Diagnosis and Management of Acute Low Back Pain

ATUL T. PATEL, M.D., and ABNA A. OGLE, M.D., University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas

Am Fam Physician. 2000 Mar 15;61(6):1779-1786.

See related patient information handout on acute low back pain, prepared by Courtney Brooks, a medical editing clerkship student at Georgetown University Medical Center.

Article Sections

  • Abstract
  • Evaluation of Low Back Pain
  • Management of Acute Low Back Pain
  • Final Comment
  • References

Acute low back pain is commonly encountered in primary care practice but the specific cause often cannot be identified. This ailment has a benign course in 90 percent of patients. Recurrences and functional limitations can be minimized with appropriate conservative management, including medications, physical therapy modalities, exercise and patient education. Radiographs and laboratory tests are generally unnecessary, except in the few patients in whom a serious cause is suspected based on a comprehensive history and physical examination. Serious causes that need to be considered include infection, malignancy, rheumatologic diseases and neurologic disorders. Patients with suspected cauda equina lesions should undergo immediate surgical investigation. Surgical evaluation is also indicated in patients with worsening neurologic deficits or intractable pain that is resistant to conservative treatment. The current recommendation is two or three days of bed rest for patients with acute radiculopathy. The treatment plan should be reassessed in patients who do not return to normal activity within four to six weeks.

Acute low back pain is the fifth most common reason for all physician visits.1 Even though this ailment usually has a benign course, it is responsible for direct health care expenditures of more than $20 billion annually and as much as $50 billion per year when indirect costs are included.2

In the United States, approximately 90 percent of adults experience back pain at some time in life,3 and 50 percent of persons in the working population have back pain every year.4 As many as 90 percent of patients with acute back pain return to work within three months, but many experience symptom recurrence and functional limitations.5

Evaluation of Low Back Pain

  • Abstract
  • Evaluation of Low Back Pain
  • Management of Acute Low Back Pain
  • Final Comment
  • References

In primary care practice, the specific anatomic cause of back pain is often impossible to define, and only a small percentage of patients have an identifiable underlying cause. Fewer than 2 percent of patients have disc herniation.3 Even fewer have a life-threatening disease. Most patients with acute low back pain improve with conservative management and do not require immediate diagnostic studies.

A comprehensive history and physical examination can identify the small percentage of patients with serious conditions that require immediate further evaluation (Table 1). These conditions include infection, malignancy, rheumatologic diseases and neurologic disorders. The possibility of referred pain from other organ systems should also be considered.

TABLE 1

Differential Diagnosis of Acute Low Back Pain

Disease or condition Patient age (years) Location of pain Quality of pain Aggravating or relieving factors Signs

Back strain

20 to 40

Low back, buttock, posterior thigh

Ache, spasm

Increased with activity or bending

Local tenderness, limited spinal motion

Acute disc herniation

30 to 50

Low back to lower leg

Sharp, shooting or burning pain, paresthesia in leg

Decreased with standing; increased with bending or sitting

Positive straight leg raise test, weakness, asymmetric reflexes

Osteoarthritis or spinal stenosis

>50

Low back to lower leg; often bilateral

Ache, shooting pain, "pins and needles" sensation

Increased with walking, especially up an incline; decreased with sitting

Mild decrease in extension of spine; may have weakness or asymmetric reflexes

Spondylolisthesis

Any age

Back, posterior thigh

Ache

Increased with activity or bending

Exaggeration of the lumbar curve, palpable "step off" (defect between spinous processes), tight hamstrings

Ankylosing spondylitis

15 to 40

Sacroiliac joints, lumbar spine

Ache

Morning stiffness

Decreased back motion, tenderness over sacroiliac joints

Infection

Any age

Lumbar spine, sacrum

Sharp pain, ache

Varies

Fever, percussive tenderness; may have neurologic abnormalities or decreased motion

Malignancy

>50

Affected bone(s)

Dull ache, throbbing pain; slowly progressive

Increased with recumbency or cough

May have localized tenderness, neurologic signs or fever

HISTORY

The history and review of systems include patient age, constitutional symptoms and the presence of night pain, bone pain or morning stiffness (Table 2). The patient should be asked about the occurrence of visceral pain, symptoms of claudication and neurologic symptoms such as numbness, weakness, radiating pain, and bowel and bladder dysfunction.

