exercise during the follow-up year, regardless of type, was associated with a better outcome.
                Each of the three therapeutic regimens was associated with similar and clinically important improvement over time that was considered superior to the expected natural history of long-standing CLBP. For the management of CLBP, trunk exercise in combination with SMT or NSAID therapy seemed to be beneficial and worthwhile. The magnitude of nonspecific therapeutic (placebo) effects, cost-effectiveness and relative risks of side effects associated with these types of therapy need to be addressed in future studies. To determine the effectiveness of a special form of exercise therapy ('Cesar therapy') on self reported recovery and improvement of posture amongst patients with chronic aspecific lower back pain.
                Prospective randomized controlled and blinded investigation.
                After informed consent had been obtained, patients with chronic aspecific lower back pain were given, on a randomized basis, either an exercise therapy (experimental group, n = 112) or a standard treatment by their general practitioner (control group, n = 110). Outcome measures were self reported recovery of back pain and improvement of posture (thoracic and lumbar spine, pelvis). Self reported recovery was determined by means of a dichotomized 7-point scale (questionnaire). Posture was measured qualitatively by a panel of 11 Cesar therapists (blinded) and quantitatively by an optical-electronic posture recording system (Vicon). Measurements were taken at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomization.
                Three months after randomization, patients who were treated according to Cesar therapy, reported an improvement in their back symptoms (80%) significantly more often than the control group (47%). In both groups, however, only small improvements in posture were found. The judgement of the Cesar panel exhibited a significant difference between the two groups, with respect to the spine, in favour of Cesar therapy. Differences between the groups were still present 6 months after randomization, but could no longer be detected at 12 months after randomization.
                Cesar therapy was significantly more effective than standard treatment among patients with chronic lower back pain for a period of 6 months after randomization. We evaluated three different conservative treatment methods for acute low-back pain patients in groups following a manual therapy programme, an intensive training programme, or a general practitioner programme, the latter serving as the control group. Patients aged 19-64 years on sick leave for low-back pain with or without sciatica were included in a prospective randomised study evaluating outcomes such as impairment, pain, functional disability, socio-economic disability and satisfaction with the treatment or explanations. Evaluation by unbiased observers was performed at 1, 3 and 12 months. The three treatment groups were comparable at baseline. With regard to satisfaction, the patients in the manual therapy programme and those in the intensive training programme were more satisfied with the treatment than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. With regard to the explanations of current low-back pain episodes, the patients in the manual therapy programme were more satisfied than those in the general practitioner programme at all follow-ups. The manual therapy programme group were also more satisfied with the explanations than those in the intensive training programme at the 1-month follow-up. However, no differences were revealed between the groups with respect to outcomes on measures of impairment, pain, functional disability or socioeconomic disability. All three study groups showed rapid improvement. After 1 month a significant improvement was noted in all outcome values compared with the values on entry to the study. Within the limitations discussed in our study, it is concluded that (1) patients sick listed with acute low-back pain, with or without sciatica, will be significantly improved after 1 month regardless of conservative treatment programme; (2) they will be more satisfied with the treatment if they are referred to a manual treatment programme or a training treatment programme; (3) they will be more satisfied with the explanations of the acute low-back problem if they are referred to one of the above groups, especially the manual treatment group; (4) they will not show any other differences with respect to subjective and objective variables, either at short-term or at long-term follow-ups. The aim of this study was to determine whether graded activity restored occupational function in industrial blue-collar workers who were sick-listed for 8 weeks because of subacute, nonspecific, mechanical low back pain (LBP). Patients with LBP, who had been examined by an orthopedic surgeon and a social worker, were randomly assigned to either an activity group (n = 51) or a control group (n = 52). Patients with defined orthopedic, medical, or psychiatric diagnoses were excluded before randomization. The graded activity program consisted of four parts: (1) measurements of functional capacity; (2) a work-place visit; (3) back school education; and (4) an individual, submaximal, gradually increased exercise program, with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach, based on the results of the tests and the demands of the patient's work. Records of the amount of sick leave taken over a 3-year period (ie, the 1-year periods before, during, and after intervention) were obtained from each patient's Social Insurance Office. The patients in the activity group returned to work significantly earlier than did the patients in the control group. The median number of physical therapist appointments before return to work was 5, and the average number of appointments was 10.7 (SD = 12.3). The average duration of sick leave attributable to LBP during the second follow-up year was 12.1 weeks (SD = 18.4) in the activity group and 19.6 weeks (SD = 20.7) in the control group. Four patients in the control group and 1 patient in the activity group received permanent disability pensions. The graded activity program made the patients occupationally functional again, as measured by return to work and significantly reduced long-term sick leave. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial with a stratification block design in which a Mensendieck exercise program was compared with the experience of a control group.
                To evaluate the effect of a Mensendieck program on the incidence of recurrent episodes of low back pain in patients with a history of the condition who currently are working.
                One episode of low back pain increases the risk of further episodes of the condition. The Mensendieck approach combines education and exercise. This approach has been used for many years in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. However, the effects on low back pain have not been evaluated previously in a randomized, controlled trial.
                A total of 77 men and women, mean age 39.6 years (range, 21.2-49.8 years), who had finished treatment for a low back pain episode, were stratified according to incidence of low back pain episodes and symptoms of sciatica over the preceding 3 years. The patients were assigned at random to either the Mensendieck program or a control group. The Mensendieck group received 20 group sessions of exercises and ergonomic education in 13 weeks. At 5- and 12-month follow-up examinations, the patients were assessed for recurrence of low back pain, days of sick leave, low back pain, and functional scores.
