9 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The overall objective of this project is to compare three home-managed treatment regimens for subacute low back pain: Progressive Exercise Plan (PEP), NMES (neuromuscular electrical stimulation) core strength training and standard primary care management (PCM). Each of the two treatment arms will be supplemented by Primary Care Management. The specific aim of the study is to determine whether the two treatment regimes are significantly more efficacious than standard PCM alone in improving lower back muscle strength, daily physical activity, physical function, quality of life, and symptoms associated with subacute LBP.
Recent research has shown that classifying patients with low back pain into treatment subgroups results in better improvements than treating all patients with low back pain the same. However, physical therapists may use different types of information to determine how to classify their patients. One method uses patient characteristics that have been shown by research to predict good results from a certain type of treatment. Another method uses specific impairments that the physical therapist identifies in a clinical exam to determine which treatment to provide. It is not currently known if one of these methods is better than the other. The purpose of this study is to determine if research-based classification or impairment-based treatment is more effective for treating patients with low back pain that has lasted less than 90 days in terms of improvements in pain and disability. The results of this study may help reduce the high financial cost associated with low back pain.
The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of two types of chiropractic spinal manipulation to conservative medical care for patients at least 55 years old with sub-acute or chronic low back pain (LBP).
The investigators would like to know which one of two exercise programs will have a greater effect on balance, functional performance, daily function, and pain on individuals with low back pain (LBP) after 2, 4 and 8 weeks. Specifically, the differences in dynamic balance, functional performance, pain intensity, and disability level will be compared between participants who receive spinal stabilization exercises program (SSE) and those who receive a general exercise program (GE) which includes range-of-motion (ROM) and flexibility exercises. The research hypotheses are: 1. The SSE program will significantly improve dynamic balance and functional performance in adult participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP at two and four weeks as well as after an eight-week follow-up after initiating intervention. 2. The SSE program will significantly improve pain intensity and disability level in adult participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP at two and four weeks as well as after an eight-week follow-up after initiating intervention. 3. In adult participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP, the group receiving the SSE program will demonstrate significantly improved dynamic balance, functional performance, pain intensity and disability levels compared to the placebo group receiving the GE program at two and four weeks as well as after an eight-week follow-up after initiating intervention.
This is a study of adults with acute low back pain flare-up at risk of becoming chronic and disabling. The study tests how well spinal manipulation and guided selfcare work compared to standard medical care. The treatments last up to eight weeks and participants will be followed for one year.
To determine if Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) would result in positive clinical changes in patients presenting with acute or sub-acute low back pain (LBP).
This study will test the hypothesis that Botulinum toxin A (BOTOX®) treatment reduces pain and disability in subjects suffering from sub-acute low back pain due to an identifiable muscle strain or back trauma occurring 6 to 16 weeks prior to enrollment. The study will also delineate the duration of medication effect and control for any placebo or mechanical trigger-point injection effect by employing a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled design.
trigger point dry needling with intramuscular electrical stimulation vs trigger point dry needling
This study proposes to compare two innovative treatment approaches for LBP, both of which focus on delivering individualized care through evidence-based, clinical care pathways. The primary aim of the project is to determine the relative clinical efficacy of 1) chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary, integrative care in 200 patients with sub-acute or chronic LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure in this study is patient-rated back pain. Chiropractic care will include therapies within the professional scope of practice. Integrative, multidisciplinary care will include chiropractic, massage therapy, traditional Chinese medicine (including acupuncture), medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, and patient education. Secondary aims are to assess between group differences in frequency of symptoms, disability, fear avoidance behavior, self efficacy, general health, improvement, patient satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed in the short- and long-term. This innovative study is an exciting collaboration between an experienced and established team of chiropractic, conventional, and CAM professionals dedicated to advancing the care of pervasive and costly LBP conditions. This trial will provide new and important information for all health care providers and LBP patients, informing decision making and improving care delivery systems.