Low Back PainNCT03756519
The Effect of Exercise on Recent Onset Low Back Pain in the Emergency Department
A study testing Exercise, Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities. and Advice on use of ice or heat in people with Low Back Pain, run by Queen's University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to years lived with disability and an important contributor to healthcare costs and time off work. Exercise is effective for chronic low back pain, but there is a lack of evidence to inform whether exercise in the emergency department is effective for people with acute… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Low Back Pain
- What is being tested?
- Exercise, Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities. and Advice on use of ice or heat
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 69 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 1 May 2018to 30 Nov 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- English speaking
- Adults (18-65 years)
- Recent onset low back pain (<1 week)
Who cannot join
- Subacute/chronic LBP (> 1week)
- Previous episode of low back pain in past 3 months
- fracture
- previous back surgery
- urinary retention
- saddle anaesthesia
- bilateral or multilevel neurological impairment
- traumatic mechanism of injury (fall >3m or 3 steps, MVC >100km/h).
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
Kingston Health Sciences Center - Kingston General Hospital and Hotel Dieu Hospital Sites
Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6
About this study
Official title: Determining the Effects of Adding Exercise to Usual Care for Recent Onset Low Back Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to years lived with disability and an important contributor to healthcare costs and time off work. Exercise is effective for chronic low back pain, but there is a lack of evidence to inform whether exercise in the emergency department is effective for people with acute low back pain. This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a brief exercise intervention provided in the emergency department for people with recent onset low back pain. People with acute low back pain (<1 week) will be randomly assigned to either usual care or to usual care plus a brief exercise intervention delivered by trained physiotherapy students. The study will evaluate the impact of the added exercises on self-reported disability (primary outcome), pain intensity, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. In addition, we will pilot data collection related to return to work, healthcare utilization, and cost effectiveness outcomes to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial with additional patient participants required to evaluate these outcomes. Outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, 48-72 hours, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months from their initial emergency department visit. The results of this study have the potential to inform emergency department management of acute low back pain.
Read the detailed description
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to years lived with disability and an important contributor to healthcare costs and time off work. Exercise is effective for chronic low back pain, but there is a lack of evidence to inform whether exercise in the emergency department is effective for people with acute (<1 week) low back pain.
The objectives of this randomized controlled trial are:
- To determine the effectiveness of an exercise intervention delivered in the ED in comparison to usual ED care on pain, function, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects in adults with recent onset LBP (< 1 week).
- To determine the feasibility of a future RCT to evaluate the effects of the ED exercise intervention on return to work outcomes, health care utilization, and cost-effectiveness in comparison to usual care.
The investigators hypothesize that an exercise intervention in the ED will improve pain, function, global rating of change, and patient satisfaction in comparison to usual ED care with no difference in adverse effects.
Design: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel arms (exercise and usual care).
Blinding: The patient will be partially blinded by our not providing full details on the two exercise approaches being studied. The health care providers delivering the interventions will not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention. However, research assistants administering the outcome measures will be blinded. The outcomes assessed are objective measures assessed using an online survey tool that will be free of assessor bias.
Randomization and allocation concealment: Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to exercise or usual care groups by an independent statistician using a computerized random number generator. The random allocation will be placed in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes. The envelopes will be opened by the RA after completion of baseline assessment.
Patient enrollment: Consecutive patients with acute LBP who are seeking urgent care at Kingston General Hospital Emergency Department (ED) and Hotel Dieu Hospital Urgent Care Clinic (UCC) will be invited to participate over a 4-month period May 1 through August 31, 2018). ED based research staff will screen patients for willingness to be invited to participate when they arrive at the ED. These staff will then invite participation once the physician assessment is complete and eligibility criteria are reviewed.
Inclusion criteria: English speaking adults (18-65 years) with recent onset LBP (<1 week).
Exclusion criteria: people with subacute/chronic LBP, previous episode of back pain in the past 3 months, fracture, previous back surgery, red flags (e.g. urinary retention, bilateral or multilevel neurological impairment), traumatic mechanism of injury (fall >3m or 3 steps, MVC >100km/h).
Assessment and outcome measures: All measures will be collected using Qualtrics, a secure online database, at baseline, 48-72 hours, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months.
Baseline factors used to describe the population: age, gender, duration of back pain (hours), whether there have been previous episodes of back pain, whether or not the participant has pain in other areas of the body, medications, comorbidities, work status prior to onset of back pain, and current work status.
Objective #1: Individual health outcomes will be collected using validated tools described under the outcomes assessed.
Objective #2: This study design will not have adequate power or long-term follow-ups required to adequately evaluate return to work, healthcare use, and cost-effectiveness. The investigators plan to pilot the use of these outcomes to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial to evaluate these outcomes.
