Dataset Information

Comparison of cognitive functional therapy and movement system impairment treatment in chronic low back pain patients: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study aimed to compare the effects of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) and movement system impairment (MSI)-based treatment on pain intensity, disability, Kinesiophobia, and gait kinetics in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP).

Methods

In a single-blind randomized clinical trial, we randomly assigned 91 patients with CNSLBP into CFT (n = 45) and MSI-based treatment (n = 46) groups. An 8-week training intervention was given to both groups. The researchers measured the primary outcome, which was pain intensity (Numeric rating scale), and the secondary outcomes, including disability (Oswestry disability index), Kinesiophobia (Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale), and vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) parameters at self-selected and faster speed (Force distributor treadmill). We evaluated patients at baseline, at the end of the 8-week intervention (post-treatment), and six months after the first treatment. We used mixed-model ANOVA to evaluate the effects of the interaction between time (baseline vs. post-treatment vs. six-month follow-up) and group (CFT vs. MSI-based treatment) on each measure.

Results

CFT showed superiority over MSI-based treatment in reducing pain intensity (P < 0.001, Effect size (ES) = 2.41), ODI (P < 0.001, ES = 2.15), and Kinesiophobia (P < 0.001, ES = 2.47) at eight weeks. The CFT also produced greater improvement in VGRF parameters, at both self-selected (FPF[P < 0.001, ES = 3], SPF[P < 0.001, ES = 0.5], MSF[P < 0.001, ES = 0.67], WAR[P < 0.001, ES = 1.53], POR[P < 0.001, ES = 0.8]), and faster speed, FPF(P < 0.001, ES = 1.33, MSF(P < 0.001, ES = 0.57), WAR(P < 0.001, ES = 0.67), POR(P < 0.001, ES = 2.91)] than the MSI, except SPF(P < 0.001, ES = 0.0) at eight weeks.

Conclusion

This study suggests that the CFT is associated with better results in clinical and cognitive characteristics than the MSI-based treatment for CNSLBP, and the researchers maintained the treatment effects at six-month follow-up. Also, This study achieved better improvements in gait kinetics in CFT. CTF seems to be an appropriate and applicable treatment in clinical setting.

Trial registration

The researchers retrospectively registered the trial 10/11/2022, at https://www.umin.ac.jp/ with identifier number (UMIN000047455).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06815-x.

SUBMITTER: Ahmad S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10463585 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in the management of people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and explore the variability in available trials to understand the factors which may affect the effectiveness of the intervention.MethodsA systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. Four databases were searched from inception to October 12, 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating CFT compared with any control group in patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Mean difference and 95% CIs were calculated for pain, disability, and pain self-efficacy. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsSeven trials were included. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT was effective for disability at short, medium, and long term time points compared with alternate treatments, including usual care. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT is effective for pain in the short and medium terms and probably in the long term. There was high certainty evidence CFT was effective in increasing pain self-efficacy in the medium and long terms. A single study found CFT was cost-effective compared with usual care. Variability was found in the training and implementation of CFT across the included trials, which may contribute to some heterogeneity in the results.ConclusionThe results show promise in the use of CFT as an intervention likely to effectively manage disability, pain, and self-efficacy in people with chronic nonspecific LBP. The number of clinicians trained, their experience, and quality of training (including competency assessment) may be important in achieving optimal effectiveness.ImpactThis is the most comprehensive review of CFT to date and included investigation of between-trial differences. CFT is a promising intervention for chronic LBP and high-quality synthesis of evidence of its effectiveness is important for its clinical application.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with low back pain (LBP) exhibit impaired anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs).ObjectiveTo evaluate whether current motor retraining treatments address LBP-associated changes in movement coordination during tasks that do and do not require APAs.DesignProspectively registered randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.SettingOutcome evaluations occurred in a university laboratory; treatments were carried out in outpatient physical therapy clinics.PatientsFifteen subjects without LBP and 33 subjects with chronic, recurrent, and nonspecific LBP.InterventionTwelve subjects with LBP received stabilization treatment, 21 received movement system impairment-based treatment, for more than 6 weekly 1-hour sessions plus home exercises.MeasurementsPre- and post-treatment, surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded bilaterally from trunk and leg muscles during unsupported and supported leg-lifting tasks, which did and did not require an APA, respectively. Vertical reaction forces under the contralateral leg were recorded to characterize the APA. Oswestry disability scores and numeric pain ratings were also recorded.ResultsPersons with LBP demonstrated an impaired APA compared with persons without LBP, characterized by increased premovement contralateral force application and increased postmovement trunk EMG amplitude, regardless of the task. After treatments, both groups similarly improved in disability and function; however, APA characteristics did not change (ie, force application or EMG amplitude) in either task.LimitationsTreating clinicians were not blinded to treatment allocation, only short-term outcomes were assessed, and main effects of treatment do not rule out nonspecific effects of time or repeated exposure.ConclusionsMovement impairments in persons with LBP are not limited to tasks requiring an APA. Stabilization and movement system impairment-based treatments for LBP do not ameliorate and may exacerbate APA impairments (ie, excessive force application and increased post-movement trunk muscle activation).