TABLE 2

Key Aspects of the History and Physical Examination in the Patient with Acute Low Back Pain

History

Onset of pain (e.g., time of day, activity)

Location of pain (e.g., specific site, radiation of pain)

Type and character of pain (sharp, dull, etc.)

Aggravating and relieving factors

Medical history, including previous injuries

Psychosocial stressors at home or work

"Red flags": age greater than 50 years, fever, weight loss

Physical examination

Informal observation (e.g., patient's posture, expressions, pain behavior)

Comprehensive general physical examination, with attention to specific areas as indicated by the history

Neurologic evaluation

Back examination

Palpation

Range of motion or painful arc

Stance

Gait

Mobility (test by having the patient sit, lie down and stand up)

Straight leg raise test

It is also important to inquire about the specific characteristics and severity of the pain, a history of trauma, previous therapy and its efficacy, and the functional impact of the pain on the patient's work and activities of daily living. An assessment of social and psychologic factors (e.g., depression) may yield information that affects the treatment plan.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

As part of the initial evaluation, the physician should perform a thorough neurologic examination to assess deep tendon reflexes, sensation and muscle strength (Table 2). Peripheral pulses should also be assessed, and the abdomen should be palpated to search for organomegaly. The physician should assess joint and muscle flexibility in the lower extremities, examine the entire spine and assess stance, posture, gait and straight leg raising.

At subsequent visits, further assessment and a comprehensive evaluation can be carried out based on the history and persistence of symptoms. Functional overlay, or signs of excessive pain behavior, should be assessed. Physiologic plausibility and consistency of physical findings should be addressed. "Non-organic" signs of physical impairment have been described (Table 3).6–8 The presence of three or more of these signs is thought to suggest a nonphysiologic element of the patient's presentation. In this situation, further psychologic testing and/or behavioral intervention may be warranted.

TABLE 3

Waddell Signs: Nonorganic Signs Indicating the Presence of a Functional Component of Back Pain

Superficial, nonanatomic tenderness

Pain with simulated testing (e.g., axial loading or pelvic rotation)

Inconsistent responses with distraction (e.g., straight leg raises while the patient is sitting)

Nonorganic regional disturbances (e.g., nondermatomal sensory loss)

Overreaction

LABORATORY TESTS

The comprehensive evaluation may include a complete blood count, determination of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and other specific tests as indicated by the clinical evaluation. In particular, these tests are useful when infection or malignancy is considered a possible cause of a patient's back pain.

RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION

Plain-film radiography is rarely useful in the initial evaluation of patients with acute-onset low back pain. At least two large retrospective studies have demonstrated the low yield of lumbar spine radiographs.9,10 In one of these studies, plain-film radiographs were normal or demonstrated changes of equivocal clinical significance in more than 75 percent of patients with low back pain.9 The other study found that oblique views of the spine uncovered useful information in fewer than 3 percent of patients.10

At the first visit, anteroposterior and lateral radiographs should be considered in patients who meet any of the criteria listed in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Indications for Radiographs in the Patient with Acute Low Back Pain

History of significant trauma

Neurologic deficits

Systemic symptoms

Temperature greater than 38°C (100.4°F)

Unexplained weight loss

Medical history

Cancer

Corticosteroid use

Drug or alcohol abuse

Ankylosing spondylitis suspected

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC SCANNING

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomographic (CT) scanning have been found to demonstrate abnormalities in "normal" asymptomatic people.11–13 Thus, positive findings in patients with back pain are frequently of questionable clinical significance. In one study, MRI scans revealed herniated discs in approximately 25 percent of asymptomatic persons less than 60 years of age and in 33 percent of those more than 60 years of age.12 Clearly, the presence of abnormalities does not correlate well with clinical symptoms.

