Elsevier

Joint Bone Spine

Volume 79, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 176-185
Joint Bone Spine

Original article
An updated overview of clinical guidelines for chronic low back pain management in primary care

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.03.019Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

In the past decade many countries around the world have produced clinical practice guidelines to assist practitioners in providing a care that is aligned with the best evidence. The aim of this study was to present and compare the most established evidence-based recommendations for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain in primary care derived from current high-quality international guidelines.

Methods

Guidelines published or updated since 2002 were selected by searching PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, guidelines databases, and the World Wide Web. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by three authors independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. Guideline recommendations were synthesized into diagnostic and therapeutic approaches that were supported by strong, moderate or weak evidence.

Results

Thirteen guidelines were included. In general, the quality was satisfactory. Guidelines had highest scores on clarity and presentation and scope and purpose domains, and lowest scores on applicability. There was a strong consensus among all the guidelines particularly regarding the use of diagnostic triage and the assessment of prognostic factors. Consistent therapeutic recommendations were information, exercise therapy, multidisciplinary treatment, and combined physical and psychological interventions.

Conclusion

Compared to previous assessments, the average quality of the guidelines dealing with chronic low back pain has improved. Furthermore, all guidelines are increasingly aligning in providing therapeutic recommendations that are clearly differentiated from those formulated for acute pain. However, there is still a need for improving quality and generating new evidence for this particular condition.

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem affecting both genders and most age groups such that about one in four adults seeks care in a six-month period. LBP has substantial direct and indirect costs to the person, workplace and society [1]. Although most episodes of LBP appear self-limiting [2], recurrence with a variable course is common [3], with 10–15% of cases leading to chronic pain [4]. In order to decrease this burden, the use of interventions with demonstrated effectiveness is essential [5]. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be powerful tools for promoting evidence-based practice (EBP), as they integrate research findings in order to support decision-making. Following the publication of the first LBP guideline in 1987 by the Quebec Task Force, which also highlighted the absence of high-quality evidence [6], there has been a steady worldwide interest on this subject, culminating with the publication of specific CPGs in many countries over the past few years.

Nevertheless, previous reviews [7], [8], [9] reported disappointing results with regard to the methodological quality of guidelines assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument [10]. Furthermore, although many guideline recommendations were similar with respect to diagnosis and therapeutic interventions especially for acute LBP, researchers repeatedly indicated the need to place additional emphasis on differentiating acute from chronic LBP (CLBP) and providing more consistent recommendations for the management of this distinct condition [9]. Recently, separate reviews by Koes et al. [11] and Dagenais et al. [12] structured their findings to provide comprehensive guidance to clinicians. However some important mono- and multidisciplinary guidelines dealing with the management of CLBP were not included. The purpose of the present study was to assess the literature and rate the methodological quality of currently available guidelines for the management of nonspecific CLBP in primary care using the validated AGREE tool, and to provide a specific, updated and evidence-based overview of the most important clinical recommendations regarding the management of this particular condition.

Section snippets

Data sources

CPGs were identified using specific search strategies in various sources:

  • MEDLINE and PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE (from 2002 to December 2010). The search included combinations of the following keywords (MeSH terms): low back pain plus guideline or practice guideline or clinical practice guideline and the same combination using the plural form “guidelines”.

  • Guideline databases (up to December 2010), including the National Guideline Clearinghouse, Canadian Medical Association InfoBase, Guidelines

Selection of guidelines

Our search strategy identified 34 guidelines, of which 21 were potentially relevant but were excluded for different reasons (Fig. 1). Ultimately, 13 guidelines for primary care management of CLBP were included, listed below indicating country and year of publication:

  • Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI); United States, 2008 [20].

  • American College of Physicians (ACP); American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel (APS); United States, 2007 [21].

  • Institute of Health Economics,

Discussion

Currently, many guidelines have directed their attention to CLBP, providing specific recommendations for this particular condition, which still remains a very important clinical challenge in medicine [32]. After the evaluation of 13 international CPGs on the management of nonspecific CLBP using the validated AGREE instrument, this study presents an overview of the most important diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations found within five high-quality guidelines [15], [21], [26], [27], [28].

Disclosure of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Angela Longo and Judith Herlemann for technical support, Chiara Scardoni and Cristian Mugnai for English language editing.

References (40)

  • B.W. Koes et al.

    Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. An international comparison

    Spine

    (2001)
  • M.W. van Tulder et al.

    Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain

    Spine

    (2004)
  • J.M. Arnau et al.

    A critical review of guidelines for low back pain treatment

    Eur Spine J

    (2006)
  • Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project

    Qual Saf Health Care

    (2003)
  • B.W. Koes et al.

    An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care

    Eur Spine J

    (2010)
  • W. Bouwmeester et al.

    Quality of low back pain guidelines improved

    Spine

    (2009)
  • J.C. MacDermid et al.

    Reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument used by physical therapists in assessment of clinical practice guidelines

    BMC Health Serv Res

    (2005)
  • Institute of Health Economics, Toward Optimized Practice (TOP) Program. Guidelines for the Evidence-Informed Primary...
  • N.A. Scott et al.

    Making the AGREE tool more user-friendly: the feasibility of a user guide based on Boolean operators

    J Eval Clin Pract

    (2009)
  • R.S.A. Hayward et al.

    Users’ guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group

    JAMA

    (1995)
  • Cited by (143)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Website: www.unibo.it.

    View full text