Brennan Gerard P, Fritz Julie M, Hunter Stephen J, Thackeray Anne, Delitto Anthony, Erhard Richard E
Rehab Agency Intermountain Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Mar 15;31(6):623-31. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000202807.72292.a8.
Randomized clinical trial.
Compare outcomes of patients with low back pain receiving treatments matched or unmatched to their subgrouping based on initial clinical presentation.
Patients with "nonspecific" low back pain are often viewed as a homogeneous group, equally likely to respond to any particular intervention. Others have proposed methods for subgrouping patients as a means for determining the treatment most likely to benefit patients with particular characteristics.
Patients with low back pain of less than 90 days' duration referred to physical therapy were examined before treatment and classified into one of three subgroups based on the type of treatment believed most likely to benefit the patient (manipulation, stabilization exercise, or specific exercise). Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation, stabilization exercises, or specific exercise treatment during a 4-week treatment period. Disability was assessed in the short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (1 year) using the Oswestry. Comparisons were made between patients receiving treatment matched to their subgroup, versus those receiving unmatched treatment.
A total of 123 patients participated (mean age, 37.7 +/- 10.7 years; 45% female). Patients receiving matched treatments experienced greater short- and long-term reductions in disability than those receiving unmatched treatments. After 4 weeks, the difference favoring the matched treatment group was 6.6 Oswestry points (95% CI, 0.70-12.5), and at long-term follow-up the difference was 8.3 points (95% CI, 2.5-14.1). Compliers-only analysis of long-term outcomes yielded a similar result.
Nonspecific low back pain should not be viewed as a homogenous condition. Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making.
随机临床试验。
比较基于初始临床表现接受与其亚组匹配或不匹配治疗的腰痛患者的治疗结果。
“非特异性”腰痛患者常被视为一个同质群体,对任何特定干预的反应可能性相同。其他人提出了将患者亚组分类的方法,作为确定最有可能使具有特定特征的患者受益的治疗方法的手段。
转诊至物理治疗的病程少于90天的腰痛患者在治疗前接受检查,并根据最有可能使患者受益的治疗类型(手法治疗、稳定运动或特定运动)分为三个亚组之一。患者在4周的治疗期内被随机分配接受手法治疗、稳定运动或特定运动治疗。使用Oswestry量表在短期(4周)和长期(1年)评估残疾情况。对接受与其亚组匹配治疗的患者与接受不匹配治疗的患者进行比较。
共有123名患者参与(平均年龄37.7±10.7岁;45%为女性)。接受匹配治疗的患者在短期和长期的残疾程度降低幅度均大于接受不匹配治疗的患者。4周后,支持匹配治疗组的差异为6.6个Oswestry评分点(95%CI,0.70-12.5),长期随访时差异为8.3个评分点(95%CI,2.5-14.1)。仅对长期结果进行依从性分析得出了类似结果。
非特异性腰痛不应被视为一种同质疾病。使用亚组分类来指导治疗决策可改善治疗结果。