MRI uses no ionizing radiation and is better at imaging soft tissue (e.g., herniated discs, tumors). CT scanning provides better imaging of cortical bone (e.g., osteoarthritis). Compared with MRI, CT scanning is less sensitive to patient movement and is also less expensive.

MRI or CT studies should be considered in patients with worsening neurologic deficits or a suspected systemic cause of back pain such as infection or neoplasm. These imaging studies may also be appropriate when referral for surgery is a possibility.

BONE SCINTIGRAPHY

Bone scintigraphy, or bone scanning, can be useful when radiographs of the spine are normal but the clinical findings are suspicious for osteomyelitis, bony neoplasm or occult fracture. However, this technique is unlikely to demonstrate bone changes when radiographs and the erythrocyte sedimentation rates are normal.

PHYSIOLOGIC ASSESSMENT

Electrodiagnostic assessments such as needle electromyography and nerve conduction studies are useful in differentiating peripheral neuropathy from radiculopathy or myopathy. If timed appropriately, these studies are helpful in confirming the working diagnosis and identifying the presence or absence of previous injury. They are also useful in localizing a lesion, determining the extent of injury, predicting the course of recovery and determining whether structural abnormalities (as seen on radiographic studies) are of functional significance.

The physician needs to be aware of the limitations of electrodiagnostic studies. Because the tests depend on patient cooperation, only a limited number of muscles and nerves can be studied. In addition, the timing of the studies is important, because electromyographic findings may not be present until two to four weeks after the onset of symptoms. Hence, electrodiagnostic studies have only a limited role in the evaluation of acute low back pain.

Electrodiagnostic studies may not add much if the clinical findings are not suggestive of radiculopathy or peripheral neuropathy. These tests should not be considered if they will have no effect on the patient's medical or surgical management.

Because electrodiagnostic studies are examiner-dependent, they should ideally be performed by physicians who are specialists in electrodiagnostic medicine.14,15

Management of Acute Low Back Pain

  • Abstract
  • Evaluation of Low Back Pain
  • Management of Acute Low Back Pain
  • Final Comment
  • References

Laboratory and imaging studies, performed as indicated, provide information that can be useful in establishing a diagnosis and developing a treatment plan in the patient with acute back pain (Table 5).

TABLE 5

Laboratory and Radiographic Findings in Selected Causes of Low Back Pain

Disease or condition Laboratory tests Radiographs

Back strain

No abnormalities

Usually negative

Radiographs may show incidental spondylotic changes.

Acute disc herniation

If testing is timed properly, positive findings for electrodiagnostic studies in the presence of root entrapment

Possibly, narrowed intervertebral disc spaces on radiographs

CT and MRI can reveal level and degree of herniation.

Myelography localizes site of disc herniation and the presence of root entrapment.

Osteoarthritis

ESR and WBC count plus differential typically normal

Asymmetric narrowing of joint space

Sclerotic subchondral bone

Marginal osteophyte formation

Spondylolisthesis

No abnormalities

Abnormal intervertebral movement on radiographs obtained with spine in flexion and extension

Radiographs may reveal pars defect.

Bone scans can reveal pars defect not visible on radiographs.

Ankylosing spondylitis

ESR may be elevated

Radiographs of pelvis are positive for sacroiliac joint sclerosis and narrowing.

Mild anemia possible

Positive human leukocyte antigen-B27 assay in 90 percent of affected patients

Bone scans are useful for demonstrating increased activity in sacroiliac joints, facets or costovertebral joints.

Infection

Elevated ESR; WBC count may be normal

Radiographs may show vertebral end-plate erosion, decreased intervertebral disc height, changes indicative of bony erosion and reactive bone formation.

Blood culture or tuberculin test may be positive

Gallium citrate scanning or indium-labeled leukocyte imaging may be positive.

Malignancy

Anemia

Radiographs may show bony erosion or blastic lesions.

Increased ESR

Bone scans are useful for early demonstration of blastic lesions.

