4.7 Article

Comparison of three active therapies for chronic low back pain:: results of a randomized clinical trial with one-year follow-up

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 772-778

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/40.7.772

Keywords

chronic low back pain; exercise; aerobics; back reconditioning; physiotheraphy; disability

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To examine the relative efficacy of three active therapies for patients with chronic low back pain. Methods. One hundred and forty-eight subjects with chronic low back pain were randomized to receive, twice weekly for 3 months, (i) active physiotherapy, (ii) muscle reconditioning on training devices, or (ii) low-impact aerobics. Questionnaires were administered to assess pain intensity, pain frequency and disability before and after therapy and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Results. One hundred and thirty-two of the 148 patients (89%) completed the therapy programmes and 127 of the 148 (86%) returned a questionnaire at all four time-points. The three treatments were equally efficacious in significantly reducing pain intensity and frequency for up to 1 yr after therapy. However, the groups differed with respect to the temporal changes in self-rated disability over the study period (P = 0.03): all groups showed a similar reduction after therapy, but for the physiotherapy group disability increased again during the first 6 months of follow-up whilst the other two groups showed a further decline. In all groups the values then remained stable up to the 12-month follow-up. The larger group size and minimal infrastructure required for low-impact aerobics rendered it considerably less expensive to administer than the other two programmes. Conclusions. The introduction of low-impact aerobic exercise programmes for patients with chronic low back pain may reduce the enormous costs associated with its treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available