Murdoch University Research Repository

Welcome to the Murdoch University Research Repository

The Murdoch University Research Repository is an open access digital collection of research
created by Murdoch University staff, researchers and postgraduate students.

Learn more

A structured protocol of evidence-based conservative care compared with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain: A randomized clinical trial

Parkin-Smith, G.F., Norman, I.J., Briggs, E., Angier, E., Wood, T.G. and Brantingham, J.W. (2012) A structured protocol of evidence-based conservative care compared with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain: A randomized clinical trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93 (1). pp. 11-20.

Link to Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.022
*Subscription may be required

Abstract

Objective: To compare a protocol of evidence-based conservative care with usual care for acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) of less than 6 weeks' duration.

Design: Parallel-group randomized trial.

Setting: Three practices in the United Kingdom.

Participants: Convenience sample of 149 eligible patients were invited to participate in the study, with 118 volunteers being consented and randomly allocated to a treatment group.

Interventions: The experimental group received evidence-based treatments for acute nonspecific LBP as prescribed in a structured protocol of care developed for this study. The control group received usual conservative care. Participants in both groups could receive up to 7 treatments over a 4-week period.

Main Outcome Measures: Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (ODD, visual analog scale (VAS), and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, alongside estimation of clinically meaningful outcomes.

Results: Total dropout rate was 14% (n=16), with 13% of data missing. Missing data were replaced using a multiple imputation method. Participants in both groups received an average of 6 treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in disability ODI scores at the end of week 4 (P=.33), but there was for pain (VAS) scores (P <.001). Interestingly, there were statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for both disability and pain measures at the midpoint of the treatment period (P <.001). Patient satisfaction with care was equally high (85%) in both groups. Minimally clinically important differences in scores and number needed to treat scores (NNT < 6) indicated that the experimental treatment (protocol of care) offered a clinically meaningful benefit over the control treatment (usual care), particularly at the midpoint of the treatment period.

Conclusions: Overall, the 2 treatment groups were similar based on primary or secondary outcome measure scores for the full treatment period (4 weeks, with up to 7 treatments). However, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in both disability and pain scores at week 2 (midpoint) with 4 treatments, suggesting that the protocol of care had a more rapid effect than usual care.

Item Type: Journal Article
Murdoch Affiliation: School of Chiropractic and Sports Science
Publisher: W. B. Saunders Co., Ltd.
Copyright: © 2012 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
URI: http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/6852
Item Control Page Item Control Page