Documents Hlobil, Hynek 2 results

"Background: The enormous socioeconomic burden of low back pain emphasises the need for effective management of this problem, especially in an occupational context. To address this, occupational guidelines have been issued in various countries.

Aims: To compare available international guidelines dealing with the management of low back pain in an occupational health care setting. Methods: The guidelines were compared regarding generally accepted quality criteria using the AGREE instrument, and also summarised regarding the guideline committee, the presentation, the target group, and assessment and management recommendations (that is, advice, return to work strategy, and treatment).

Results and Conclusions: The results show that the quality criteria were variously met by the guidelines. Common flaws concerned the absence of proper external reviewing in the development process, lack of attention to organisational barriers and cost implications, and lack of information on the extent to which editors and developers were independent. There was general agreement on numerous issues fundamental to occupational health management of back pain. The assessment recommendations consisted of diagnostic triage, screening for "red flags" and neurological problems, and the identification of potential psychosocial and workplace barriers for recovery. The guidelines also agreed on advice that low back pain is a self limiting condition and, importantly, that remaining at work or an early (gradual) return to work, if necessary with modified duties, should be encouraged and supported."

"The effectiveness of return-to-work intervention for subacute low-back pain on work absenteeism, pain severity, and functional status was examined by means of a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Publications in English that met the selection criteria were identified in a computer-aided search and assessed for methodological quality. A best-evidence synthesis was performed instead of statistical data pooling, because of the heterogeneity of the interventions and study populations. Five of nine studies comparing return-to-work intervention with usual care were identified as methodologically high-quality studies. Strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of return to work intervention on the return-to-work rate after 6 months and for the effectiveness of return-to-work intervention on the reduction of days of absence from work after =12 months. It can be concluded that return-to-work interventions are equal or more effective regarding absence from work due to subacute low-back pain than usual care is."(Authors' abstract)