Logotyp: till Uppsala universitets webbplats

Background. There is a growing consensus on low back pain treatment. However, whether this extends to diagnostic labelling is still largely unknown. The aim of this report was to compare the diagnostic assessment of low back pain patients between general practitioners trained in manual therapy and orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Population-based randomized controlled trial in which 160 patients with acute or sub-acute low back pain were assessed and treated by general practitioners or orthopaedic surgeons. Information on diagnoses and use of diagnostic imaging was obtained from medical records and physician questionnaires covering the ten-week treatment period. The Quebec Task Force classification and free text analysis were used to group diagnostic labels. Results: At baseline there were no significant differences in medical history, findings at physical examination and distribution of the Quebec Task Force diagnostic classification between the patient groups, indicating that they were similar. However, there were significant differences in physicians' use of diagnostic labels for local pain and their characterisation of radiating pain. General practitioners used more terms from manual medicine and reported more pseudoradicular pain than orthopaedic surgeons, who used non-specific pain labels, reported more true radicular pain and used more x-ray examinations. Differences were found at all times from first visit to ten week follow-up. Conclusions: There were significant differences in diagnostic assessment and use of diagnostic radiology between general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a comprehensive manual therapy programme reduces sick leave due low back pain and facilitates return to work more than the conventional optimized activating care. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial over a 10-week period with a two-year follow-up. SETTING: Primary health care and Visby Hospital, Municipality of Gotland, Sweden. SUBJECTS: One hundred and sixty patients (70 women, 90 men, ages 20-55 years) with acute or subacute low back pain with or without pain radiation into the legs. INTERVENTIONS: Standardized optimized activating care (n = 71) versus a comprehensive pragmatic manual therapy programme including specific corticosteroid injections (n = 89). MAIN MEASURES: Sick leave measured as net sick leave volume, point prevalence and return to work. RESULTS: After 10 weeks, significantly more manual therapy patients than reference patients had returned to work (hazards ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.006-2.60, P<0.05), and among those on sick leave at baseline, significantly fewer were still on sick leave (8/58 versus 13/40, ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.97, P<0.05). For all other measures there were inconclusive differences in favour of the manual therapy group. No significant differences remained after two years. CONCLUSIONS: The manual therapy programme used in this study decreased sick leave and increased return to work more than the standardized optimized activating care only up to 10 weeks but not up to two years.