Prostate-specific antigen or alkaline phosphatase level may be elevated

CT localizes cortical lesions earlier than radiographs.

MRI is useful for demonstrating soft tissue tumors involving the spinal cord.

If no significant improvement in symptoms is noted after four to six weeks of treatment, the physician should reassess the treatment plan. To avoid misdiagnosis and unnecessary or inappropriate treatments, the physician may then want to refer the patient to a spine specialist.

PHARMACOLOGIC THERAPY

The mainstay of pharmacologic therapy for acute low back pain is acetaminophen or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).16 If no medical contraindications are present, a two- to four-week course of medication at anti-inflammatory levels is suggested.

Adequate gastrointestinal prophylaxis, using a histamine H2 antagonist or misoprostol (Cytotec), should be prescribed for patients who are at risk for peptic ulcer disease.17,18 Two new NSAIDs with selective cyclooxygenase–2 inhibition—rofecoxib (Vioxx) and celecoxib (Celebrex)—recently have been labeled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These agents have fewer gastrointestinal side effects, but they still should be used with caution in patients at risk for peptic ulcer disease.

For relief of acute pain, short-term use of a narcotic may be considered. The need for prolonged narcotic therapy should prompt a reevaluation of the etiology of a patient's back pain.

REST

Previously, bed rest was frequently prescribed for patients with back pain. However, several studies have shown that this measure has an adverse effect on the course and outcome of treatment. One randomized clinical trial found that patients with two days of bed rest had clinical outcomes similar to those in patients with seven days of bed rest.19 The group with a shorter rest period missed 45 percent fewer days of work and presumably avoided the effects of deconditioning and the fostering of a dependent sick role.

The current recommendation is two to three days of bed rest in a supine position for patients with acute radiculopathy. Sitting, even in a reclined position, actually raises intradiscal pressures20 and can theoretically worsen disc herniation and pain.

Activity modification is now the preferred recommendation for patients with nonneurogenic pain. With activity restriction, the patient avoids painful arcs of motion and tasks that exacerbate the back pain.

PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES

Superficial heat (hydrocolloid packs), ultrasound (deep heat), cold packs and massage are useful for relieving symptoms in the acute phase after the onset of low back pain. These modalities provide analgesia and muscle relaxation (Table 6). However, their use should be limited to the first two to four weeks after the injury. The use of deep heat may be subject to a number of restrictions.21

TABLE 6

Selected Therapies for Low Back Pain

Therapy Indications Contraindications Prescription

Superficial heat (hydrocolloid packs)

Analgesia Reduction in muscle spasm Increased tolerance for exercise

Impaired sensation, circulation, cognition Edema Bleeding diatheses

Apply to affected area for 20 to 30 minutes; inspect skin frequently during therapy; repeat application every 2 hours as needed.

Ultrasound (deep heat)

Analgesia Increased length of periarticular ligaments and tendons

Same as for superficial heat Never use deep heat near cardiac pacemaker or fluid-filled cavities (e.g., eyes, uterus, testes, laminectomy sites).21 Avoid use of deep heat near open epiphyses, malignancies or joint arthroplasties.21

Apply 0.5 to 2.0 W per cm2 to affected area for 10 to 15 minutes before range-of-motion exercises are performed.

Cold packs

Analgesia Limitation of edema formation in acute musculoskeletal injury

Impaired sensation, circulation, cognition History of cold intolerance

Apply to affected area for 20 to 30 minutes; inspect skin frequently during therapy; repeat application every 2 hours for 48 hours after injury as needed.

No convincing evidence has demonstrated the long-term effectiveness of lumbar traction22 and transcutaneous electrical stimulation23 in relieving symptoms or improving functional outcome in patients with acute low back pain. Therapy should emphasize the patient's responsibility for spine care and injury prevention.

CORSETS

The role of corsets (lumbosacral orthoses, braces, back supports and abdominal binders) in the treatment of patients with low back pain is controversial at best.24 Use of a corset for a short period (a few weeks) may be indicated in patients with osteoporotic compression fractures.

