To determine whether there is a difference between patients with low back pain and healthy controls in a test battery score for movement control of the lumbar spine.

Movement control dysfunction [MCD] reduces active control of movements. Patients with MCD might form an important subgroup among patients with non specific low back pain. The diagnosis is based on the observation of active movements. Although widely used clinically, only a few studies have been performed to determine the test reliability. The aim of this study was to determine the inter- and intra-observer reliability of movement control dysfunction tests of the lumbar spine.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major health problem. Identification of subgroups and appropriate treatment regimen was proposed as a key priority by the Cochrane Back Review Group. We developed a multimodal treatment (MMT) for patients with moderate to severe disability and medium risk of poor outcome. MMT includes a) neurophysiological education on the perception of pain to decrease self-limitation due to catastrophizing believes about the nature of NSCLBP, b) sensory training of the lower trunk because these patients predominantly show poor sensory acuity of the trunk, and c) motor training to regain definite movement control of the trunk. A pilot study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of MMT, prior to a larger RCT, with focus on patients’ adherence and the evaluation of short-term effects on pain and disability of MMT when compared to usual physiotherapy. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a primary care physiotherapy centre in Switzerland. Outcome assessment was 12 weeks after baseline. Patients with NSCLBP, considerable disability (five or more points on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and medium or high risk of poor outcome on the Keele Start Back Tool (KSBT) were randomly allocated to either MMT or usual physiotherapy treatment (UPT) by an independent research assistant. Treatment included up to 16 sessions over 8 to 12 weeks. Both groups were given additional home training of 10 to 30 minutes to be performed five times per week. Adherence to treatment was evaluated in order to assess the feasibility of the treatment. Assessments were conducted by an independent blinded person. The primary outcome was pain (NRS 0-10) and the secondary outcome was disability (RMDQ). Between-group effects with Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test and the standardized mean difference of the primary outcome were calculated. Twenty-eight patients (46% male, mean age 41.5 years (SD 10.6)) were randomized to MMT (n = 14) or UPT (n = 14). Patients’ adherence to treatment was >80% in both groups. Pain reduction (NRS; [95% CI]) was 2.14 [1.0 to 3.5] in the MMT and 0.69 [-2.0 to 2.5.] in the UPT. The between-group difference was 1.45 [0.0 to 4.0] (p = 0.03), representing a moderate effect size of 0.66 [-0.1 to 1.5]. Reduction in disability on the RMDQ was 6.71 [4.2 to 9.3] in MMT and 4.69 [1.9 to 7.4] in UPT, with a non-significant between-group difference of 2.02 [-1.5 to 5.6] (p = 0.25). The required sample size for a RCT with six months follow-up was estimated at 170 patients. MMT was found to be feasible and to significantly reduce pain in the short term when compared with UPT. A future RCT with a six-month follow-up would require approximately 170 patients. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66262199 . Registered 8 January 2014.

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine is an international peer-review journal published in English, with at least 10 issues published per year.

To investigate whether exercise alone or as a part of a multidisciplinary treatment reduces sick leave in patients with non-specific non-acute low back pain. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed. A qualitative analysis of the sick leave results was performed applying pre-defined levels of evidence. In studies comparing exercise with usual care, pooled effect sizes were computed. Fourteen trials were identified allowing 22 comparisons between treatments. The qualitative and the quantitative analysis showed strong evidence that exercise reduces sick days during the first follow-up year, the effect size (95% confidence interval) was -0.24 ( -0.36, -0.11). In a subgroup of studies on the treatment of severely disabled patients (> 90 sick days under usual care) the effect size was -0.30 (-0.42, -0.17). The effect size of the number of patients receiving a disability allowance was small and not significant. The reviewed trials provide strong evidence that exercise significantly reduces sick days during the first follow-up year.