                After 12 months, there was a significant reduction in recurrent low back pain episodes in the Mensendieck group compared with the control group (P < 0.05). There was a trend toward fewer days of sick leave because of low back pain in the Mensendieck group, but no significant differences between the groups. There was reduction in pain and improvement in function in both groups, with no significant differences between the groups.
                A secondary prophylaxis Mensendieck exercise program of 20 group sessions significantly reduced the incidence of low back pain recurrences in a population with history of the condition. However, there were no differences between the groups with regard to days of sick leave, low back pain, and function. To determine if the use of an isokinetic device for trunk exercise is more effective than standard physiotherapy in promoting motor disinhibition for patients with chronic low back pain.
                chronic low back pain outpatients who are treated in a Rheumatology or PM & R unit within an academic hospital.
                This is a prospective, controlled, randomized study, with two groups of treatment: one treated with isokinetic techniques and the other with standard physiotherapy, six sessions for each treatment during 2 weeks. Outcome measures include pain (VSA), trunk mobility (Schöber index, distance from fingers to floor), muscle extensibility and muscle strength (Biering-Sorensen and Shirado-Ito test), and functional capacity (Quebec scale).
                Seventeen subjects were enrolled. The results suggest that both isokinetic exercise and physiotherapy result in improved range of motion, extensibility, muscle strength, and pain, without any significant superiority of one technique over the other. However, each technique has specific advantage.
                Despite methodologic limitations, this study shows that isokinetic exercise is not better than physiotherapy in reversing motor inhibition in chronic low back pain. Our results are consistent with those of other studies in the literature, with regard to the absence of established overall superiority of one exercise technique or program over the other in this population, and with regard to partial benefits of specific exercise techniques.
                The non-specific benefit of one technique indicates that further studies are needed to evaluate the benefit of combining exercise techniques in chronic low back pain, in order to address the multiple factors involved in this pathology. It has been estimated that one fourth to one half of all patients treated in physical therapy clinics suffer from low-back pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of spinal flexion (Group I) and extension (Group II) exercises on low-back pain severity and thoracolumbar spinal mobility in chronic mechanical low-back pain patients. Both groups had significantly less low-back pain after treatment (P less than .10). There was no significant difference, however, between the spinal flexion and extension exercises in reduction of low-back pain severity. The results indicated a significant difference between the groups in increasing the sagittal mobility (P less than .10). The results did not indicate any significant difference between and within groups in increasing the coronal and transverse mobility of the thoracolumbar spine. Either the spinal flexion or extension exercises could be used to reduce chronic mechanical low-back pain severity, but the flexion exercises had an advantage in increasing the sagittal mobility within a short period of time. The effects of outpatient group behavioral therapy including aerobic exercise (BE), behavioral therapy only (B), and aerobic exercise only (E) on pain and physical and psychosocial disability were evaluated and compared in a group of mildly disabled chronic low-back-pain patients. Ninety-six Ss were randomly assigned to the 3 treatments and a waiting-list control (WL) condition and assessed on a variety of patient self-report, spouse-rated, and direct observational measures at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Patients in the BE condition, but not the B or E conditions, improved significantly more pretreatment to posttreatment than did WL patients on the patient self-report and observer-rated measures. At both follow-ups, all 3 treatment groups remained significantly improved from pretreatment, with no significant differences among treatments. To assess the efficacy of a prolotherapy injection and exercise protocol in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain.
                Randomized controlled trial with two-by-two factorial design, triple-blinded for injection status, and single-blinded for exercise status.
                General practice.
                One hundred ten participants with nonspecific low-back pain of average 14 years duration were randomized to have repeated prolotherapy (20% glucose/0.2% lignocaine) or normal saline injections into tender lumbo-pelvic ligaments and randomized to perform either flexion/extension exercises or normal activity over 6 months.
                Pain intensity (VAS) and disability scores (Roland-Morris) at 2.5, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months.
                Follow-up was achieved in 96% at 12 months and 80% at 2 years. Ligament injections, with exercises and with normal activity, resulted in significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability throughout the trial, but no attributable effect was found for prolotherapy injections over saline injections or for exercises over normal activity. At 12 months, the proportions achieving more than 50% reduction in pain from baseline by injection group were glucose-lignocaine: 0.46 versus saline: 0.36. By activity group these proportions were exercise: 0.41 versus normal activity: 0.39. Corresponding proportions for >50% reduction in disability were glucose-lignocaine: 0.42 versus saline 0.36 and exercise: 0.36 versus normal activity: 0.38. There were no between group differences in any of the above measures.
                In chronic nonspecific low-back pain, significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability occur with ligament injections, irrespective of the solution injected or the concurrent use of exercises. To measure the effectiveness of routine physiotherapy compared with an assessment session and advice from a physiotherapist for patients with low back pain.
                Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
                Seven British NHS physiotherapy departments.
                286 patients with low back pain of more than six weeks' duration.
                Routine physiotherapy or advice on remaining active from a physiotherapist. Both groups received an advice book.
                Primary outcome was scores on the Oswestry disability index at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Oswestry disability index (two and six months), scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire and SF-36 (2, 6 and 12 months), and patient perceived benefit from treatment (2, 6, and 12 months).
                200 of 286 patients (70%) provided follow up information at 12 months. Patients in the therapy group reported enhanced perceptions of benefit, but there was no evidence of a long term effect of physiotherapy in either disease specific or generic outcome measures (mean difference in change in Oswestry disability index scores at 12 months -1.0%, 95% confidence interval -3.7% to 1.6%). The most common treatments were low velocity spinal joint mobilisation techniques (72%, 104 of 144 patients) and lumbar spine mobility and abdominal strengthening exercises (94%, 136 patients).
