Blomberg S, Svärdsudd K, Tibblin G
Department of Family Medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Eur Spine J. 1994;3(5):246-54. doi: 10.1007/BF02226573.
A total of 101 outpatients with acute or sub-acute low-back pain was randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups. One group was given standardised conventional and optimised activating treatment by primary health care teams. The other group received, according to a pragmatic approach, another treatment programme including manipulation, specific mobilisation, muscle stretching, autotraction and cortisone injections. The treatment effect was evaluated by standardised telephone interviews 3, 7, 14, 21 and 90 days after the start of treatment. The two groups were similar in most of the pretrial variables, including age, sex, occupation, education, previous low-back pain problems, previous treatment, sick-leave, findings at the physical examination, quality-of-life score, presence of common symptoms, disability rating and pain score. In the early phase as well as at the 90 days' follow-up, the group receiving manual therapy had significantly less pain, less disability, faster rate of recovery and lower drug consumption, indicating that this type of treatment is superior to conventional treatment.
共有101名急性或亚急性下背痛门诊患者被随机分配到两个治疗组之一。一组由初级卫生保健团队给予标准化的常规和优化激活治疗。另一组根据实用方法接受另一种治疗方案,包括手法治疗、特定松动术、肌肉拉伸、自动牵引和皮质类固醇注射。在治疗开始后3天、7天、14天、21天和90天通过标准化电话访谈评估治疗效果。两组在大多数治疗前变量方面相似,包括年龄、性别、职业、教育程度、既往下背痛问题、既往治疗、病假、体格检查结果、生活质量评分、常见症状的存在、残疾评级和疼痛评分。在早期阶段以及90天随访时,接受手法治疗的组疼痛明显减轻、残疾程度降低、恢复速度更快且药物消耗量更低,表明这种治疗类型优于传统治疗。