Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,903
Online ISSN 1973-9095
Cecchi F. 1, Negrini S. 2, 3, Pasquini G. 1, Paperini A. 1, Conti A. A. 3, Chiti M. 1, Zaina F. 4, Macchi C. 1, 5, Molino-Lova R. 1
1 Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Scientific Institute, Florence, Italy;
2 University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy;
3 Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy;
4 ISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), Milan, Italy;
5 Department of Medical and Surgical Critical Care University of Florence, Florence, Italy
BACKGROUND: Recent studies on chronic low back pain (cLBP) rehabilitation suggest that predictors of treatment outcome may be differ according to the considered conservative treatment.
AIM: To identify predictors of response to back school (BS), individual physiotherapy (IP) or spinal manipulation (SM) for cLBP.
POPULATION: Outpatients with cLBP.
SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation department.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis from a randomized trial.
METHODS: Two hundred and ten patients with cLBP were randomly assigned to either BS, IP or SM; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) was assessed before and after treatment: those who decreased their RM score <2.5 were considered non-responders. Baseline potential predictors of outcome included demographics, general and cLBP history, life satisfaction.
RESULTS: Of the 205 patients who completed treatment (140/205 women, age 58+14 years), non-responders were 72 (34.2%). SM showed the highest functional improvement and the lowest non-response rate. In a multivariable logistic regression, lower baseline RM score (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.89, P<0.001) and received treatment (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, P<0.001) were independent predictors of non-response. Being in the lowest tertile of baseline RM score (<6) predicted non response to treatment for BS and IP, but not for SM (same risk for all tertiles).
CONCLUSION: In our patients with cLBP lower baseline pain-related disability predicted non-response to physiotherapy, but not to spinal manipulation.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our results suggest that, independent form other characteristics, patients with cLBP and low pain-related disability should first consider spinal manipulation as a conservative treatment.