Objective The original European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for managing fibromyalgia assessed evidence up to 2005. The paucity of studies meant that most recommendations were ‘expert opinion’. Methods A multidisciplinary group from 12 countries assessed evidence with a focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerned with pharmacological/non-pharmacological management for fibromyalgia. A review, in May 2015, identified eligible publications and key outcomes assessed were pain, fatigue, sleep and daily functioning. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used for making recommendations. Results 2979 titles were identified: from these 275 full papers were selected for review and 107 reviews (and/or meta-analyses) evaluated as eligible. Based on meta-analyses, the only ‘strong for’ therapy-based recommendation in the guidelines was exercise. Based on expert opinion, a graduated approach, the following four main stages are suggested underpinned by shared decision-making with patients. Initial management should involve patient education and focus on non-pharmacological therapies. In case of non-response, further therapies (all of which were evaluated as ‘weak for’ based on meta-analyses) should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual and may involve psychological therapies (for mood disorders and unhelpful coping strategies), pharmacotherapy (for severe pain or sleep disturbance) and/or a multimodal rehabilitation programme (for severe disability). Conclusions These recommendations are underpinned by high-quality reviews and meta-analyses. The size of effect for most treatments is relatively modest. We propose research priorities clarifying who will benefit from specific interventions, their effect in combination and organisation of healthcare systems to optimise outcome.

Objectives. For effective health care provision, knowledge of disease prevalence is paramount. There has been no systematic endeavour to establish continent-based AS estimates, however, prevalence is thought to vary by country and background HLA-B27 prevalence. This study aimed to estimate AS prevalence worldwide and to calculate the expected number of cases. Methods. A systematic literature search was conducted. Prevalence data were extracted and used to calculate the mean prevalence by continent and the expected number of cases based on country-specific prevalence (or, if missing, the prevalence from neighbouring countries). A second estimate was made using the prevalence from countries with similar HLA-B27 prevalences if a country-specific prevalence estimate was not available. Results. The mean AS prevalence per 10 000 (from 36 eligible studies) was 23.8 in Europe, 16.7 in Asia, 31.9 in North America, 10.2 in Latin America and 7.4 in Africa. Additional estimates, weighted by study size, were calculated as 18.6, 18.0 and 12.2 for Europe, Asia and Latin America, respectively. There were sufficient studies to estimate the number of cases in Europe and Asia, calculated to be 1.30–1.56 million and 4.63–4.98 million, respectively. Conclusion. This study represents the first systematic attempt to collate estimates of AS prevalence into a single continent-based estimate. In addition, the number of expected cases in Europe and Asia was estimated. Through reviewing the current literature, it is apparent that the continuing conduct of epidemiological studies of AS prevalence is of great importance, particularly as diagnostic capabilities improve and with the recent development of the criteria for axial SpA.

Study Design. A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. Objective. To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. Summary of Background Data. Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. Methods. Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. Results. Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. Conclusion. These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.

Objectives: To investigate the claim that 90% of episodes of low back pain that present to general practice have resolved within one month. Design: Prospective study of all adults consulting in general practice because of low back pain over 12 months with follow up at 1 week, 3 months, and 12 months after consultation. Setting: Two general practices in south Manchester. Subjects: 490 subjects (203 men, 287 women) aged 18-75 years. Main outcome measures: Proportion of patients who have ceased to consult with low back pain after 3 months; proportion of patients who are free of pain and back related disability at 3 and 12 months. Results: Annual cumulative consultation rate among adults in the practices was 6.4%. Of the 463 patients who consulted with a new episode of low back pain, 275 (59%) had only a single consultation, and 150 (32%) had repeat consultations confined to the 3 months after initial consultation. However, of those interviewed at 3 and 12 months follow up, only 39/188 (21%) and 42/170 (25%) respectively had completely recovered in terms of pain and disability. Conclusions: The results are consistent with the interpretation that 90% of patients with low back pain in primary care will have stopped consulting with symptoms within three months. However most will still be experiencing low back pain and related disability one year after consultation. Key messages: It is widely believed that 90% of episodes of low back pain seen in general practice resolve within one month In a large population based study we examined the outcome of episodes of low back pain in general practice with respect to both consultation behaviour and self reported pain and disability While 90% of subjects consulting general practice with low back pain ceased to consult about the symptoms within three months, most still had substantial low back pain and related disability Only 25% of the patients who consulted about low back pain had fully recovered 12 months later Since most consulters continue to have long term low back pain and disability, effective early treatment could reduce the burden of these symptoms and their social, economic, and medical impact