Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions. Results 12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference −0.5, 95% confidence interval −2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, −1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, −0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (−3.7, −5.5 to −1.9) and disability (−2.9, −4.9 to −0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. “High quality” evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain. Conclusions Paracetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.

No abstract

Guidelines for low back pain (LBP) often recommend the use of self-management such as unsupervised exercise, booklets, and online education. Another potentially useful way for patients to self-manage LBP is by using smartphone applications (apps). However, to date, there has been no rigorous evaluation of LBP apps and no guidance for consumers on how to select high-quality, evidence-based apps. This chapter reviews smartphone apps for the self-management of LBP and evaluates their content quality and whether they recommend evidence-based interventions. This chapter shows that generally app developers are selecting interventions that are endorsed by guidelines, although their quality is low. There are many apps available for the self-management of LBP, but their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes has not been rigorously assessed. App developers need to work closely with healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients to ensure app content is accurate, evidence based, and engaging.

We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.

NSAIDs are effective for spinal pain, but the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between the intervention and placebo groups is not clinically important. At present, there are no simple analgesics that provide clinically important effects for spinal pain over placebo. There is an urgent need to develop new drug therapies for this condition.

Objective. To investigate the contribution of symptoms of depression to future episodes of low back pain (LBP). Methods. A search was conducted of AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Health and Society (H&S), LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included cohort studies investigating the effect of symptoms of depression on the development of new episodes of LBP, either lifetime incidence or a recurrent episode, in a population free of LBP at baseline. We accepted the original study's definition for a new episode of LBP, and for classifying patients as LBP-free at study entry. Two independent investigators extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analyses with random effects were used to pool risk estimates. Results. We included 19 studies, with 11 incorporated in the meta-analyses. Overall pooled results showed that symptoms of depression increased the risk of developing LBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.26-2.01). The risk was similar in studies that used the diagnostic interview method (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.42) and in studies using selfreport screening questionnaires (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-2.70). No statistically significant relationship was observed when we pooled studies that employed nonspecific screening questionnaires (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.48-2.87). Three studies provided results in incremental categories of symptoms of depression and the pooled OR for the most severe level of depression (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.58-3.99) was higher than for the lowest level (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.89-2.56). Conclusion. Individuals with symptoms of depression have an increased risk of developing an episode of LBP in the future, with the risk being higher in patients with more severe levels of depression.

The most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients is lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). For LSS, treatment decisions based on clinical and radiological information as well as personal experience of the surgeon shows large variance. Thus a standardized support system is of high value for a more objective and reproducible decision. In this work, we develop an automated algorithm to localize the stenosis causing the symptoms of the patient in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). With 22 MRI features of each of five spinal levels of 321 patients, we show it is possible to predict the location of lesion triggering the symptoms. To support this hypothesis, we conduct an automated analysis of labeled and unlabeled MRI scans extracted from 788 patients. We confirm quantitatively the importance of radiological information and provide an algorithmic pipeline for working with raw MRI scans.

BackgroundThe management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsElectronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions.ResultsNineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference –3.7, 95% confidence interval –15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval –9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes.ConclusionsThe relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.