Primary studies included in this systematic review

loading
22 articles (25 References) Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as an adjunct to education and exercise for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

blocked
Journal Arthritis care & research
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine the additional effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) when combined with a group education and exercise program (knee group). METHODS: The study was a randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial. Patients referred for physiotherapy with suspected knee OA (confirmed using the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria) were invited. Exclusion criteria included comorbidities preventing exercise, previous TENS experience, and TENS contraindications. Prospective sample size calculations required 67 participants in each trial arm. A total of 224 participants (mean age 61 years, 37% men) were randomized to 3 arms: TENS and knee group (n = 73), sham TENS and knee group (n = 74), and knee group (n = 77). All patients entered an evidence-based 6-week group education and exercise program (knee group). Active TENS produced a "strong but comfortable" paraesthesia within the painful area and was used as much as needed during the 6-week period. Sham TENS used dummy devices with no electrical output. Blinded assessment took place at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC pain, stiffness, and total scores; extensor muscle torque; global assessment of change; exercise adherence; and exercise self-efficacy. Data analysis was by intent to treat. RESULTS: All outcomes improved over time (P < 0.05), but there were no differences between trial arms (P > 0.05). All improvements were maintained at 24-week followup. CONCLUSION: There were no additional benefits of TENS, failing to support its use as a treatment adjunct within this context.

Primary study

Unclassified

Does neuromuscular electrical stimulation enhance the effectiveness of an exercise programme in subjects with knee osteoarthritis? A randomized controlled trial.

blocked
Journal Clinical rehabilitation
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 10 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (10 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neuromuscular electrical stimulation applied to the quadriceps femoris muscle will enhance the effectiveness of an exercise programme in patients with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomized trial with parallel intervention treatment groups. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy clinic. Subjects: Fifty participants (mean age (SD) 68.9 (7.7) years) with symptomatic idiopathic knee osteoarthritis and radiographic evidence (grade ≥II Kelgren’s classification). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized into one of two groups receiving 12 biweekly treatments: An exercise-only group or an exercise combined with neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (biphasic pulses, at 75 Hz and 250 μs phase duration). Main measures: Knee pain intensity; maximal voluntary isometric contraction and voluntary activation of the quadriceps femoris muscle; measures of functional performance. RESULTS: A significant interaction effect (<i>P</i> = 0.01) indicated greater improvement in pain for the electrical stimulation group. The mean (SD) change in pain intensity was from 7.5 ± 2 to 5 ± 2.2 and from 7.4 ± 1.9 to 3.3 ± 2.4 in the exercise and electrical stimulation groups, respectively. A significant treatment effect was also noted for the voluntary activation of the quadriceps femoris, which increased by 22.2% in the electrical stimulation group and by 9.6% in the exercise group (<i>P</i> = 0.045). Significant improvements were observed in both groups in all remaining measures, with no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation treatment to the quadriceps femoris enhanced the effectiveness of an exercise programme in alleviating pain and improving voluntary activation in patients with knee osteoarthritis, but did not enhance its effect on muscle strength or functional performance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Primary study

Unclassified

Exercise and auricular acupuncture for chronic low-back pain: A feasibility randomized-controlled trial.

Journal The Clinical journal of pain
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effects of adding auricular acupuncture (AA) to exercise for participants with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Participants with CLBP were recruited from primary care and a university population and were randomly allocated (n = 51) to 1 of 2 groups: (1) “Exercise Alone (E)”—12-week program consisting of 6 weeks of supervised exercise followed by 6 weeks unsupervised exercise (n = 27); or (2) “Exercise and AA (EAA)”—12-week exercise program and AA (n = 24). Outcome measures were recorded at baseline, week 8, week 13, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants in the EAA group demonstrated a greater mean improvement of 10.7% points (95% confidence interval, –15.3,-5.7) (effect size = 1.20) in the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire at 6 months compared with 6.7% points (95% confidence interval, -11.4,-1.9) in the E group (effect size = 0.58). There was also a trend towards a greater mean improvement in quality of life, LBP intensity and bothersomeness, and fear-avoidance beliefs in the EAA group. The dropout rate for this trial was lower than anticipated (15% at 6 mo), adherence with exercise was similar (72% E; 65% EAA). Adverse effects for AA ranged from 1% to 14% of participants. DISCUSSION: Findings of this study showed that a main RCT is feasible and that 56 participants per group would need to be recruited, using multiple recruitment approaches. AA was safe and demonstrated additional benefits when combined with exercise for people with CLBP, which requires confirmation in a fully powered RCT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Primary study

Unclassified

A randomised controlled trial of a self-management education program for osteoarthritis of the knee delivered by health care professionals

blocked
Journal Arthritis research & therapy
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 8 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (8 references)