Analysis: For objective #1, Repeated-measure linear mixed models will be used to assess the effect of treatment (exercise versus usual care) on our primary (disability) and secondary (pain, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, adverse effects) outcomes at all time-points (48-72 hours, 1-week, 1- and 3-months). A difference of 2 on the NPRS36 and 3 points on the RMDQ37 will be considered clinically meaningful. For objective #2, all feasibility outcomes will be reported descriptively and analyzed qualitatively as recommended by methods and reporting guidelines for pilot and feasibility studies.
Sample size: The investigators searched one year of ED and UCC records to identify LBP patients eligible for this study. 2000 patients/year attended for back pain with > 500 during our four-month recruitment period. Of these, a chart review suggests 43% of these met our eligibility criteria. Based on past trials in these settings, we expect at least 50% will consent resulting in a sample size of 107+. This will achieve over 90% power to detect a minimally important difference of 3 points on the RMQ, using a two-sided α=0.05 and assuming a standard deviation of 6.2 points and accounting for a 10% loss to follow-up. This will also provide an adequate sample to assess the secondary feasibility objectives.
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Being tested
- Exercise, Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities., Advice on use of ice or heat, Advise regarding use of medications
- Keywords
- acute, exercise, emergency department
- Medical subject headings
- Low Back Pain, Motor Activity, Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ExerciseBehavioural
A standardized exercise program tailored to the individual based on their directional preferences and current functional abilities.
Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities.Behavioural
Participants will be advised that staying physically active and continuing to participate in usual activities improves recovery. This verbal advice will be reinforced with a written handout.
Advice on use of ice or heatBehavioural
Participants will be advised on the appropriate use of ice or heat to manage pain. This verbal advice will be reinforced with a written handout.
Advise regarding use of medicationsOther
Participants will receive education regarding the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) for pain relief, if needed and if the patient is appropriate for NSAIDs. Information regarding specific recommended doses, potential benefit and risk will be discussed.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Exercise | Experimental | Participants in the exercise intervention arm will receive the usual care protocol plus a standardized, evidence informed exercise intervention provided by trained physiotherapy students. The exercise intervention will begin with a brief assessment to rule out contraindications to exercise and to identify any directional preferences (e.g. pain with lumbar flexion and relief with extension). The PT will then be taught four standardized exercises: the pelvic tilt exercise, a rotational exercise, a tailored graded walking program taking into account the current abilities of the patient, and an exercise based on the directional preference of the individual. These will be re-enforced with a handout including the rationale, instructions and dosage recommendations for the exercises. Receives: Behavioral: Exercise; Behavioral: Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities.; Behavioral: Advice on use of ice or heat; Other: Advise regarding use of medications |
| Usual care | Active comparator | Our usual care protocol was developed based on 30 responses to an 18 item survey of Queen's Department of Emergency Medicine physicians. Three themes emerged as interventions most commonly used. Each of these strategies has evidence for small, but positive treatment effects and low risk of harms: 1) advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities, 2) use of ice or heat to manage pain, and 3) recommendation for analgesia using NSAIDs if needed and appropriate. Receives: Behavioral: Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities.; Behavioral: Advice on use of ice or heat; Other: Advise regarding use of medications |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Self-reported disability
Roland Morris Questionnaire (0-24, higher represents greater disability)
Measured: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Secondary outcomes (17)
Pain Intensity currently
Numeric pain rating scale (0-10, higher represents greater pain intensity)
Measured: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Pain intensity on average over past 24-hours
Numeric pain rating scale (0-10, higher represents greater pain intensity)
Measured: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Pain intensity at its worst over the past 24-hours
Numeric pain rating scale (0-10, higher represents greater pain intensity)
Measured: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Pain intensity at its least over the past 24-hours
Numeric pain rating scale (0-10, higher represents greater pain intensity)
Measured: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Global rating of change
Perceived change in function (-5 to +5, higher represents greater improvement in function)
Measured: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary comparison at 1-week
Patient satisfaction
Satisfaction with healthcare received (-5 to +5, higher represents greater satisfaction with care)
Measured: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary comparison at 1-week
Adverse effects
Self-reported adverse effects of treatment
Measured: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary comparison at 1-week
Treatment fidelity
A fidelity checklist performed by the physiotherapy students carrying out the intervention will be included as a process outcome.
Measured: At initial visit
Recruitment rate (to determine feasibility for future trial on healthcare utilization, cost-effectiveness and return to work)
Rate of recruitment (number of participants/week over recruitment period)
Measured: Recruitment rate over 4 month period
Retention rate (to determine feasibility for future trial)
Rate of assessment completion
Measured: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 3-month follow-up
Work status - working or not working (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Work status (working/not working)
Measured: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Work status - full or part time (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Work status (full/part-time)
Measured: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Work status - full or modified duties/hours(piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Work status - full/modified duties or hours
Measured: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Work status - hours worked (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Number of hours worked in past seven days.
