Study Care Versus Usual Care for Acute Mechanical Lower Back Pain
|First Received Date ICMJE||August 23, 2005|
|Last Updated Date||June 16, 2008|
|Start Date ICMJE||January 2006|
|Primary Completion Date||June 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||To determine if study-based care (SC) is more effective than usual care (UC) in the treatment of patients with acute mechanical lower back pain after 16 weeks [ Time Frame: 16 weeks ]|
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||To determine if study-based care (SC) is more effective than usual care (UC) in the treatment of patients with acute mechanical lower back pain after 16 weeks.|
|Change History||Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00135239 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||To determine if SC is more effective than UC in improving the functional status of patients with acute mechanical lower back pain at 8 weeks and 24 weeks. [ Time Frame: 24 weeks ]|
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||To determine if SC is more effective the UC in improving the functional status of patients with acute mechanical lower back pain at 8 weeks and 24 weeks.|
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||Study Care Versus Usual Care for Acute Mechanical Lower Back Pain|
|Official Title ICMJE||Study Care Versus Usual Care for Acute Mechanical Lower Back Pain|
|Brief Summary||The most common work-related injury in British Columbia every year is a lower back injury. The many different treatment options that are available to workers with a back injury have often led to confusion and frustration. New back pain research has shown which combinations of treatments are most helpful, but has also shown that many injured workers in British Columbia do not have these treatments made readily available to them. This research study is designed to accurately determine whether or not providing patients suffering from acute back injuries with a combination of all of these recommended treatments, will improve their function, quality of life and return to work.|
To determine if evidence-based care (EBC) is more effective than usual care (UC) in improving the functional status of patients with acute mechanical lower back pain. Our secondary objectives are to determine if EBC is effective in improving patient quality of life or time to return to work.
Design: This is a two arm, parallel design, randomized trial. Eligibility: Inclusion criteria are residents of British Columbia with mechanical lower back pain (Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders Classification categories 1 or 2) of up to four weeks duration.
All study patients will be recruited from the patient population currently referred for assessment at the Combined Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Spine Program (CNOSP) outpatient clinic (OPC).
Patients will be randomized to receive treatment in either the CNOSP outpatient clinic (EBC) or from their family physicians (UC).
All study patients will be assessed initially by a physician in the CNOSP outpatient clinic to confirm that they meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study. Patients receiving the EBC intervention will then receive re-assurance, advice to avoid passive treatments, acetominophen (except where contraindicated) for a period of 2-4 weeks, a four week course of lumbar spine spinal manipulative therapy administered by a CNOSP Chiropractor and advice to return to work in some capacity within eight weeks following the start of treatment. Patients randomized to the UC treatment arm will undergo the treatment(s) recommended by their family physicians.
Outcomes of Interest:
Primary Outcome: Our primary outcome of interest is the difference in the mean changes in functional improvement at sixteen weeks after the start of treatment, defined as the change in modified Roland Disability (RDQ) scores, between the EBC and the UC patient groups.
Secondary Outcomes: Secondary outcomes of interest are the difference in the mean changes in functional improvement at eight weeks and twenty-four weeks after the start of treatment defined as change in modified Roland Disability (RDQ) scores, differences in time to return to work and differences in the 'Bodily Pain and 'Physical Functioning' domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, between the EBC and the UC patient groups.
The RDQ scores in the two groups will be compared using the Student's T Test. Analysis of co-variance will be used if necessary to adjust for a difference in baseline functional status using baseline RDQ scores as a co-variate. Time to return to work will be compared using Kaplan Meier survival analysis. A between group comparison of survival will be performed using the log-rank test. SF 36 scores will be normalized and the Bodily Pain" and Physical Functioning scales will be compared between the EBC and UC groups, again using an unpaired t-test and if necessary, analysis of covariance. Estimated sample size: 88 subjects are required based on a two-sided independent T Test. Power + 0.80, alpha + 0.05, mean difference + 3 points, standard deviation + 4.4 and allowing 25% for loss to follow-up.
The most common work-related injury in British Columbia every year is a lower back injury. The many different treatment options that are available to workers with a back injury have often led to confusion and frustration. New back pain research has shown which combinations of treatments are most helpful, but has also shown that many injured workers in British Columbia do not have these treatments made readily available to them. This research study is designed to accurately determine whether or not providing patients suffering from acute back injuries with a combination of all of these recommended treatments, will improve their function, quality of life and return to work.
Lower back injuries remain the single most common category of claim for loss made by injured workers. A recent study has shown that the majority of workers in British Columbia with lower back injuries are now receiving treatments that are inconsistent with internationally developed, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. In addition, a preliminary research study has shown that many aspects of patient recovery from a lower back injury are enhanced by the use of guideline-recommended treatments when compared with guideline discordant treatments.
The proposed study will accurately determine the value of treating lower back-injured patients with a combination of evidence-based treatments. In addition, the results of this study have the potential to significantly impact many issues that are of key importance to the WCB including improving the quality of life of patients with acute lower back injuries, reducing the use of inappropriate treatments that may promote disability and reducing the costs associated with the treatment of these patients.
