Browder et al.1313 Browder DA, Childs JD, Cleland JA, Fritz JM. Effectiveness of an extension-oriented treatment approach in a subgroup of subjects with low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2007;87(12):1608-18; discussion 1577-9.
[6/10] |
48 patients (15 females),
aged 18-60 years; symptoms
distal to gluteus which
centralized with extension
movements. |
(G1) eight physiotherapy sessions for lumbar spine
extension (exercises + mobilizations) associated
to home exercises program (n=26)
(G2) eight physiotherapy sessions for strengthening
(isolated contractions of abdominal and spine
stabilizing muscles) associated to home exercises
program (n=22). |
G1 compared to G2: G1had more significant
evolution in dysfunction measurement
(ODQ) after one week and
six month of follow up and has also improved
pain (NPRS) just after one week
follow up. |
Garcia et
al.1414 Garcia AN, Costa Lda C, da Silva TM, Gondo FL, Cyrillo FN, Costa RA, et al. Effectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013;93(6):729-47.[8/10] |
148 patients (109 females),
aged 18-80 years; nonspecific
low back pain symptoms
for at least three months |
(G1) four individual sessions lasting 45 minutes to
one hour, 1x/week with MDT, based on directional
movements preference (n=74).
(G2) four sessions being the first individual and
remaining in groups, lasting 45 minutes to one
hour, 1x/week made up of theoretical and practical
orientations according to the Back School
method (n=74) |
G1 compared to G2: better functional
performance index (RMDQ) after one
month of treatment, however with no
differences in pain measurement. |
Long, Donelson
& Fung1515 Long A, Donelson R, Fung T. Does it matter which exercise? A randomized control trial of exercise for low back pain. Spine. 2004;29(23):2593-602.[8/10] |
312 patients (146 females),
aged 18-65 years; low back
pain and sciatic pain. Those
with directional preference
(n=230) were included and
201 participants have concluded
the study. |
(G1) exercises compatible with directional preference
presented during evaluation for two weeks
(n=80)
(G2) exercises compatible with directional preference
opposed to that presented during evaluation
for two weeks (n=70).
(G3) exercises without directional approach for
two weeks (n=80). |
1/3 of G2 and G3 participants have
abandoned treatment two weeks later
due to worsening or lack of improvement
of symptoms; no G1 member has
quit.
There were significant improvements in
G1 as compared to G2 and G3 in all
measurements (RMDQ, VAS, BDI) and
decreased drug use. |
Machado et
al.1616 Machado LA, Maher CG, Herbert RD, Clare H, McAuley JH. The effectiveness of the McKenzie method in addition to first-line care for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2010;8:10.[8/10] |
148 patients (73 females),
aged 18-80 years; nonspecific
acute low back pain
symptoms. 138 participants
have concluded the study
and 2 were excluded soon
after randomization. |
(G1) general orientations on how to keep active
and avoid remaining for long periods in bed, confirmation
of favorable acute low back pain prognosis
and administration of paracetamol in specific
hours (n=73).
(G2) G1 + MDT-based protocol (n=73). |
G2: Differences (p>0.05) in pain perception
(NRS) and looked for less additional
health care. |
Paatelma et
al.1717 Paatelma M, Kilpikoski S, Simonen R, Heinonen A, Alen M, Videman T. Orthopaedic manual therapy, McKenzie method or advice only for low back pain in working adults: a randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(10):858-63.[7/10] |
134 patients, aged 18-65
years; symptoms of nonspecific
low back pain with or
without irradiation to one or
both legs. |
(G1) manual orthopedic therapy, with maximum
of seven sessions lasting from 30 to 45 minutes
each (n=45).
(G2) Treatment according to MDT, with maximum
of seven sessions lasting 30 to 45 minutes each
(n=52).
(G3) Just orientations in one-hour session (n=37). |
After three months, six months and one
year follow up there were no significant
differences between G1 and G2; as
compared to G3, interventions carried
out by G1 and G2 were more effective,
however without statistical significance. |
Petersen et
al.1818 Petersen T, Larsen K, Nordsteen J, Olsen S, Fournier G, Jacobsen S. The McKenzie method compared with manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice in low back pain patients presenting with centralization or peripheralization: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2011;36(24):1999-2010.[7/10] |
350 patients (265 females),
aged 18-60 years; low back
pain symptoms for more
than six weeks with centralization
of peripheralization,
with or without irradiation. |
(G1) Treatment according to MMK, individually
planned for each patient. For G1, approaches
involving vertebral mobilization techniques, including
high velocity maneuvers were prohibited
(n=175).
(G2) All types of manual techniques, including vertebral
mobilizations, high velocity maneuvers and
trigger-points therapy. For G2 specific exercises
in preference directions were prohibited (n=175). |
G1: higher success rate of treatment
according to RMDQ scores, reaching
statistical significance in the follow up
of 2 and 1. |
