SPINE
Subacute and chronic, non-specific back and neck pain: Cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation versus primary care. A randomized controlled trial
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(4):51 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Dec 30;9:172125 patients with subacute or chronic non-specific back and neck pain (BNP) were randomized to either receive cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation or primary-care. The results indicated that for patients presenting with both subacute and chronic back and neck pain, there was no difference between a cognitive-rehabilitation program compared to primary-care at 18 months. However, this study demonstrated that for subacute patients the cognitive-rehabilitation program may be superior in terms of sick-listing and number of health-care visits. Whereas, for chronic patients the cognitive-rehabilitation program was only superior in terms of health-care visits.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
3/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
In Sweden, back and neck pain, particularly non-specific pain, is the main cause of sick-listing. Return to work is extremely important; however, there is minimal consistency and comprehensiveness regarding the most effective way to measure return to work. Effective multidisciplinary treatment for subacute and chronic back and neck pain includes reactivation and progressive increase in level of activity, a cognitive-behavioural program to address dysfunctional beliefs as well as occupational interventions. Although these interventions as treatment for back pain have been investigated in randomized controlled trials, there is a lack of evidence concerning the most appropriate treatment for neck pain and no evidence from RCT's evaluating this intervention program for patients with back and neck pain (BNP). Currently, primary care is considered the standard form of treatment for patients with BNP. This study was needed to compare these two types of interventions in patients with chronic back and neck pain.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
What is the effect of a multidisciplinary cognitive-behavioural programme compared to primary care, on sick-listings and number of health-care visits, in patients with subacute and chronic back and neck pain, measured at 18 months follow up?
重要な知見は？
- For all patients there were no significant differences between the cognitive-rehabilitation and the primary care groups in terms of Return-to-work share (20/35 vs. 25/35, respectively)) and Return-to-work chance (p>0.05 for both).
- For all patients at the 18 month follow up period, there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to net days and number of health-care visits (p>0.05). However, over the three six-month time periods a more rapid decrease was observed in the patients that underwent the cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation program (p<0.05).
- For subacute patients only, return-to-work share and net days (sick listing) was equivalent between the two treatment groups at the final follow-up; however, the rehabilitation group had a significantly more rapid decrease in net days over the six-month periods, and in the third period there were 31 fewer days. At 18 months, the subacute rehabilitation group had a significantly greater Return-to-work chance (hazard ratio 3.5 [95% CI 1.001-12.2]).
- Regarding the number of health-care visits, the two treatment groups demonstrated non-significant differences, though there were half as many visits in the third period in the rehabilitation group.
- For only chronic patients, Return-to-work share, Return-to-work chance, and net days were equivalent between treatment groups. The number of health-care visits at 18 months were not significantly different; however, the rehabilitation group had a more rapid decrease compared to the primary care group. There were half as many visits in the third period in the rehabilitation group.
最も覚えておくべきことは？
The results demonstrated equivalency between the rehabilitation and primary care groups at 18 months; however, the analyses at the three six-month periods indicated that cognitive-rehabilitation generated fewer sick days and a lower number of health-care visits compared to primary care, especially in patients with subacute back and neck pain.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
Results of the study suggest that cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation in the long run may be superior to primary care in terms of sick-listing and health-care visits, but further research with longer follow up duration's are required to verify these findings.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