EXERCISE

Aerobic exercise has been reported to improve or prevent back pain.25 The mechanism of action is unclear, and the relationship between cardiovascular conditioning and rate of recovery is not universally accepted. Excess weight, however, has a direct effect on the likelihood of developing low back pain, as well as an adverse effect on recovery.26

In general, exercise programs that facilitate weight loss, trunk strengthening and the stretching of musculotendinous structures appear to be most helpful in alleviating low back pain. Exercises that promote the strengthening of muscles that support the spine (i.e., the oblique abdominal and spinal extensor muscles) should be included in the physical therapy regimen. Aggressive exercise programs have been shown to reduce the need for surgical intervention.27

CHIROPRACTIC

Patients with acute or chronic back pain frequently seek chiropractic intervention. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), previously the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR),28 and the Clinical Standards Advisory Group29 acknowledge the potential value of a short course of spinal manipulation in patients with acute low back pain. However, further research is needed to clarify the subgroup of patients most likely to benefit from this intervention.30

PATIENT EDUCATION

It is critical to solicit the active participation of patients in spine care. Successful treatment depends on the patient's understanding of the disorder and his or her role in avoiding re-injury. Many hospitals and large businesses offer programs on back protection. These programs emphasize measures for avoiding spinal injury and review appropriate postures for sitting, driving and lifting. Weight loss and healthy lifestyle classes are also widely available.

PSYCHOLOGIC EVALUATION

Psychosocial obstacles to recovery may exist and must be explored. Studies have shown that workers with lower job satisfaction are more likely to report back pain and to have a protracted recovery.31 Patients with an affective disorder (e.g., depression) or a history of substance abuse are more likely to have difficulties with pain resolution. It is important for the physician to find out whether litigation is pending, because this can often adversely affect the outcome of therapy.32

INDICATIONS FOR SURGICAL EVALUATION

Of all industrialized nations, the United States has the highest rate of spinal surgery (e.g., five times that of Great Britain).33 Studies examining the outcomes of conservative and surgical treatment of back pain have revealed no clear advantage for surgery. In one prospective study of 280 patients with herniated nucleus pulposus diagnosed by myelography,34 the surgical group demonstrated more rapid initial recovery than the medical treatment group. However, after approximately four years, outcomes appeared to be roughly equivalent in both groups; by 10 years, no appreciable differences in outcome were found.

Select groups of patients with acute low back pain should undergo immediate surgical evaluation. Patients with suspected cauda equina lesions (characterized by saddle anesthesia, sensorimotor changes in the legs and urinary retention) require immediate surgical investigation. Surgical evaluation is also indicated in patients with worsening neurologic deficits or intractable pain that is resistant to conservative treatment.

Final Comment

  • Abstract
  • Evaluation of Low Back Pain
  • Management of Acute Low Back Pain
  • Final Comment
  • References

Few randomized, controlled studies or objective unbiased articles are available to help guide the management of patients with acute low back pain. In 1994, the AHCPR published a guideline on acute low back pain management in adults.28 This guideline was severely criticized, especially by physicians who favored a more surgical approach. Further research is clearly needed to better define the optimal approach to this common but vexing problem.

To see the full article, log in or purchase access.

The Authors

show all author info

ATUL T. PATEL, M.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kan. Dr. Patel received his medical degree from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and completed a residency in physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle....

ABNA A. OGLE, M.D., is a clinical associate professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Dr. Ogle graduated from Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, D.C., and completed a residency in rehabilitation medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver.

Address correspondence to Atul T. Patel, M.D., Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160-7306. Reprints are not available from the authors.

REFERENCES

show all references

1. Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC. Physician office visits for low back pain. Frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine. 1995;20:11–9. ...

2. Deyo RA, Cherkin D, Conrad D, Volinn E. Cost, controversy, crisis: low back pain and the health of the public. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:141–56.

