Study Care Versus Usual Care for Acute Mechanical Lower Back Pain - Full Text View

Sponsored by:	University of British Columbia
Information provided by:	University of British Columbia
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT00135239

Purpose

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.

Condition	Intervention
Low Back Pain, Mechanical	Procedure: Study care Procedure: Usual care

MedlinePlus related topics: Back Injuries Back Pain

U.S. FDA Resources

Study Type:	Interventional
Study Design:	Randomized, Open Label, Active Control, Parallel Assignment, Pharmacokinetics Study
Official Title:	Study Care Versus Usual Care for Acute Mechanical Lower Back Pain

Further study details as provided by University of British Columbia:

Primary Outcome Measures:

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 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:

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 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Estimated Enrollment:	88
Study Start Date:	January 2006
Study Completion Date:	June 2008
Primary Completion Date:	June 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Intervention Details:

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.

Patients randomized to the UC treatment arm will undergo the treatment(s) recommended by their family physicians.

Show Detailed Description

Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:	19 Years to 65 Years
Genders Eligible for Study:	Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:	No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Residents of British Columbia with mechanical lower back pain
Acute lower back pain with symptoms lasting 2-4 weeks
Satisfy the Quebec Task Force Classification of Spinal Disorders Categories 1 and 2

Exclusion Criteria:

Other significant spinal pathology
Pregnancy
Patients with Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) claims
Persistent pain in other areas of the spine

Contacts and Locations

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00135239

Locations

Canada, British Columbia
Medical Rapid Access Spine Clinic
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 3J5

Sponsors and Collaborators

University of British Columbia

Investigators

Principal Investigator:

Dr. Paul Bishop, MD

University of British Columbia

More Information

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.

Responsible Party:	University of British Columbia ( Dr. Paul Bishop )
Study ID Numbers:	C04-0588
Study First Received:	August 23, 2005
Last Updated:	June 16, 2008
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT00135239 History of Changes
Health Authority:	Canada: Health Canada

Keywords provided by University of British Columbia:

back
Lower Mechanical Back Pain
Rehabilitation

Study placed in the following topic categories:

Signs and Symptoms
Neurologic Manifestations
Low Back Pain

Pain
Back Pain
Acetaminophen

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Signs and Symptoms
Nervous System Diseases
Neurologic Manifestations

Low Back Pain
Pain
Back Pain

ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on May 07, 2009