                Routine physiotherapy seemed to be no more effective than one session of assessment and advice from a physiotherapist. In a randomized, observer-blind trial, 150 men and women, aged 21-64 years, with chronic/subchronic low-back pain, followed one of these three treatment regimens: 1) intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises; 2) conventional physiotherapy, including isometric exercises for the trunk and leg muscles; and 3) placebo-control treatment involving semihot packs and light traction. Eight treatment sessions were given during the course of 4 weeks, each session lasting 1 hour. The short-term effect was evaluated at the end of the treatment period and 1 month later, and the long-term effect at 6 and 12 months. The evaluations included recording of changes in pain level and assessment of overall treatment effect, which were indicated on visual interval scales. Subgroups of patients could be identified according to their treatment responses: physiotherapy was the superior treatment for the male participants, whereas the intensive back exercises appeared to be most efficient for the female participants. Patients with moderate or hard physical occupations tended toward a better response with physiotherapy, whereas intensive back exercises seemed most effective for those with sedentary/light job functions. The present aim was to compare the effects of stabilizing training with those of manual treatment in patients with sub-acute or chronic low-back pain (LBP). Forty-seven patients were randomized to a stabilizing training group (ST group) or a manual treatment group (MT group). The patients underwent a 6-week treatment programme on a weekly basis. Pain, health and functional disability level at the start of treatment, after treatment, and at 3- and 12-month follow-ups were assessed. In the ST group all assessed variables improved significantly (P<0.05) after the treatment period and were maintained long term. After the treatment period there was a significant difference between the groups in assessed function (P<0.05). More individuals in the ST group had improved than in the MT group. At the 3-month follow-up significantly more improved individuals were evident in the ST group regarding pain, general health and functional disability levels. In the long term, significantly more (P<0.05) patients in the MT group reported recurrent treatment periods. The study did not indicate any clear short-term differences between the groups in the accessed outcome measures. In the long term, however, stabilizing training seemed to be more effective than manual treatment in terms of improvement of individuals and the reduced need for recurrent treatment periods. Degenerative disc disease may affect younger and middle-aged people with a kind of premature disc degeneration. The majority of these low back pain patients are not candidates for a spinal fusion and are in need of a structured conservative treatment. In a controlled clinical trial, 27 low back pain patients (mean age 40 years, range 25-48) with a mean duration of symptoms of 7.4 years, were randomized to mobilizing (n = 12) or stabilizing (n = 15) daily half hour exercise for an eight weeks period. A clinical overall score (COS) based on pain intensity (VAS), physical signs, functional status (Oswestry) and analgetics was used as outcome criterion. The treatment results were best for the group undergoing stabilizing treatment. They achieved a 17% reduction in COS, compared to a 10% increase in the group undergoing mobilizing treatment (p = 0.02). These types of exercises are discussed in relation to the instability theory in disc degeneration. A number of treatments are widely prescribed for chronic back pain, but few have been rigorously evaluated. We examined the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), a program of stretching exercises, or a combination of both for low back pain. Patients with chronic low back pain (median duration, 4.1 years) were randomly assigned to receive daily treatment with TENS (n = 36), sham TENS (n = 36), TENS plus a program of exercises (n = 37), or sham TENS plus exercises (n = 36). After one month no clinically or statistically significant treatment effect of TENS was found on any of 11 indicators of outcome measuring pain, function, and back flexion; there was no interactive effect of TENS with exercise. Overall improvement in pain indicators was 47 percent with TENS and 42 percent with sham TENS (P not significant). The 95 percent confidence intervals for group differences excluded a major clinical benefit of TENS for most outcomes. By contrast, after one month patients in the exercise groups had significant improvement in self-rated pain scores, reduction in the frequency of pain, and greater levels of activity as compared with patients in the groups that did not exercise. The mean reported improvement in pain scores was 52 percent in the exercise groups and 37 percent in the nonexercise groups (P = 0.02). Two months after the active intervention, however, most patients had discontinued the exercises, and the initial improvements were gone. We conclude that for patients with chronic low back pain, treatment with TENS is no more effective than treatment with a placebo, and TENS adds no apparent benefit to that of exercise alone. To determine whether traditional bone-setting or continuous light exercise therapy could case back pain and improve function better than ordinary physiotherapy.
                Observer-blinded, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up.
                An outpatient institution for folk medicine research.
                Of 147 back pain patients recruited from local health centers and by newspaper announcements, 132 were found eligible (non-retired-no contraindications to manipulation) and entered. A final 114 (one dropout) with back pain for longer than 7 weeks were included in this intent to treat analysis.
                Bone-setting, guidance for continuous light back movements or physiotherapy for up to ten 1-hour sessions during 6 weeks.
                Spinal mobility and muscular performance. Back pain assessed by visual analog scales (VAS).
                The physical measures changed only modestly, from one tenth to half of standard deviation, while the VAS was halved. The thoracolumbar side-bending, the modified Schober, and the VAS were significantly better improved by bone-setting than by exercise but not better than by physiotherapy.
                Neither bone-setting nor exercise differed significantly from physiotherapy, but bone-setting improved lateral and forward bending of the spine and back pain more than did exercise. 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. One hundred and twelve patients with acute mechanical low back pain were randomly divided into three treatment groups. All patients received ergonomic advice and then either a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or conservative or manipulative types of physiotherapy. Serial assessments of pain and spinal mobility showed similar response rates in all three treatment groups and no significant difference between therapies. The overall improvement ratings, time off work, and economic cost favoured the group treated with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, but this group had a better range of spinal flexion at the onset so firm conclusions regarding the preferred management of these patients in general practice cannot be drawn. Treatment failures occurred in all groups highlighting the need for a variety of therapeutic approaches in managing the patient with low back pain. The study was carried out as an open, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study with an observation period of 12 months. Four norwegian physiotherapy institutes took part. Patients were subsequently followed for 12 months of home exercise on their own, without for 12 months of home exercise on their own, without the supervision of a physiotherapist.
                1) To investigate and compare the effects of two different exercise programs on low back problems in patients after a 1-year training program under the supervision of a physiotherapist. 2) To investigate the effect supervision by, and motivation from, physiotherapists has on training compliance and efficacy.
                After ordinary physiotherapy treatment for low back problems, patients were randomly allocated either to a conventional training program designed by physiotherapists or to a training program using a new Norwegian-developed training apparatus called the TerapiMaster. The study included 153 patients with low back problems, all of whom had been referred to physiotherapy by their general practitioners. One hundred twenty-six patients were followed for an additional 12 months when performing home exercise programs on their own.
                Monitoring patient satisfaction with the training program, compliance with the program, and absenteeism from work during the training period.
                Patient satisfaction with both training programs was high, with about 83% of participating patients completing the study in accordance with the protocol. Mean absenteeism (SD) during the preceding year totaled 82.5 days (19.8) in the conventional training group and 61.6 days (14.7) in the TerapiMaster group. Significant reductions to 17.2 days (6.0) and 16.4 days (5.3) in the two groups, respectively, were recorded during the training period, corresponding to a 75% to 80% reduction compared with the preceding 1-year period. Mean absenteeism showed a further significant decline during the 12-month period without supervised training. The average values were 9.9 days (3.2) for conventional training and 9.3 days (3.1) for the TerapiMaster, respectively.
                Both exercise programs reduced absenteeism significantly (75-80%). No difference in the effects of the two different programs was discernible. Regular follow-up through encouragement and variation in the training programs appear to be important factors for motivating patients to adhere to regular exercise programs for low back problems. This thesis was corroborated by the 12-month study of unsupervised exercise. A prospective, randomized investigation.
                To compare the effect of dynamic strength back muscle training with that of a home training program and to evaluate the long-term effect of the home training program in patients with chronic low back pain.
                In a health survey of 57-year-old women, those with chronic low back pain were selected using the Nordic Questionnaire. Of 172 women with low back pain, 74 participated in the study.
                The participants were randomly assigned to either dynamic strength back exercises at a fitness center and a home training program or to the home training program for the first 3 months, after which both groups continued to pursue the home training program. Follow-up observation was by examination at 3 and 12 months and by mailed questionnaire after 3 years. The primary effect variables were disability, sick-leave, and use of health care services.
                Both training groups manifested significant improvement at the 3- and 12-month follow-up examinations, yet the adherence rate was much better in the group assigned to the fitness center. Those who adhered to the training program for the first year manifested significant improvement according to the 3-year follow-up questionnaire. There was a significant reduction in the number of women on sick-leave and in use of health care services after 1 year, but not after 3 years.
                The home training program was as effective as the supervised dynamic strength muscle training program and yielded lasting improvement after at least 1 year of adherence. The adherence rate was much better, however, when the training was supervised at the start. A randomized controlled comparative trial with an 8-month follow-up period was conducted.
                To compare the effect of the McKenzie treatment method with that of intensive dynamic strengthening training in patients with subacute or chronic low back pain.
                Randomized studies indicate that the efficacy of the McKenzie method in the treatment of patients with acute or subacute low back pain is debatable. Currently, no randomized studies examining the effects of this method for patients with chronic low back pain have been published.
                For this study, 260 consecutive patients with low back pain and at least 8 weeks duration of symptoms (85% of the patients had more than 3 months duration of symptoms) were randomized into two groups: Group A was treated with the McKenzie method (n = 132), and Group B was treated with intensive dynamic strengthening training (n = 128). The treatment period for both groups was 8 weeks at an outpatient clinic, followed by 2 months of self-training at home. Treatment results were recorded at the end of the treatment period at the clinic, then 2 and 8 months after. In both groups, 30% of the patients were lost to follow-up evaluation. An intention-to-treat analysis of the main effect variables, disability, and pain was performed for all the patients included in the study. A supplementary analysis of the 180 patients who completed the full treatment program also was undertaken.
                Intention-to-treat analysis showed a tendency toward a difference in reduction of disability in favor of the McKenzie group at the 2-month follow-up assessment (P = 0.04), but no differences at the end of treatment and at the 8-month follow-up evaluation. No differences in reduction of pain were observed at any time between the groups. The supplementary analysis of the patients who had completed the full intervention showed a tendency toward a difference in favor of the McKenzie method in reduction of pain at the end of treatment (P = 0.02). This difference reached statistical significance at the 2-month follow-up assessment (P = 0.01), but no difference was found after 8 months. The supplementary analysis showed no differences between the groups with regard to reduction of disability.