The outcomes of this research study will help clarify the uncertainty that currently exists with respect to which treatments or combination of treatments, are most helpful for lower back-injured workers. The results of this study have the potential to greatly improve the treatment and/or rehabilitation that these patients are currently receiving in British Columbia, and therefore reduce the disability that is associated with a work-related lower back injury.
|Study Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Not Provided|
|Study Design ICMJE||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
|Condition ICMJE||Low Back Pain, Mechanical|
|Study Arms||Not Provided|
|Publications *||1. Bigos, S.J.B., O.R.; Braen, G.R.; et al., Clinical practice guideline number 4: Acute low back problems in adults. 1994, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Service, US Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD. p. 65-0642. 2. Spitzer, W.O., et al., Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. Spine, 1987. 12 (suppl)(7): p. S1-59. 3. Practitioners, R.C.o.G., Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain. Accessed April 6, 2001. 4. Kendall, N.A., Linton, S.J., Main, C.J., Guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain: risk factors for long-term disability and work loss. 1997, Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation of New Zealand and the National Health Committee.: Wellington (NZ). 5. Abenhaim, L., et al., The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the International Paris Task Force on Back Pain. Spine, 2000. 25(4 Suppl): p. 1S-33S. 6. Bogduk, N., Draft evidence based clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. 2000, National Health and Medical Research Council: Australia. 7. (CBO), C.B.v.d.I.T., Consensus Lumbosacrale Radicular Syndrome. June 1995: Utrecht. 8. Ruckenschmerzen, H.-. Empfehlungen zur Therapie von Ruckenschmerzen, Artzneimittelkommission der deutschen Arzteschaft (Treatment guidelines - backache. Drug Committee of German Medical Society). Z Artztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 1997(91): p. 457-460. 9. Hansen, T.M., Bendix, T., Bunger, C.D., et al., Laenderesmerter Klaringsrapport fra dansk selskap for intern medecin. Ugeskr Laeger, 1996. 158(14 (Suppl)): p. 1-18. 10. Keel, P., Perinin, C.H., Schutz-Petitjean, D., et al., Chronicisation des douleurs du dos: Problematique issues. Rapport final du Programme National de Recherche No. 26B. Bale Editions EULAR. 1996. 11. Manniche, C., ed. Low back pain: Frequency, management and prevention from HTA perspective. 1999, Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment. 12. Borkan, J., Reis, S., Werner, S. et al., Guidelines for treating low back pain in primary care. 1996, The Israeli Low Back Pain Guideline Group. p. 130: 145-51. 13. Koes, B.W., et al., Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine, 2001. 26(22): p. 2504-13; discussion 2513-4. 14. Hayward, R.S., et al., Canadian physicians' attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines. Cmaj, 1997. 156(12): p. 1715-23. 15. Hayward, R.S., Clinical practice guidelines on trial. Cmaj, 1997. 156(12): p. 1725-7. 16. Basinski, A.S., Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Cmaj, 1995. 153(11): p. 1575-81. 17. Steven, I.D. and R.D. Fraser, Clinical practice guidelines. Particular reference to the management of pain in the lumbosacral spine. Spine, 1996. 21(13): p. 1593-6. 18. Burton, A.K. and G. Waddell, Clinical guidelines in the management of low back pain. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol, 1998. 12(1): p. 17-35. 19. Hart, L.G., R.A. Deyo, and D.C. Cherkin, Physician office visits for low back pain. Frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine, 1995. 20(1): p. 11-9. 20. Cherkin, D.C., et al., Physician views about treating low back pain. The results of a national survey. Spine, 1995. 20(1): p. 1-9; discussion 9-10. 21. Bishop, P.B. and P.C. Wing, Compliance with clinical practice guidelines in family physicians managing worker's compensation board patients with acute lower back pain. Spine J, 2003. 3(6): p. 442-50. 22. Gonzalez-Urzelai V, P.-E.L., Lopez-de-Munain J, Routine primary care management of acute lower back pain: adherence to guidelines. Eur Spine J, 2003. 12: p. 589-594. 23. Bishop, P., Badii, M., Wing, P., Implementation of clinical practice guidelines in workers compensation board patients with acute mechanical back pain: a prospective randomized trial. Proceedings of the North American Spine Society 17th Annual Meeting. Spine Journal, 2002. 2: p. 62-63S. 24. Bishop, P.W., PC, The Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Family Physicians Managing Workers' Compensation Board Patients with Acute Lower Back Pain Using Patient Specific Direct Physician to Physician Communication: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Spine, 2003. Submitted. 25. McGuirk, B., et al., Safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care. Spine, 2001. 26(23): p. 2615-22.|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Completed|
|Estimated Enrollment ICMJE||88|
|Completion Date||June 2008|
|Primary Completion Date||June 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
|Ages||19 Years to 65 Years (Adult)|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||No|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||Canada|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT00135239|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||C04-0588|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||Not Provided|
|U.S. FDA-regulated Product||Not Provided|
|Plan to Share Data||Not Provided|
|IPD Description||Not Provided|
|Responsible Party||Dr. Paul Bishop, University of British Columbia|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||University of British Columbia|
|Collaborators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Information Provided By||University of British Columbia|
|Verification Date||June 2008|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP