Suppr超能文献

物理治疗转诊从初级保健急性腰痛伴坐骨神经痛:一项随机对照试验。

Physical Therapy Referral From Primary Care for Acute Back Pain With Sciatica : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

College of Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (J.M.F.).

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (E.L., J.S.M., A.T.).

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 2021 Jan;174(1):8-17. doi: 10.7326/M20-4187. Epub 2020 Oct 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined primary care management for acute sciatica, including referral to physical therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether early referral to physical therapy reduced disability more than usual care (UC) alone for patients with acute sciatica.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02391350).

SETTING

2 health care systems in Salt Lake City, Utah.

PATIENTS

220 adults aged 18 to 60 years with sciatica of less than 90 days' duration who were making an initial primary care consultation.

INTERVENTION

All participants received imaging and medication at the discretion of the primary care provider before enrollment. A total of 110 participants randomly assigned to UC were provided 1 session of education, and 110 participants randomly assigned to early physical therapy (EPT) were provided 1 education session and then referred for 4 weeks of physical therapy, including exercise and manual therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW) score after 6 months. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, patient-reported treatment success, health care use, and missed workdays.

RESULTS

Participants in the EPT group had greater improvement from baseline to 6 months for the primary outcome (relative difference, -5.4 points [95% CI, -9.4 to -1.3 points]; = 0.009). The OSW and several secondary outcomes favored EPT after 4 weeks. After 1 year, between-group differences favored EPT for the OSW (relative difference, -4.8 points [CI, -8.9 to -0.7 points]) and back pain intensity (relative difference, -1.0 points [CI, -1.6 to -0.4 points]). The EPT group was more likely to self-report treatment success after 1 year (45.2%) than the UC group (27.6%) (relative risk, 1.6 [CI, 1.1 to 2.4]). There were no significant differences in health care use or missed workdays.

LIMITATION

The patients and providers were unblinded, and specific physical therapy interventions responsible for effects could not be determined.

CONCLUSION

Referral from primary care to physical therapy for recent-onset sciatica improved disability and other outcomes compared with UC.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

摘要

背景

很少有研究探讨急性坐骨神经痛的初级保健管理,包括向物理治疗师转诊。

目的

评估对于急性坐骨神经痛患者,早期向物理治疗师转诊是否比单纯常规护理(UC)更能减轻残疾。

设计

随机对照临床试验。(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02391350)。

地点

犹他州盐湖城的 2 个医疗保健系统。

患者

220 名年龄在 18 至 60 岁之间、坐骨神经痛持续时间少于 90 天的成年人,他们正在进行首次初级保健咨询。

干预

所有参与者在入组前均根据初级保健提供者的判断接受影像学检查和药物治疗。随机分配到 UC 的 110 名参与者接受了 1 次教育,随机分配到早期物理治疗(EPT)的 110 名参与者接受了 1 次教育,然后转诊进行 4 周的物理治疗,包括运动和手法治疗。

测量

主要结果是 6 个月时的 Oswestry 残疾指数(OSW)评分。次要结果是疼痛强度、患者报告的治疗成功率、医疗保健使用和缺勤天数。

结果

EPT 组从基线到 6 个月的主要结果有更大的改善(相对差异,-5.4 分[95%CI,-9.4 至-1.3 分]; = 0.009)。在 4 周时,OSW 和几个次要结果均有利于 EPT。在 1 年时,EPT 组在 OSW(相对差异,-4.8 分[CI,-8.9 至-0.7 分])和背部疼痛强度(相对差异,-1.0 分[CI,-1.6 至-0.4 分])方面的组间差异更有利。与 UC 组(27.6%)相比,EPT 组在 1 年后更有可能自我报告治疗成功(45.2%)(相对风险,1.6[CI,1.1 至 2.4])。在医疗保健使用或缺勤天数方面没有显著差异。

局限性

患者和提供者未设盲,无法确定导致效果的具体物理治疗干预措施。

结论

与 UC 相比,近期发生的坐骨神经痛患者向物理治疗师转诊可改善残疾和其他结局。

主要资金来源

医疗保健研究与质量局。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

3
Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain.管理非特异性下腰痛的护理模式。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Mar 7;3(3):CD015083. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015083.pub2.

本文引用的文献

2
Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica.坐骨神经痛的诊断与治疗
BMJ. 2019 Nov 19;367:l6273. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6273.
3
VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain.VA/DoD 临床实践指南:腰痛的诊断和治疗。
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov;34(11):2620-2629. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05086-4. Epub 2019 Sep 16.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验