                The McKenzie method and intensive dynamic strengthening training seem to be equally effective in the treatment of patients with subacute or chronic low back pain. Manual therapy, exercise and education target distinct aspects of chronic low back pain and probably have distinct effects. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a combined physiotherapy treatment that comprised all of these strategies. By concealed randomisation, 57 chronic low back pain patients were allocated to either the four-week physiotherapy program or management as directed by their general practitioners. The dependent variables of interest were pain and disability. Assessors were blind to treatment group. Outcome data from 49 subjects (86%) showed a significant treatment effect. The physiotherapy program reduced pain and disability by a mean of 1.5/10 points on a numerical rating scale (95% CI 0.7 to 2.3) and 3.9 points on the 18-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (95% CI 2 to 5.8), respectively. The number needed to treat in order to gain a clinically meaningful change was 3 (95% CI 3 to 8) for pain, and 2 (95% CI 2 to 5) for disability. A treatment effect was maintained at one-year follow-up. The findings support the efficacy of combined physiotherapy treatment in producing symptomatic and functional change in moderately disabled chronic low back pain patients. To evaluate effectiveness of an exercise programme in a community setting for patients with low back pain to encourage a return to normal activities.
                Randomised controlled trial of progressive exercise programme compared with usual primary care management. Patients' preferences for type of management were elicited independently of randomisation.
                187 patients aged 18-60 years with mechanical low back pain of 4 weeks to 6 months' duration.
                Exercise classes led by a physiotherapist that included strengthening exercises for all main muscle groups, stretching exercises, relaxation session, and brief education on back care. A cognitive-behavioural approach was used.
                Assessments of debilitating effects of back pain before and after intervention and at 6 months and 1 year later. Measures included Roland disability questionnaire, Aberdeen back pain scale, pain diaries, and use of healthcare services.
                At 6 weeks after randomisation, the intervention group improved marginally more than the control group on the disability questionnaire and reported less distressing pain. At 6 months and 1 year, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in the disability questionnaire score (mean difference in changes 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 2.57). At 1 year, the intervention group also showed significantly greater improvement in the Aberdeen back pain scale (4.44, 1.01 to 7.87) and reported only 378 days off work compared with 607 in the control group. The intervention group used fewer healthcare resources. Outcome was not influenced by patients' preferences.
                The exercise class was more clinically effective than traditional general practitioner management, regardless of patient preference, and was cost effective. A multicenter, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.
                To evaluate the efficiency of progressively graded medical exercise therapy, conventional physiotherapy, and self-exercise by walking in patients with chronic low back pain.
                Varieties of medical exercise therapy and conventional physiotherapy are considered to reduce symptoms, improve function, and decrease sickness absence, but this opinion is controversial.
                Patients with chronic low back pain or radicular pain sick-listed for more than 8 weeks and less than 52 weeks (Sickness Certificate II) were included. The treatment lasted 3 months (36 treatments). Pain intensity, functional ability, patient satisfaction, return to work, number of days on sick leave, and costs were recorded.
                Of the 208 patients included in this study, 71 were randomly assigned to medical exercise therapy, 67 to conventional physiotherapy, and 70 to self-exercise. Thirty-three (15.8%) patients dropped out during the treatment period. No difference was observed between the medical exercise therapy and conventional physiotherapy groups, but both were significantly better than self-exercise group. Patient satisfaction was highest for medical exercise therapy. Return to work rates were equal for all 3 intervention groups at assessment 15 months after therapy was started, with 123 patients were back to work. In terms of costs for days on sick leave, the medical exercise therapy group saved 906,732 Norwegian Kroner (NOK) ($122,531.00), and the conventional physiotherapy group saved NOK 1,882,560 ($254,200.00), compared with the self-exercise group.
                The efficiency of medical exercise therapy and conventional physiotherapy is shown. Leaving patients with chronic low back pain untampered poses a risk of worsening the disability, resulting in longer periods of sick leave. A prospective randomized controlled trial.
                To examine the effectiveness of combined manipulative treatment, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared with physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain.
                Strong evidence exists that manual therapy provides more effective short-term pain relief than does placebo treatment in the management of chronic low back pain. The evidence for long-term effect is lacking.
                Two hundred four chronic low back pain patients, whose Oswestry disability index was at least 16%, were randomly assigned to either a manipulative-treatment group or a consultation group. All were clinically examined, informed about their back pain, provided with an educational booklet, and were given specific instructions based on the clinical evaluation. The treatment included four sessions of manipulation and stabilizing exercises aiming to correct the lumbopelvic rhythm. Questionnaires inquired about pain intensity, self-rated disability, mental depression, health-related quality of life, health care costs, and production costs.
                At the baseline, the groups were comparable, except for the percentage of employees (P = 0.01). At the 5- and 12-month follow-ups, the manipulative-treatment group showed more significant reductions in pain intensity (P < 0.001) and in self-rated disability (P = 0.002) than the consultation group. However, we detected no significant difference between the groups in health-related quality of life or in costs.
                The manipulative treatment with stabilizing exercises was more effective in reducing pain intensity and disability than the physician consultation alone. The present study showed that short, specific treatment programs with proper patient information may alter the course of chronic low back pain. The prescription of exercise as a conservative treatment for lumbar pain is frequent and seems effective for the chronic cases of nonspecific low back pain. However, there is no evidence favoring one type of exercise over another. Often, exercise programs are prescribed without adequate evaluation of the individual characteristics like posture, muscular force, and extensibility. Patients with totally different causes of low back pain will often be given the same type of exercises.
                Our objective was to compare the effectiveness of 2 home exercise programs in decreasing disability and pain related to subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. To do so we compared a specific (individualized) exercise program with a program of commonly prescribed exercises for low back pain.
                In a control group study, 20 patients with chronic or subacute nonspecific low back pain participated after giving their informed consent. All subjects were evaluated (physical evaluation of lumbar and pelvic muscles [1] force and [2] extensibility, [3] trunk range of motion) and then divided in 2 groups: 10 patients received specific exercises (experimental group) based on their evaluation, and 10 patients received a commonly prescribed exercise program for low back pain (control group). Six weeks later a second physical evaluation was conducted. Pain (visual analog pain scale) and disability (modified Oswestry) questionnaires were also completed by each subject at both evaluations.