3. Frymoyer JD. Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:291–300.

4. Nachemson AL. Newest knowledge of low back pain. A critical look. Clin Orthop. 1992;8–20.

5. Von Korff M, Saunders K. The course of back pain in primary care. Spine. 1996;21:2833–7.

6. Scientific approach of the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. Spine. 1987;12(7 suppl):S1–59.

7. Waddell G, Somerville D, Henderson I, Newton M. Objective clinical evaluation of physical impairment in chronic low back pain. Spine. 1992;17:617–28.

8. Waddell G, McCulloch JA, Kummel E, Venner RM. Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain. Spine. 1980;5:117–25.

9. Scavone JG, Latshaw RF, Rohrer GV. Use of lumbar spine films. Statistical evaluation at a university teaching hospital. JAMA. 1981;246:1105–8.

10. Scavone JG, Latshaw RF, Weidner WA. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs: an adequate lumbar spine examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136:715–7.

11. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1990;72:403–8.

12. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:69–73.

13. Wiesel SW, Tsourmas N, Feffer HL, Citrin CM, Patronas N. A study of computer-assisted tomography. I. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients. Spine. 1994;9:549–51.

14. Dumitru D. Electrodiagnostic medicine. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus, 1995.

15. Wilbourn AJ, Aminoff MJ. AAEM minimonograph 32: the electrodiagnostic examination in patients with radiculopathies. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Muscle Nerve. 1998;21:1612–31.

16. Porter RW, Ralston SH. Pharmacological management of back pain syndromes. Drugs. 1994;48:189–98.

17. Moskowitz RW. The appropriate use of NSAIDs in arthritic conditions. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(9 suppl):4–6.

18. McCarthy DM. Acid peptic disease in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med. 1991;7:231–54.

19. Deyo RA, Diehl AK, Rosenthal M. How many days of bed rest for acute low back pain? A randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:1064–70.

20. Nachemson A, Elfstrom G. Intravital dynamic pressure measurements in lumbar discs. A study of common movements, maneuvers and exercises. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1970;1:1–40.

21. Lehmann JF. Therapeutic heat and cold. 3d ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1982.

22. Beurskens AJ, De Vet MC, Koke AJ, Regtop W, van der Heijden GJ, Lindeman E, et al. Efficacy of traction for nonspecific low back pain. 12-week and 6-month results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 1997;22:2756–62.

23. Herman E, Williams R, Stratford P, Fargas-Babjak A, Trott M. A randomized controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (CODETRON) to determine its benefits in a rehabilitation program for acute occupational low back pain. Spine. 1994;19:561–8.

24. Walsh NE, Schwartz RK. The influence of prophylactic orthoses on abdominal strength and low back injury in the workplace. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;69:245–50.

25. Nutter P. Aerobic exercise in the treatment and prevention of low back pain. Occup Med. 1988;3:137–45.

26. Han TS, Schouten JS, Lean ME, Seidell JC. The prevalence of low back pain and associations with body fatness, fat distribution and height. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:600–7.

27. Nelson BW, Carpenter DM, Dreisinger TE, Mitchell M, Kelly CE, Wegner JA. Can spinal surgery be prevented by aggressive strengthening exercises? A prospective study of cervical and lumbar patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:20–5.

28. Bigos S, et al. Acute low back problems in adults. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994; AHCPR publication no. 95-0642.

29. Clinical Standards Advisory Group. Back pain. London: H.M.S.O., 1994.

30. Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM. Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine. 1996;21:2860–71.

31. Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Spengler DM, Fisher LD, Fordyce WE, Hansson TH, et al. A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury. Spine. 1991;16:1–6 [Published erratum in Spine 1991;16:688]

32. Derebery V, Tullis W. Delayed recovery in the patient with a work compensable injury. J Occup Med. 1983;25:829–35.

33. Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Kreuter W. Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine. 1994;19:1207–12.

34. Weber H. Lumbar disc herniation. A controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation. Spine. 1983;8:131–40.

Copyright © 2000 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

MOST RECENT ISSUE

Dec 2021

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now