Loading references information
Introduction: Our aim in the present study was to determine whether a disease-specific self-management program for primary care patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee (the Osteoarthritis of the Knee Self-Management Program (OAK)) implemented by health care professionals would achieve and maintain clinically meaningful improvements in health-related outcomes compared with a control group.Methods: Medical practitioners referred 146 primary care patients with OA of the knee. Volunteers with coexistent inflammatory joint disease or serious comorbidities were excluded. Randomisation was to either a control group or the OAK group. The OAK group completed a 6-week self-management program. The control group had a 6-month waiting period before entering the OAK program. Assessments were taken at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months. The primary outcomes were the results measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Function subscales on the Short Form 36 version 1 questionnaire (SF-36) Secondary outcomes were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, Timed Up & Go Test (TUG), knee range of motion and quadriceps and hamstring strength-isometric contraction. Responses to treatment (responders) and minimal clinically important improvements (MCIIs) were determined.Results: In the OAK group, VAS pain improved from baseline to week 8 from mean (SEM) 5.21 (0.30) to 3.65 (0.29) (P ≤ 0.001). During this period, improvements in the OAK group compared with the control group and responses to treatment were demonstrated according to the following outcomes: WOMAC Pain, Physical Function and Total dimensions, as well as SF-36 Physical Function, Role Physical, Body Pain, Vitality and Social Functioning domains. In addition, from baseline to week 8, the proportion of MCIIs was greater among the OAK group than the control group for all outcomes. For the period between baseline and month 6, WOMAC Pain, Physical Function and Total dimensions significantly improved in the OAK group compared to the control group, as did the SF-36 Physical Function, Role Physical, Body Pain, Vitality and Social Functioning domains, as well as hamstring strength in both legs. During the same period, the TUG Test, range of motion extension and left-knee flexion improved compared with the control group, although these improvements had little clinical relevance.Conclusions: We recorded statistically significant improvements compared with a control group with regard to pain, quality of life and function for participants in the OAK program on the basis of WOMAC and SF-36 measures taken 8 weeks and 6 months from baseline. © 2012 Coleman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Publication Thread

Hurley MV, Hurley, Mike

This thread includes 5 references

Primary study

Unclassified

Exercise, manual therapy, and education with or without high-intensity deep-water running for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

blocked
Journal American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study on persons with nonspecific chronic low back pain was to evaluate the effect of a multimodal physical therapy program with or without the addition of deep-water running on pain, physical disability, and general health. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial involving 46 subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain were treated three times a week for 15 wks. Each group received 60 mins of multimodal physical therapy program (an individualized exercise program; manual therapy; and back care, pain education, and information on an active lifestyle), whereas one group performed additional 20-min sessions of deep-water running at an individual workload of the aerobic threshold. RESULTS: Both interventions resulted in significant improvements in pain, disability, and physical health. The mean change in pain, disability, and physical health state were -36.1 ± 25.1 mm on the visual analog scale, -3.0 ± 4.8 points for the Roland Morris Questionnaire, and 10.6 ± 12.9 points for the Short Form-12 for the physical therapy plus deep-water running group and -34.1 ± 26.0 mm on the visual analog scale, -1.6 ± 1.5 points for the Roland Morris Questionnaire, and 8.9 ± 13.0 points for the Short Form-12 for the physical therapy alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Pain, disability, health status, muscle strength and endurance, and lumbar range of motion significantly improved in both groups. The addition of a deep-water running program at an individual workload of the aerobic threshold to the multimodal physical therapy program produced a significant improvement in pain in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, but this was not significantly different when compared with multimodal physical therapy program alone. Disability, health status, muscle strength and endurance, and lumbar range of motion significantly improved to a similar level in both intervention groups.

Primary study

Unclassified

Feasibility of an Exercise-Based Rehabilitation Programme for Chronic Hip Pain.

blocked
Journal Musculoskeletal care
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
Background Chronic hip pain is prevalent and disabling and has considerable consequences for the individual, and health and social care. Evidence-based guidelines recommend that patients with chronic hip pain benefit from exercise, but these guidelines are predominantly based on the efficacy of knee rehabilitation programmes. Studies investigating hip rehabilitation programmes suggest that these may not be feasible, citing issues with case identification. This study evaluated the feasibility of an exercise-based rehabilitation programme in a primary care hospital. Methods Forty-eight participants with chronic hip pain were randomly allocated to receive a five-week exercise and self-management programme or to continue under the management of their general practitioner (GP). Participants were assessed at baseline, six weeks and six months. Outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index physical function subscale, pain, objective functional performance, self-efficacy, anxiety and depression. Results This programme was feasible, well tolerated and easily implemented into a primary healthcare facility. Adherence to the programme was high (81% attendance). Immediately following rehabilitation, all outcomes measures improved (effect sizes 0.2-0.4), although these improvements diminished at six months. There were no differences between the groups (all p &gt; 0.05). Conclusions An exercise-based rehabilitation programme was found to be feasible and well tolerated by people with chronic hip pain. The moderate effects in all outcomes immediately following rehabilitation suggested that it warrants further investigation. Issues with diagnosis and adaptations to the programme were identified and will be addressed in a randomized controlled trial. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Primary study

