Treatment Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Chronic Low Back Pain: a Systematic Review

Rofail, Diana; Myers, Lynn B.

doi:10.4172/2161-0487.1000260

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The day after the procedure when the pain diary was returned, the percentage of pain relief was determined by a disinterested adjudicator based on pre- and postblock pain scores and activity levels, as well as a determination regarding whether the block was positive or negative. The first follow-up was 1-month postblock, at which time the same clinical variables were recorded in addition to a validated 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied) grading satisfaction with back pain treatment outcomes 47 and complications.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation

Cohen¹,

Doshi

Constantinescu

et al. 2018

Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors’ objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes. Methods A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation. Results Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005). Conclusions This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation

Cohen¹,

Doshi

Constantinescu

et al. 2018

Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A benefit of the PGA-LBP is that it is not focused solely on pain or function, but rather addresses all aspects of CLBP (anxiety, depression, socialization, etc.). Studies have demonstrated associations between patient satisfaction with treatment and clinical outcomes [30][31][32], which warranted utilization of the TSQM (a generic measure of treatment satisfaction applicable to any indication or treatment) and the mPRTI to assess preference of study medication relative to medications the patient has used in the past.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Meaningfulness of Response to Tanezumab in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Analysis From a 56-Week, Randomized, Placebo- and Tramadol-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issue of insufficient training of treatment providers has been highlighted in the previous literature 20 . A poor understanding of the various mechanisms of LBP has been reported through several studies [21][22][23] . The complex diagnosis and presence of clinical equipoise of healthcare providers for positive health outcomes in LBP have propelled the stakeholders to consider a multidisciplinary approach to tackle this condition 24,25 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient journey for those with chronic low back pain in Brazil: a semi-systematic review on the best approach

Oliveira

Stump

Rezende³

et al. 2022

Rev. Med. (São Paulo)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Managing patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) in many countries, including Brazil, is a major challenge at the primary and specialty care level. Moreover, the information about epidemiology and patient management with CLBP is sparse. The primary objective of this semi-systematic review was to build local evidence about the prevalence and management pattern of CLBP. Methods. This semi-systematic review used Medline, Embase, and Biosis via Ovid the platform and additional resources (Google, Google Scholar, Incidence and Prevalence Database, World Health Organization, Brazilian Ministry of Health, and anecdotal information from local experts) to identify relevant literature between 2002–2020 to map the patient journey. Original full-text articles from Brazil in English containing data on pre-defined patient journey touchpoints (awareness, screening, diagnosis, treatment, adherence, and control) were screened. Data were synthesized using a simple or weighted mean, as applicable for patient journey components. Results. Of 297 records including those provided by local experts, eight studies were included for analysis. Awareness of CLBP and CLBP-NeP was 30.4% and 12%, respectively. According to published studies, adherence and symptoms control of patients was estimated with a similar percentage of 38% and 18%, respectively for CLBP and CLBP-NeP. CLBP-NeP prevalence (3.6%) was lower than that of CLBP (20.6%). Except for a comparable percentage of the treated population, for CLBP (39.1%) and CLBP-NeP (38%), the percentage of remaining touchpoints are higher in the case of CLBP than in CLBP-NeP, implying an improved patient journey for CLBP. Conclusion. The study highlights the usefulness to improve patient outcomes at the national level by measuring these mapping patient journey touchpoints. The outcome of this evidence-based study was fruitful to bridges the know-do gap in CLBP patients. Therefore, it is recommended to ensure continuing medical education, patient awareness, and health system preparedness while embracing the emerging insights on pain management.

show abstract

Treatment Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Chronic Low Back Pain: a Systematic Review

Cited by 12 publications

References 42 publications

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation

Clinical Meaningfulness of Response to Tanezumab in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Analysis From a 56-Week, Randomized, Placebo- and Tramadol-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

Patient journey for those with chronic low back pain in Brazil: a semi-systematic review on the best approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About