Project description:Background/Objectives: There is emerging evidence that task-specific pain-related psychological measures may better predict movement behaviour in chronic low back pain (CLBP) than general pain-related psychological measures. Currently, little is known regarding the prediction of movement duration and movement velocity. Methods: Baseline data from a previously published randomized controlled trial were used (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160). Fifty-five patients with CLBP and 54 pain-free persons performed a lifting task while kinematic measurements were obtained to calculate movement velocity of the L1 vertebra, S1 vertebra, and the lumbar spine, as well as the time to complete the lifting task. Scores on the Photograph Daily Activities Series-Short Electronic Version (PHODA-SeV), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and its Activity Avoidance and Somatic Focus subscales were used as general pain-related psychological measures. The score on a picture of the PHODA-SeV, showing a person lifting an object with a bent back (PHODA-Lift), was used as task-specific measure of perceived harmfulness. Results: The task-specific measure best predicted movement duration and movement velocity of L1 and the lumbar spine, and explained 35%, 19%, and 25% of the respective movement parameters. Although general perceived harmfulness predicted S1 velocity and movement duration, it only explained 6% and 8% of the respective movement parameters. General measures of pain-related fear were not predictive for any of the movement parameters. It took patients with CLBP significantly longer to complete the lifting task when compared to the pain-free participants (ES = 1.01, p < 0.0001), and patients with CLBP also moved significantly slower at L1 (ES = 0.85, p < 0.0001) and the lumbar spine (ES = 1.01, p < 0.0001). These between-groups differences were larger for CLBP subgroups with higher scores on the PHODA-Lift, and to some extent for subgroups with higher total scores on the PHODA-SeV. Conclusions: Task-specific perceived harmfulness best predicts movement velocity. General pain-related fear measures (i.e., TSK and its subscales) do not predict these movement parameters.

Project description:Despite a large body of evidence demonstrating spinal movement alterations in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is still a lack of understanding of the role of spinal movement behavior on LBP symptoms development or recovery. One reason for this may be that spinal movement has been studied during various functional tasks without knowing if the tasks are interchangeable, limiting data consolidation steps. The first objective of this cross-sectional study was to analyze the influence of the functional tasks on the information carried by spinal movement measures. To this end, we first analyzed the relationships in spinal movement between various functional tasks in patients with CLBP using Pearson correlations. Second, we compared the performance of spinal movement measures to differentiate patients with CLBP from asymptomatic controls among tasks. The second objective of the study was to develop task-independent measures of spinal movement and determine the construct validity of the approach. Five functional tasks primarily involving sagittal-plane movement were recorded for 52 patients with CLBP and 20 asymptomatic controls. Twelve measures were used to describe the sagittal-plane angular amplitude and velocity at the lower and upper lumbar spine as well as the activity of the erector spinae. Correlations between tasks were statistically significant in 91 out of 99 cases (0.31 ≤ r ≤ 0.96, all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) to differentiate groups did not differ substantially between tasks in most of the comparisons (82% had a difference in AUC of ≤0.1). The task-independent measures of spinal movement demonstrated equivalent or higher performance to differentiate groups than functional tasks alone. In conclusion, these findings support the existence of an individual spinal movement signature in patients with CLBP, and a limited influence of the tasks on the information carried by the movement measures, at least for the twelve common sagittal-plane measures analysed in this study. Therefore, this work brought critical insight for the interpretation of data in literature reporting differing tasks and for the design of future studies. The results also supported the construct validity of task-independent measures of spinal movement and encouraged its consideration in the future.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally and its costs exceed those of cancer and diabetes combined. Recent evidence suggests that individualised cognitive and movement rehabilitation combined with lifestyle advice (cognitive functional therapy (CFT)) may produce larger and more sustained effects than traditional approaches, and movement sensor biofeedback may enhance outcomes. Therefore, this three-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the clinical effectiveness and economic efficiency of individualised CFT delivered with or without movement sensor biofeedback, with usual care for patients with chronic, disabling LBP.Methods and analysisPragmatic, three-arm, randomised, parallel group, superiority RCT comparing usual care (n=164) with CFT (n=164) and CFT-plus-movement-sensor-biofeedback (n=164). Inclusion criteria include: adults with a current episode of LBP >3 months; sought primary care ≥6 weeks ago for this episode of LBP; average LBP intensity of ≥4 (0-10 scale); at least moderate pain-related interference with work or daily activities. The CFT-only and CFT-plus-movement-sensor-biofeedback participants will receive seven treatment sessions over 12 weeks plus a 'booster' session at 26 weeks. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 13, 26, 40 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome is pain-related physical activity limitation (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). Linear mixed models will be used to assess the effect of treatment on physical activity limitation across all time points, with the primary comparison being a formal test of adjusted mean differences between groups at 13 weeks. For the economic (cost-utility) analysis, the primary outcome of clinical effect will be quality-adjusted life years measured across the 12-month follow-up using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L .Ethics and disseminationApproved by Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2018-0062, 6 Feb 2018). Study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001396213).