Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/ACTRN12610000530022
ACTRN12610000530022
Completed
未知

In patients with acute non-specific low back pain, is an evidence-based protocol of conservative care more effective than usual chiropractic care in improving low back-related pain and disability?

King's College London0 sites98 target enrollmentJune 30, 2010

Overview

Phase
未知
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Not specified
Sponsor
King's College London
Enrollment
98
Status
Completed
Last Updated
6 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

No summary available.

Registry
who.int
Start Date
June 30, 2010
End Date
TBD
Last Updated
6 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Sex
All

Investigators

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Potentially eligible participants were those who:
  • a. Presented with Low Back Pain (LBP) with or without leg pain;
  • b. Had not previously received chiropractic treatment;
  • c. Had not received any treatment for their current episode of Low Back Pain (LBP) or LBP in the last three months;
  • d. Were at least 18 years old, but not older than 60 years; and
  • e. Did not to have any concomitant illness.
  • The key criteria for this diagnosis were (Cassidy et al. 2005; Waddell \& Burton 2005; van Tulder et al. 2006\):
  • 1\. Unilateral or bilateral LBP;
  • 2\. Discomfort and/or tenderness produced by joint challenge and/or joint compression in the low back;
  • 3\. LBP with or without leg pain, where the leg pain is not due to significant neurological or vascular deficit e.g. cauda equina syndrome, central canal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative/ osteophytic nerve root entrapment; and

Exclusion Criteria

  • Exclusion Criteria
  • Patients were not eligible if (adapted from Underwood et al. 2004\):
  • 1\. They were aged over 60 years, because the spinal manipulation package could be more hazardous in older people with osteoporosis;
  • 2\. There was a possibility of serious spinal disorder, including malignancy, osteoporosis, ankylosing spondylitis, cauda equina compression, and infection;
  • 3\. There were any contraindications to the treatment(s), such as acute arthropathies, joint/spinal instability, bone malignancies and metastases, infections of bone and joint, acute myelopathy, demineralization of bone (e.g., osteoporosis), benign bone tumors, abdominal aortic aneurysm, anticoagulant therapy, and blood dyscrasias;
  • 4\. They complained mainly of pain below the knee, as the clinical outcome was likely to be different;
  • 5\. They had previously had spinal surgery, as the clinical outcome was likely to be very different;
  • 6\. They had another musculoskeletal disorder that was more troublesome than their back pain;
  • 7\. They had previously attended, or been referred to, a specialised pain management clinic;
  • 8\. They had a severe psychiatric or psychological disorder;

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Not specified

Similar Trials