                This was a randomized experimental study.
                Both groups had similar age, weight, and sex characteristics. The experimental group showed significant improvements for some components targeted by the program. The control group significantly had improvement of some physical characteristics not related to their initial deficits. Even if both groups showed some improvements in muscular force and extensibility, only the members of the group who received specific exercises significantly reduced their level of pain and disability. Both groups showed a similar rate of participation in the program.
                The results of this study suggest that applying a specific physical evaluation and exercise prescription is an appropriate treatment for people having subacute or chronic nonspecific pain. Thus clinicians should prescribe exercise programs based on individual muscular deficits rather than most commonly prescribed exercise programs. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of the McKenzie method of treatment with patient education in "mini back school" in patients with acute low-back pain. The study included 100 patients, 23 women and 77 men with the average age 34.4 +/- 9.7 (range 18-61) years. The study included only those who were employed. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, one group receiving treatment according to the McKenzie technique and the other group receiving education in a "mini back school." Assessments were made after 3 weeks by an independent observer and after 52 weeks they were seen by one of the authors. Patients were assessed on seven variables: return to work, sick-leave during the initial episode, sick-leave during recurrences, recurrences of pain during the year of observation, patients' ability to self-help, pain and movement. Although the effect of attention placebo cannot be ruled out, the results demonstrated that the McKenzie method of treatment for patients with acute low-back pain was superior for five out of seven variables studied. The only variables that did not show any statistically significant differences were sick-leave during recurring episodes of pain and patients' ability to self-help. Clinicians treating patients with low back pain often use exercise to reduce pain and improve function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of trunk extensor endurance training in reducing pain and decreasing disability in subjects with subacute low back pain (ie, onset of back pain within 7 days to 7 weeks).
                Patients were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. A visual analog scale and the pain rating index (PRI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) were used to obtain baseline measurements of pain. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) was used to measure disability, and the Sorensen Test was used to measure trunk extensor endurance. Subjects in the experimental group attended exercise sessions 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Subjects in the control group did not do exercises. Both groups were given back care advice and hot packs for 15 minutes, 3 to 5 times per week. Reassessments were carried out at 3 and 6 weeks.
                There were differences between the 2 groups at 3 weeks in regard to pain intensity during the evaluation session and pain experienced over the preceding 24 hours, the total MPQ PRI, the sensory component of the MPQ PRI, and the RMDQ. At 6 weeks, no differences were found for pain measurements, disability scores, and holding time on the Sorensen Test.
                Trunk extensor endurance training reduced pain and improved function at 3 weeks but resulted in no improvement at 6 weeks when compared with the control group. Endurance exercise is considered to expedite the recovery process for patients with an acute episode of low back pain. The effects of exercise for isolated lumbar extensor muscles were examined in 54 chronic low-back pain patients. Subjects were randomly assigned to a 10-week exercise program (N = 31) or a wait-list control group (N = 23). Results indicated a significant increase in isometric lumbar extension strength for the treatment group and a significant reduction in reported pain compared with the control group (P 0.05). Treated subjects reported less physical and psychosocial dysfunction whereas the control group increased in pain, and physical and psychosocial dysfunction. There were no concomitant changes in reported daily activity levels. These results show that lumbar extension exercise is beneficial for strengthening the lumbar extensors and results in decreased pain and improved perceptions of physical and psychosocial functioning in chronic back pain patients. However, these improvements were not related to changes in activities or psychological distress. The purpose of this randomized pilot study was to evaluate a possible design for a 6-week modified hatha yoga protocol to study the effects on participants with chronic low back pain.
                Twenty-two participants (M = 4; F = 17), between the ages of 30 and 65, with chronic low back pain (CLBP) were randomized to either an immediate yoga based intervention, or to a control group with no treatment during the observation period but received later yoga training.
                A specific CLBP yoga protocol designed and modified for this population by a certified yoga instructor was administered for one hour, twice a week for 6 weeks. Primary functional outcome measures included the forward reach (FR) and sit and reach (SR) tests. All participants completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) questionnaires. Guiding questions were used for qualitative data analysis to ascertain how yoga participants perceived the instructor, group dynamics, and the impact of yoga on their life.
                To account for drop outs, the data were divided into better or not categories, and analyzed using chi-square to examine differences between the groups. Qualitative data were analyzed through frequency of positive responses.
                Potentially important trends in the functional measurement scores showed improved balance and flexibility and decreased disability and depression for the yoga group but this pilot was not powered to reach statistical significance. Significant limitations included a high dropout rate in the control group and large baseline differences in the secondary measures. In addition, analysis of the qualitative data revealed the following frequency of responses (1) group intervention motivated the participants and (2) yoga fostered relaxation and new awareness/learning.
                A modified yoga-based intervention may benefit individuals with CLB, but a larger study is necessary to provide definitive evidence. Also, the impact on depression and disability could be considered as important outcomes for further study. Additional functional outcome measures should be explored. This pilot study supports the need for more research investigating the effect of yoga for this population. The aim of this study was to determine whether low power laser therapy (Gallium-Arsenide) is useful or not for the therapy of chronic low back pain (LBP).
                This study included 75 patients (laser + exercise-25, laser alone-25, and exercise alone-25) with LBP. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Schober test, flexion and lateral flexion measures, Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) were used in the clinical and functional evaluations pre and post therapeutically. A physician, who was not aware of the therapy undertaken, evaluated the patients.