Measured: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Healthcare utilization (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating healthcare utilization)
Self-report questoinnaire asking patient to report primary care visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, surgeries, consultations with other health care providers (e.g. physiotherapists, chiropractors, physician specialists, diagnostic imaging (e.g. x-ray, CT scan, MRI), and medication
Measured: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 3-months
Costs (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis in a future trial)
Includes all healthcare costs as well as societal costs using a human capital approach
Measured: All costs incurred between baseline and 3-month follow-up will be calculated
Quality of life (piloted to determine feasibility of performing cost-effectiveness analysis in a future trial)
EuroQOL 5D-5L (0-100 with greater score indicating greater quality of life)
Measured: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary time-point of 3-months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Nov 2018
- Study start1 May 2018
- Primary completion30 Nov 2018
- Study completion30 Nov 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The patient will be partially blinded by our not providing full details on the two interventions being studied. Participants will be instructed that, "Participants in this study will be randomized (chosen as by a coin flip) to receive one of two different types of advice and instruction on maintaining mobility and performing exercise."
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 69 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Queen's University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jordan Miller, PT, PhD, Queen's University
- Investigators
- Jordan Miller, PhD, Principal investigator, Queen's UniversityRobert Brison, MD, Principal investigator, Kingston Health Sciences Center and Queen's UniversityElizabeth Blackmore, MD, Principal investigator, Kingston Health Sciences Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03756519
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- REH-715-18
- Status last verified
- Mar 2019
- First submitted
- 19 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 25 Mar 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Mar 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Determining the Effects of Adding Exercise to Usual Care for Recent Onset Low Back Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03756519
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- REH-715-18
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Keywords
- acute, exercise, emergency department
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 69 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Queen's UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 May 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Nov 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Nov 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 28 Nov 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to years lived with disability and an important contributor to healthcare costs and time off work. Exercise is effective for chronic low back pain, but there is a lack of evidence to inform whether exercise in the emergency department is effective for people with acute low back pain. This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a brief exercise intervention provided in the emergency department for people with recent onset low back pain. People with acute low back pain (<1 week) will be randomly assigned to either usual care or to usual care plus a brief exercise intervention delivered by trained physiotherapy students. The study will evaluate the impact of the added exercises on self-reported disability (primary outcome), pain intensity, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. In addition, we will pilot data collection related to return to work, healthcare utilization, and cost effectiveness outcomes to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial with additional patient participants required to evaluate these outcomes. Outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, 48-72 hours, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months from their initial emergency department visit. The results of this study have the potential to inform emergency department management of acute low back pain.
Detailed description
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to years lived with disability and an important contributor to healthcare costs and time off work. Exercise is effective for chronic low back pain, but there is a lack of evidence to inform whether exercise in the emergency department is effective for people with acute (<1 week) low back pain.
The objectives of this randomized controlled trial are:
- To determine the effectiveness of an exercise intervention delivered in the ED in comparison to usual ED care on pain, function, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects in adults with recent onset LBP (< 1 week).
- To determine the feasibility of a future RCT to evaluate the effects of the ED exercise intervention on return to work outcomes, health care utilization, and cost-effectiveness in comparison to usual care.
The investigators hypothesize that an exercise intervention in the ED will improve pain, function, global rating of change, and patient satisfaction in comparison to usual ED care with no difference in adverse effects.
Design: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel arms (exercise and usual care).
Blinding: The patient will be partially blinded by our not providing full details on the two exercise approaches being studied. The health care providers delivering the interventions will not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention. However, research assistants administering the outcome measures will be blinded. The outcomes assessed are objective measures assessed using an online survey tool that will be free of assessor bias.
Randomization and allocation concealment: Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to exercise or usual care groups by an independent statistician using a computerized random number generator. The random allocation will be placed in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes. The envelopes will be opened by the RA after completion of baseline assessment.
Patient enrollment: Consecutive patients with acute LBP who are seeking urgent care at Kingston General Hospital Emergency Department (ED) and Hotel Dieu Hospital Urgent Care Clinic (UCC) will be invited to participate over a 4-month period May 1 through August 31, 2018). ED based research staff will screen patients for willingness to be invited to participate when they arrive at the ED. These staff will then invite participation once the physician assessment is complete and eligibility criteria are reviewed.
Inclusion criteria: English speaking adults (18-65 years) with recent onset LBP (<1 week).
