Active clinical trials for "Back Pain"

This research aimed to determine the impacts of KT and balance exercises in patients with CLBP of SIJ dysfunction.

Pathomechanism of nonspecific low back pain is not clear for the researchers yet. Our aim is to evaluate the function of one of the stabilizer muscles of the low back area. Diaphragm's postural function is evident. However, we do not understand its changes of function in low back pain. Postural function of diaphragm was screened in supine position and in sitting too in a relaxed and in a contracted state. The thickness of diaphragm was measured and contraction ratio was calculated. Additionally, the stability limits of the trunk were measured. We were curios about the differencies in contraction ratio between asymptomatic and low back pain individuals.

Low back pain is the fifth most common reason for doctor visits, affecting about 60-80% of people in their lifetime. Despite this, there are not enough diagnostic and treatment methods in the literature to fully elucidate non-specific low back pain. In this case, the research showed that non-specific low back pain should be handled with a biopsychosocial approach, and its relationship with fascia and myofascial meridians should be investigated.

Multiple Sclerosis is known as an inflammatory central nervous system disease characterized by demyelination and axonal damage.

Participants with chronic back pain will complete an online prescreen. They will then be randomized to one of two different studies: a placebo vs. waitlist study or a psychotherapy vs. waitlist study, with randomization stratified on pain intensity, age, gender, and opioid use. Participants will then complete an in-person eligibility session, and eligible participants will be scheduled for the baseline assessment session. Following the baseline assessment session, participants will then be randomized to the treatment group or the waitlist group (with a ratio of 2:1 treatment:waitlist), using a computer-generated random sequence. This scheme will result in three equally sized groups-placebo, psychotherapy, and waitlist-as the investigators will collapse data from the waitlist arms in the two studies for analyses. The investigators do not use a standard three-way randomization because the investigators do not want placebo participants to think they are in a control condition. Thus, the investigators constrain participant's expectations to either injection vs. waitlist or to psychotherapy vs. waitlist. The placebo treatment is a subcutaneous injection of saline into the back. Participants will know that the treatment is a placebo, i.e., it is an "open label" placebo. Psychotherapy (8 sessions) will be supervised by Alan Gordon and Howard Schubiner. Functional MRI brain imaging, self-reported clinical outcomes, and behavioral measures will be collected pre- and post-treatment. A brief follow-up survey will be sent at months 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 after the final assessment session. These will provide longer term data about the trajectory and durability of patient improvement. Additionally, a group of healthy controls, with no history of back pain, will complete the baseline assessment. They will serve as a comparison group to probe whether the patterns of observed brain activity is specific to CBP patients.

Patients with low back pain and coexisting psychosocial risk factors have a poorer prognosis in terms of quality of life, disability, sick leave and health care use. Despite existing literature showing that low back pain patients benefit from cognitive therapy interventions, this has not been investigated in subgroups of low back pain patients with psychosocial risk factors. The purpose of the study is to investigate whether patients referred to secondary care with low back pain and coexisting psychosocial risk factors will have a better treatment outcome when participating in a pain management course in addition to usual care. This will be investigated in a randomised study design, where 130 patients with chronic low back pain and psychosocial risk factors will be randomly allocated to either usual care or a cognitive-therapy based pain management intervention in addition to usual care. The patients will be followed for one year after inclusion, and patientreported outcomes on disability, pain, sick leave, quality of life and pain coping will be collected by the use of questionnaires at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

This study evaluates the influence of stress on inflammation and the symptomatology of the patient with back pain. Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) will be used in half of participants, a validated psychopedagogical intervention for stress reduction, and the participants assigned to the control group will follow the usual treatment, according to their diagnosis.

In this study the feasibility is investigated of a 16-week supervised heavy resistance training program with weekly undulating periodization for individuals with persistent non-specific low-back pain.

A total of 200 participants are predicted to be enrolled for completing questionnaires in relation of visual analogue scale, back pain disability and autonomy in a central rehabilitation center in Tirana, Albania. A feasibility, validate, test-retest reliability and observational design is estimated.

Our purpose is to conduct a pilot study to evaluate GDS muscle and articulation chain treatment for inoperable spine patients with degenerative changes in the lumbar spine, compared to "standard treatment" (any other chosen treatment). The pilot study will be conducted as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate feasibility and benefit of GDS muscle and articulation chain treatment on pain, function and quality of life. The pilot study will form the basis for a later full-scale randomized study and the following research questions will be addressed: To what extent were the criteria for inclusion in the study suitable? How did the recruitment procedure work? How did the participants experience GDS treatment? To what extent were the selected outcome measures suitable at the different evaluation moments, and which outcome measure tested in this pilot study would be most suitable as primary outcome measure in a full-scale study? (user experience will be included in the evaluation) How was the change in the primary outcome measure (Oswestry Disability Index)? What will be the estimated time for inclusion of the required number of participants in a full-scale study? (required sample size will be based on strength calculation /saving of the outcome target chosen as primary outcome measure for full scale study) The study is a pilot study with a randomized controlled design, with follow-up after 3-4 months. Thirty patients are recruited and receive baseline examination and respond to the questionnaires before randomization. The patients receive a questionnaire by mail 3-4 months after inclusion (after the treatment is completed for intervention group ). The pilot study will be one-way blinded.