                Significant improvements were noted in all groups with respect to all outcome parameters, except lateral flexion (P < 0.05).
                Low power laser therapy seemed to be an effective method in reducing pain and functional disability in the therapy of chronic LBP.
                Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. A randomized clinical trial with 1-year and 3-year telephone questionnaire follow-ups.
                To report a specific exercise intervention's long-term effects on recurrence rates in acute, first-episode low back pain patients.
                The pain and disability associated with an initial episode of acute low back pain (LBP) is known to resolve spontaneously in the short-term in the majority of cases. However, the recurrence rate is high, and recurrent disabling episodes remain one of the most costly problems in LBP. A deficit in the multifidus muscle has been identified in acute LBP patients, and does not resolve spontaneously on resolution of painful symptoms and resumption of normal activity. Any relation between this deficit and recurrence rate was investigated in the long-term.
                Thirty-nine patients with acute, first-episode LBP were medically managed and randomly allocated to either a control group or specific exercise group. Medical management included advice and use of medications. Intervention consisted of exercises aimed at rehabilitating the multifidus in cocontraction with the transversus abdominis muscle. One year and three years after treatment, telephone questionnaires were conducted with patients.
                Questionnaire results revealed that patients from the specific exercise group experienced fewer recurrences of LBP than patients from the control group. One year after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 30%, and control group recurrence was 84% (P < 0.001). Two to three years after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 35%, and control group recurrence was 75% (P < 0.01).
                Long-term results suggest that specific exercise therapy in addition to medical management and resumption of normal activity may be more effective in reducing low back pain recurrences than medical management and normal activity alone. To assess the efficacy of exercise therapy for acute low back pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 40 Dutch general practices. Patients received either exercise instruction with advice for daily life by a physiotherapist; placebo ultrasound therapy by a physiotherapist; or usual care by the general practitioner. All patients received analgesic agents and information on low back pain before randomization. Four hundred seventy-three patients were included. No differences in number of recurrences, functional health status, or medical care usage could be found among the three groups. In the exercise group, duration of recurrences was shorter and patients were less tired during the first 3 months than in the usual care group, but no differences were found between the exercise and placebo groups. It was concluded that exercise therapy for patients with acute low back pain has no advantage over usual care from the general practitioner. nan A randomized controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up period was conducted.
                To compare lumbar extension exercise and whole-body vibration exercise for chronic lower back pain.
                Chronic lower back pain involves muscular as well as connective and neural systems. Different types of physiotherapy are applied for its treatment. Industrial vibration is regarded as a risk factor. Recently, vibration exercise has been developed as a new type of physiotherapy. It is thought to activate muscles via reflexes.
                In this study, 60 patients with chronic lower back pain devoid of "specific" spine diseases, who had a mean age of 51.7 years and a pain history of 13.1 years, practiced either isodynamic lumbar extension or vibration exercise for 3 months. Outcome measures were lumbar extension torque, pain sensation (visual analog scale), and pain-related disability (pain disability index).
                A significant and comparable reduction in pain sensation and pain-related disability was observed in both groups. Lumbar extension torque increased significantly in the vibration exercise group (30.1 Nm/kg), but significantly more in the lumbar extension group (+59.2 Nm/kg; SEM 10.2; P < 0.05). No correlation was found between gain in lumbar torque and pain relief or pain-related disability (P > 0.2).
                The current data indicate that poor lumbar muscle force probably is not the exclusive cause of chronic lower back pain. Different types of exercise therapy tend to yield comparable results. Interestingly, well-controlled vibration may be the cure rather than the cause of lower back pain. The effectiveness of massage therapy for low-back pain has not been documented. This randomized controlled trial compared comprehensive massage therapy (soft-tissue manipulation, remedial exercise and posture education), 2 components of massage therapy and placebo in the treatment of subacute (between 1 week and 8 months) low-back pain.
                Subjects with subacute low-back pain were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: comprehensive massage therapy (n = 25), soft-tissue manipulation only (n = 25), remedial exercise with posture education only (n = 22) or a placebo of sham laser therapy (n = 26). Each subject received 6 treatments within approximately 1 month. Outcome measures obtained at baseline, after treatment and at 1-month follow-up consisted of the Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (PPI and PRI), the State Anxiety Index and the Modified Schober test (lumbar range of motion).
                Of the 107 subjects who passed screening, 98 (92%) completed post-treatment tests and 91 (85%) completed follow-up tests. Statistically significant differences were noted after treatment and at follow-up. The comprehensive massage therapy group had improved function (mean RDQ score 1.54 v. 2.86-6.5, p < 0.001), less intense pain (mean PPI score 0.42 v. 1.18-1.75, p < 0.001) and a decrease in the quality of pain (mean PRI score 2.29 v. 4.55-7.71, p = 0.006) compared with the other 3 groups. Clinical significance was evident for the comprehensive massage therapy group and the soft-tissue manipulation group on the measure of function. At 1-month follow-up 63% of subjects in the comprehensive massage therapy group reported no pain as compared with 27% of the soft-tissue manipulation group, 14% of the remedial exercise group and 0% of the sham laser therapy group.
                Patients with subacute low-back pain were shown to benefit from massage therapy, as regulated by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and delivered by experienced massage therapists. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 3 physical therapy approaches--lumbar flexion exercise, manual therapy, and home care--in the treatment of lumbar disc disease. Twenty-eight patients were assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups and were shown to be similar in age, sex, and prescores on 4 of the 5 outcome measures. With the exception of the home care patients, each patient received the appropriate treatment twice a week for a 1-month period. No statistically significant differences in measurements of pain, forward, right-side, and left-side flexion, or functional activity between the 3 groups were observed. To describe postural sway and its associations to background factors, low back pain and functional capacity. To evaluate the changes in postural sway after three months of therapeutic exercise in the gym or at home.
