BackgroundTo describe the diagnoses of people who present to the emergency department (ED) with low back pain (LBP), the proportion of people with a lumbar spine condition who arrived by ambulance, received imaging, opioids and were admitted to hospital; and to explore factors associated with these four outcomes.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analysed electronic medical records for all adults presenting with LBP at three Australian EDs from January 2016 to June 2018. Outcomes included discharge diagnoses and key aspects of care (ambulance transport, lumbar spine imaging, provision of opioids, admission). We explored factors associated with these care outcomes using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models and reported data as ORs.ResultsThere were 14 024 presentations with a ‘visit reason’ for low back pain, of which 6393 (45.6%) had a diagnosis of a lumbar spine condition. Of these, 31.4% arrived by ambulance, 23.6% received lumbar imaging, 69.6% received opioids and 17.6% were admitted to hospital. Older patients (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.04) were more likely to be imaged. Opioids were less used during working hours (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) and in patients with non-serious LBP compared with patients with serious spinal pathology (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55). Hospital admission was more likely to occur during working hours (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.05) and for those who arrived by ambulance (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.53 to 3.51).ConclusionMany ED presentations of LBP were not due to a lumbar spine condition. Of those that were, we noted relatively high rates of lumbar imaging, opioid use and hospital admission.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference −5.30, 95% confidence interval −7.31 to −3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (−9.72, −12.75 to −6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (−18.60, −31.87 to −5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (−17.50, −42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (−7.55, −18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (−15.95, −31.52 to −0.39) and 3-12 months (−27.0, −36.11 to −17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (−3.55, −5.22 to −1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (−5.10, −7.31 to −2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (−6.07, −8.13 to −4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. Conclusion Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

No abstract

Conflicts of interest: SM, GF, MH, JJ report no conflicts of interest. CM is funded by an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship. He is chief investigator or co-investigator on multiple previous and current research grants from government agencies and charities in Australia and internationally. He has received travel expenses for speaking at conferences from the professional organisations hosting the conferences. He is an investigator on the SHaPED trial which received heat wraps at no cost from Flexeze. AM has received untied research funding from GlaxoSmithKline to the Sydney Pharmacy School for a postgraduate student scholarship under his supervision.MU is chief investigator or co-investigator on multiple previous and current research grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Arthritis Research UK and is a co-investigator on grants funded by the Australian NHMRC; he is an NIHR Senior Investigator. MU has received travel expenses for speaking at conferences from the professional organisations hosting the conferences. MU is a director and shareholder of Clinvivo Ltd that provides electronic data collection for health services research and is part of an academic partnership with Serco Ltd related to return to work initiatives. MU is a co-investigator on two NIHR funded studies receiving support in kind from Stryker Ltd. MU has accepted honoraria for teaching/lecturing from CARTA; was an editor of the NIHR journal series, and a member of the NIHR Journal Editors Group, for which he received a fee; and a co-investigator on an NIHR funded trial of opioid withdrawal ISRCTN49470934.Availability of data and material: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Background Low back pain (LBP) affects millions of people worldwide, and misconceptions about effective treatment options for this condition are very common. Websites sponsored by organizations recognized as trustworthy by the public, such as government agencies, hospitals, universities, professional associations, health care organizations and consumer organizations are an important source of health information for many people. However, the content of these websites regarding treatment recommendations for LBP has not been fully evaluated. Objective This study aimed to determine the credibility, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations for LBP in noncommercial, freely accessible websites. Methods We conducted a systematic review of websites from government agencies, hospitals, universities, professional associations, health care organizations and consumer organizations. We conducted searches on Google. Treatment recommendations were coded based on the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the 2017 American College of Physicians guideline on LBP. Primary outcomes were credibility of the website (4-item Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark), accuracy (proportion of website treatment recommendations that were appropriate), and comprehensiveness of website treatment recommendations (proportion of guideline treatment recommendations that were appropriately covered by a website). Results We included 79 websites from 6 English-speaking countries. In terms of credibility, 31% (25/79) of the websites clearly disclosed that they had been updated after the publication of the NICE guidelines. Only 43.28% (487/1125) website treatment recommendations were judged as accurate. Comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations correctly covered by websites was very low across all types of LBP. For acute LBP, an average of 28% (4/14) guideline recommendations were correctly covered by websites. Websites for radicular LBP were the least comprehensive, correctly covering an average of 16% (2.3/14) recommendations. Conclusions Noncommercial freely accessible websites demonstrated low credibility standards, provided mostly inaccurate information, and lacked comprehensiveness across all types of LBP.

Background: Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Brazil based upon Global Burden of Disease estimates. Since 1990, the number of years lived with disability has increased by 79.7%, and this number is expected to continue to rise due to population growth and ageing. Yet, similarly to other countries, little attention has been given to it in both the public and private health systems, arguably making it an overlooked epidemic in Brazil. There is evidence that Brazil has adopted unwarranted practices in the management of low back pain in a similar manner to what has been observed in high-income countries. To tackle the burden of low back pain in Brazil, we need highly coordinated efforts from government, the private sector, universities, health workers and civil society. Objective: This masterclass intends to provide an overview of the challenges faced by Brazil in relation to low back pain management and propose potential solutions that could potentially be implemented based on experiences reported in the literature.

NCT01954199. [Ferreira G, Stieven F, Araujo F, Wiebusch M, Rosa C, Plentz R, et al. (2016) Neurodynamic treatment did not improve pain and disability at two weeks in patients with chronic nerve-related leg pain: a randomised trial.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 197-202].

No abstract