Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 11: 169, 2010 Jul 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20650012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend that the initial treatment of acute low back pain (LBP) should consist of advice to stay active and regular simple analgesics such as paracetamol 4 g daily. Despite this recommendation in all international LBP guidelines there are no placebo controlled trials assessing the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP at any dose or dose regimen. This study aims to determine whether 4 g of paracetamol daily (in divided doses) results in a more rapid recovery from acute LBP than placebo. A secondary aim is to determine if ingesting paracetamol in a time-contingent manner is more effective than paracetamol taken when required (PRN) for recovery from acute LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a randomised double dummy placebo controlled trial. 1650 care seeking people with significant acute LBP will be recruited. All participants will receive advice to stay active and will be randomised to 1 of 3 treatment groups: time-contingent paracetamol dose regimen (plus placebo PRN paracetamol), PRN paracetamol (plus placebo time-contingent paracetamol) or a double placebo study arm. The primary outcome will be time (days) to recovery from pain recorded in a daily pain diary. Other outcomes will be pain intensity, disability, function, global perceived effect and sleep quality, captured at baseline and at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 12 by an assessor blind to treatment allocation. An economic analysis will be conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment from the health sector and societal perspectives. DISCUSSION: The successful completion of the trial will provide the first high quality evidence on the effectiveness of the use of paracetamol, a guideline endorsed treatment for acute LBP.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen/administration & dosage , Analgesia/methods , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/administration & dosage , Low Back Pain/drug therapy , Acetaminophen/adverse effects , Acetaminophen/economics , Activities of Daily Living/psychology , Acute Disease , Analgesia/economics , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/adverse effects , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/economics , Clinical Protocols/standards , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Low Back Pain/economics , Low Back Pain/psychology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/economics , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Pain Measurement/economics , Pain Measurement/methods , Placebo Effect , Placebos
2.
Lancet ; 370(9599): 1638-43, 2007 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17993364

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate whether the addition of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, would result in faster recovery for patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care. METHODS: 240 patients with acute low back pain who had seen their general practitioner and had been given advice and paracetamol were randomly allocated to one of four groups in our community-based study: diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and placebo manipulative therapy (n=60); spinal manipulative therapy and placebo drug (n=60); diclofenac 50 mg twice daily and spinal manipulative therapy (n=60); or double placebo (n=60). The primary outcome was days to recovery from pain assessed by survival curves (log-rank test) in an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN012605000036617. FINDINGS: Neither diclofenac nor spinal manipulative therapy appreciably reduced the number of days until recovery compared with placebo drug or placebo manipulative therapy (diclofenac hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.42, p=0.516; spinal manipulative therapy hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, p=0.955). 237 patients (99%) either recovered or were censored 12 weeks after randomisation. 22 patients had possible adverse reactions including gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness, and heart palpitations. Half of these patients were in the active diclofenac group, the other half were taking placebo. One patient taking active diclofenac had a suspected hypersensitivity reaction and ceased treatment. INTERPRETATION: Patients with acute low back pain receiving recommended first-line care do not recover more quickly with the addition of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Acute Disease/therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Diclofenac/therapeutic use , Low Back Pain/drug therapy , Manipulation, Spinal/methods , Adult , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Male , Treatment Outcome
3.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 6: 57, 2005 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16280089

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain is a common condition resulting in pain and disability. Current national and international guidelines advocate general practitioner care including advice and paracetamol (4 g daily in otherwise well adults) as the first line of care for people with acute low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are advocated in many guidelines as second line management options for patients with acute low back pain who are not recovering. No studies have explored the role of NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to first line management for acute low back pain. The primary aim of this study is to investigate if NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to general practitioner advice and paracetamol results in shorter recovery times for patients with acute low back pain. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether the addition of SMT and/or NSAIDs influences pain, disability and global perceived effect at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks after onset of therapy for patients with significant acute low back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial examining the addition of NSAIDs and/or SMT in 240 people who present to their general practitioner with significant acute low back pain.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Low Back Pain/therapy , Manipulation, Spinal , Research Design , Acute Disease , Humans , Low Back Pain/drug therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...