                A one-year randomized experimental trial evaluated postural sway in three study groups: intensive training, home exercise and control group.
                Subjects were recruited from seven local occupational health care centres in Central Finland and were examined at Central Finland Hospital by medical doctors. Measurements and therapeutic exercise programmes were carried out in the Research Laboratory of Sport and Health Sciences at Jyväskylä University.
                Initially, 49 male and 41 female subjects (aged 20-55 years) with nonspecific and subacute low back pain were examined.
                Postural sway using a force platform, the Oswestry Index, as well as a measure of low back pain intensity were measured at the initial stage of the study, directly after interventions, as well as at three and nine months after the interventions.
                The background variables were not strongly correlated with postural sway. No changes occurred in the amplitude of sway during the study, but the sway velocity of the home exercise group increased.
                Postural sway measurements with a force platform may be suitable for detecting impairments of balance performance among subjects with pronounced functional or activity limitations and severe low back pain problems. In order to enhance balance performance, specific and customized exercise programmes are required. Low back pain is one of the most common and important musculoskeletal disorders. In addition, chronic low back pain can deteriorate the patient's physical, psychosocial and socioeconomic status. The objective of this quasi-experimental research was to assess the efficacy of an aerobic exercise and health education program in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Seventy-two patients whose ages ranged from 30 to 50 years who had chronic low back pain were enrolled and randomly assigned into two groups. Eight men and 28 women in the experimental group participated in a series of 3 health education sessions and an aerobic exercise training program. Nine men and 27 women in the control group received regular health education and a lumbar flexion exercise program. After a 3-month period of treatment, the results revealed the experimental group had statistically significant improvement of pain score and resting pulse rates when compared to the values of the control group (p-value < 0.001 and < 0.01, respectively). The average serum High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (HDL-C) in the experimental group was also significantly higher (p-value < 0.05) than that of the control group. This health education program is useful and may be applicable to patients with chronic low back pain as an alternative treatment. A randomized parallel-group comparative trial with a 1-year follow-up period was performed.
                To compare the effect of a comprehensive functional restoration program involving intensive physical training, ergonomic training, and behavioral support (39 hours per week for 3 weeks) with the effect of outpatient intensive physical training (1.5 hours three times per week for 8 weeks).
                Nonrandomized studies conducted in the United States favor functional restoration for patients with chronic low back pain. Two previously reported randomized studies from the authors' Back Center in Copenhagen concur with this recommendation, although the positive effects in one of the studies had faded out after 2 years. Randomized functional restoration studies in Canada and Finland have failed to demonstrate any substantive effect.
                Initially, 138 patients with chronic low back pain were included in the current study. They then were randomized to either functional restoration (n = 64) or outpatient intensive physical training (n = 74). Of the initial 138 patients, 11 never started (5 and 6, respectively); 21 dropped out during treatment (8 and 13); and 7 of the graduates did not take part in the 1-year follow-up evaluation (3 and 4). The conclusions were drawn from the 99 patients (48 and 51, respectively) who graduated and participated in a 1-year follow-up evaluation. The median age of the patients was 42 years (range, 21-55 years) The female-to-male ratio was 68 to 31, and the median sick leave days during the preceding 3 years was 180 (range, 0-1080 days). The average back pain was rated 5.5 on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). For these variables, there were no important differences between the groups. However, the functional restoration group tended to be more capable of work at baseline (58% vs 42%; P = 0.09).
                At the 1-year follow-up evaluation, overall assessment favored functional restoration. Otherwise, no significant differences were observed regarding work capability, sick leave for those at work, health care contacts,back pain, leg pain, or self-reported activities of daily living.
                Only in terms of overall assessment, the functional restoration program was superior to a comparatively short time-consuming outpatient physical training program.
                It may be that lower economic benefits during sick leave in the United States lead to favorable results from functional restoration programs, whereas greater benefits in Canada, Finland, and Denmark result in different conclusions. Finally, it may be that the difference in results across studies points simply to whether the studies were randomized. Several new studies have indicated that an active approach to patients with chronic disabling low back pain (LBP) seems effective. Some of these studies emphasize the importance of dealing with the patient's total situation in comprehensive multidisciplinary programs--the bio-psycho-social model. However, these programs are expensive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rehabilitation outcome from three different active programs in terms of: (1) return-to-work rate, (2) days of sick leave, (3) health-care contacts, (4) pain and disability scores, and (5) staying physically active. The subjects included 132 patients randomized to the study, of whom 123 started one of the treatment programs. They had all had at least 6 months of chronic LBP. The patients were randomized into one of three programs: group 1--a full-time, intensive 3-week multidisciplinary program, including active physical and ergonomic training and psychological pain management, followed by 1 day weekly for the subsequent 3 weeks; group 2--active physical training, twice a week for 6 weeks, for a total of 24h; group 3--psychological pain management combined with active physical training, twice a week for 6 weeks, also for a total of 24h. The results presented here are based on data collected 4 months following treatment, which shows an 86% response rate. The initial examination and the follow-up evaluation were performed by a blinded observer. The results show that 4 months after treatment, the intensive multidisciplinary program is superior to the less intensive programs in terms of return-to-work rate, health-care contacts, pain and disability scores, and staying physically active.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Exercise therapy appears to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low-back pain, particularly in healthcare populations. In subacute low-back pain there is some evidence that a graded activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, though evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low-back pain, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments.