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.

Background Given the prevalence of chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNSNP) internationally, attention has increasingly been paid in recent years to evaluating the efficacy of therapeutic exercise (TE) in the management of this condition. Purpose The purpose of this study was to conduct a current review of randomized controlled trials concerning the effect of TE on pain and disability among people with CNSNP, perform a meta-analysis, and summarize current understanding. Data Sources Data were obtained from MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from their inception to August 2012. Reference lists of relevant literature reviews also were tracked. Study Selection All published randomized trials without any restriction regarding time of publication or language were considered for inclusion. Study participants had to be symptomatic adults with only CNSNP. Data Extraction Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted the quality assessment, and extracted the results. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Data Synthesis Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Therapeutic exercise proved to have medium and significant short-term and intermediate-term effects on pain (g=−0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]=−0.86 to −0.20, and g=−0.45, 95% CI=−0.82 to −0.07, respectively) and medium but not significant short-term and intermediate-term effects on disability (g=−0.39, 95% CI=−0.86 to 0.07, and g=−0.46, 95% CI=−1.00 to −0.08, respectively). Limitations Only one study investigated the effect of TE on pain and disability at follow-up longer than 6 months after intervention. Conclusions Consistent with other reviews, the results support the use of TE in the management of CNSNP. In particular, a significant overall effect size was found supporting TE for its effect on pain in both the short and intermediate terms.

The successfully translated Italian version of the PCS has good psychometric properties replicating those of other versions.

The Italian ODI and RMDQ proved to be sensitive in detecting clinical changes after conservative treatment for subacute and chronic LBP. Our findings are consistent with those published in the literature, thus allowing cross-cultural comparisons and stimulating cross-national studies.

BackgroundThe aim of this non-randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) program as compared to a Stabilization Exercise (SE) program in subjects with persistent low back pain (LBP) at short- and mid-term follow-up (ie. 3 and 6 months).MethodsAccording to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 100 patients with a primary complaint of persistent LBP were enrolled in the study: 50 were allocated to the GPR group and 50 to the SE group. Primary outcome measures were Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were lumbar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Fingertip-to-floor test (FFT). Data were collected at baseline and at 3/6 months by health care professionals unaware of the study. An intention to treat approach was used to analyze participants according to the group to which they were originally assigned.ResultsOf the 100 patients initially included in the study, 78 patients completed the study: 42 in the GPR group and 36 in the SE group. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender, age, BMI and outcome measures. Comparing the differences between groups at short- and mid-term follow-up, the GPR group revealed a significant reduction (from baseline) in all outcome measures with respect to the SE group.The ordered logistic regression model showed an increased likelihood of definitive improvement (reduction from baseline of at least 30% in RMDQ and VAS scores) for the GPR group compared to the SE group (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.7).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a GPR intervention in subjects with persistent LBP induces a greater improvement on pain and disability as compared to a SE program. These results must be confirmed by further studies with higher methodological standards, including randomization, larger sample size, longer follow-up and subgrouping of the LBP subjects.Trial registrationNCT00789204