Unclassified

Spinal manipulation compared with back school and with individually delivered physiotherapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: A randomized trial with one-year follow-up

blocked
Journal Clinical rehabilitation
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference) 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
Objective: To compare spinal manipulation, back school and individual physiotherapy in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Design: Randomized trial, 12-month follow-up. Setting: Outpatient rehabilitation department. Participants: 210 patients with chronic, non-specific low back pain, 140/210 women, age 59 ± 14 years. Interventions: Back school and individual physiotherapy scheduled 15 1-hour-sessions for 3 weeks. Back school included: Group exercise, education/ ergonomics; individual physiotherapy: Exercise, passive mobilization and soft-tissue treatment. Spinal manipulation, given according to Manual Medicine, scheduled 4 to 6 20-sessions once-a-week. Outcome: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (scoring 0-24) and Pain Rating Scale (scoring 0-6) were assessed at baseline, discharge 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: 205 patients completed the study. At discharge, disability score decreased by 3.7 ± 4.1 for back school, 4.4 ± 3.7 for individual physiotherapy, 6.7 ± 3.9 for manipulation; pain score reduction was 0.9 ± 1.1, 1.1 ± 1.0, 1.0 ± 1.1, respectively. At 12 months, disability score reduction was 4.2 ± 4.8 for back school, 4.0 ± 5.1 for individual physiotherapy, 5.9 ± 4.6 for manipulation; pain score reduction was 0.7 ± 1.2, 0.4 ± 1.3, and 1.5 ± 1.1, respectively. Spinal manipulation was associated with higher functional improvement and long-term pain relief than back school or individual physiotherapy, but received more further treatment at follow-ups (P<0.001); pain recurrences and drug intake were also reduced compared to back school (P <0.05) or individual physiotherapy (P <0.001). Conclusions: Spinal manipulation provided better short and long-term functional improvement, and more pain relief in the follow-up than either back school or individual physiotherapy.

Primary study

Unclassified

The efficacy of a short education program and a short physiotherapy program for treating low back pain in primary care: A cluster randomized trial

blocked
Journal Spine
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference) 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
Study Design: Cluster randomized clinical trial. Objective: To assess the efficacy of a short education program and short physiotherapy program for treating low back pain (LBP) in primary care. Summary of Background Data: There is sparse evidence on the effectiveness of education and physiotherapy programs that are short enough to be feasible in primary care. Methods: Sixty-nine primary care physicians were randomly assigned to 3 groups and recruited 348 patients consulting for LBP; 265 (79.8%) were chronic. All patients received usual care, were given a booklet and received a consistent 15 minutes group talk on health education, which focused on healthy nutrition habits in the control group, and on active management for LBP in the "education" and "education + physiotherapy" groups. Additionally, in the "education + physiotherapy" group, patients were given a second booklet and a 15-minute group talk on postural hygiene, and 4 one-hour physiotherapy sessions of exercise and stretching which they were encouraged to keep practicing at home. The main outcome measure was improvement of LBP-related disability at 6 months. Patients' assessment and data analyses were blinded. Results: During the 6-month follow-up period, improvement in the "control" group was negligible. Additional improvement in the "education" and "education + physiotherapy" groups was found for disability (2.0 and 2.2 Roland Morris Questionnaire points, respectively), LBP (1.8 and 2.10 Visual Analogue Scale points), referred pain (1.3 and 1.6 Visual Analogue Scale points), catastrophizing (1.6 and 1.8 Coping Strategies Questionnaire points), physical quality of life (2.9 and 2.9 SF-12 points), and mental quality of life (3.7 and 5.1 SF-12 points). Conclusion: The addition of a short education program on active management to usual care in primary care leads to small but consistent improvements in disability, pain, and quality of life. The addition of a short physiotherapy program composed of education on postural hygiene and exercise intended to be continued at home, increases those improvements, although the magnitude of that increase is clinically irrelevant. © 2010, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Primary study

Unclassified

Treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized, clinical trial comparing group-based multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation and intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercises.

blocked
Journal Spine
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN: A stratified randomized single-blinded clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of 2 active therapies for chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program and an intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercise program used in Denmark have been reported to be effective for the treatment of CLBP. METHODS: A total of 286 patients with CLBP were randomized to either a group-based 12-week program comprising 73 hours of therapist exposure (approximately 12 h/patient): 35 hours of hard physical exercise, 22 hours of light exercise/occupational therapy, and 16 hours of education (group A) or a 12-week program comprising 1 hour of personal training twice a week, i.e., therapist exposure 24 h/patient (group B). At baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, patients filled out questionnaires on pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]-pain average, which was the primary outcome measure), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, global perceived outcome, and 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Of the 286 patients, 14 patients did not start treatment. Of the remaining patients, 25 (9%) dropped out of therapy. The 2 groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristic. After treatment, significant improvements were observed with regard to pain, disability, and most of the quality of life dimensions. These effects were sustained over the 24-month follow-up period. There were some statistically significant differences between the 2 groups relating to secondary end points, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and in the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey the 'physical functioning' dimension and the 'physical component summary.' CONCLUSION: Both groups showed long-term improvements in pain and disability scores, with only minor statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. The minor outcome difference in favor of the group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program is hardly of clinical interest for individual patients.