Exclusion criteria: people with subacute/chronic LBP, previous episode of back pain in the past 3 months, fracture, previous back surgery, red flags (e.g. urinary retention, bilateral or multilevel neurological impairment), traumatic mechanism of injury (fall >3m or 3 steps, MVC >100km/h).
Assessment and outcome measures: All measures will be collected using Qualtrics, a secure online database, at baseline, 48-72 hours, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months.
Baseline factors used to describe the population: age, gender, duration of back pain (hours), whether there have been previous episodes of back pain, whether or not the participant has pain in other areas of the body, medications, comorbidities, work status prior to onset of back pain, and current work status.
Objective #1: Individual health outcomes will be collected using validated tools described under the outcomes assessed.
Objective #2: This study design will not have adequate power or long-term follow-ups required to adequately evaluate return to work, healthcare use, and cost-effectiveness. The investigators plan to pilot the use of these outcomes to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial to evaluate these outcomes.
Analysis: For objective #1, Repeated-measure linear mixed models will be used to assess the effect of treatment (exercise versus usual care) on our primary (disability) and secondary (pain, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, adverse effects) outcomes at all time-points (48-72 hours, 1-week, 1- and 3-months). A difference of 2 on the NPRS36 and 3 points on the RMDQ37 will be considered clinically meaningful. For objective #2, all feasibility outcomes will be reported descriptively and analyzed qualitatively as recommended by methods and reporting guidelines for pilot and feasibility studies.
Sample size: The investigators searched one year of ED and UCC records to identify LBP patients eligible for this study. 2000 patients/year attended for back pain with > 500 during our four-month recruitment period. Of these, a chart review suggests 43% of these met our eligibility criteria. Based on past trials in these settings, we expect at least 50% will consent resulting in a sample size of 107+. This will achieve over 90% power to detect a minimally important difference of 3 points on the RMQ, using a two-sided α=0.05 and assuming a standard deviation of 6.2 points and accounting for a 10% loss to follow-up. This will also provide an adequate sample to assess the secondary feasibility objectives.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The patient will be partially blinded by our not providing full details on the two interventions being studied. Participants will be instructed that, "Participants in this study will be randomized (chosen as by a coin flip) to receive one of two different types of advice and instruction on maintaining mobility and performing exercise."
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Exercise | Experimental | Behavioral: Exercise, Behavioral: Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities., Behavioral: Advice on use of ice or heat, Other: Advise regarding use of medicationsParticipants in the exercise intervention arm will receive the usual care protocol plus a standardized, evidence informed exercise intervention provided by trained physiotherapy students. The exercise intervention will begin with a brief assessment to rule out contraindications to exercise and to identify any directional preferences (e.g. pain with lumbar flexion and relief with extension). The PT will then be taught four standardized exercises: the pelvic tilt exercise, a rotational exercise, a tailored graded walking program taking into account the current abilities of the patient, and an exercise based on the directional preference of the individual. These will be re-enforced with a handout including the rationale, instructions and dosage recommendations for the exercises. |
| Usual care | Active comparator | Behavioral: Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities., Behavioral: Advice on use of ice or heat, Other: Advise regarding use of medicationsOur usual care protocol was developed based on 30 responses to an 18 item survey of Queen's Department of Emergency Medicine physicians. Three themes emerged as interventions most commonly used. Each of these strategies has evidence for small, but positive treatment effects and low risk of harms: 1) advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities, 2) use of ice or heat to manage pain, and 3) recommendation for analgesia using NSAIDs if needed and appropriate. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- English speaking
- Adults (18-65 years)
- Recent onset low back pain (<1 week)
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Subacute/chronic LBP (> 1week)
- Previous episode of low back pain in past 3 months
- fracture
- previous back surgery
- urinary retention
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ExerciseA standardized exercise program tailored to the individual based on their directional preferences and current functional abilities. | Behavioural | Exercise |
| Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities.Participants will be advised that staying physically active and continuing to participate in usual activities improves recovery. This verbal advice will be reinforced with a written handout. | Behavioural | Exercise, Usual care |
| Advice on use of ice or heatParticipants will be advised on the appropriate use of ice or heat to manage pain. This verbal advice will be reinforced with a written handout. | Behavioural | Exercise, Usual care |
| Advise regarding use of medicationsParticipants will receive education regarding the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) for pain relief, if needed and if the patient is appropriate for NSAIDs. Information regarding specific recommended doses, potential benefit and risk will be discussed. | Other | Exercise, Usual care |
Primary outcome
Self-reported disability
Time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Roland Morris Questionnaire (0-24, higher represents greater disability)
17 secondary outcomes
Pain Intensity currently
Time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Pain intensity on average over past 24-hours
Time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Pain intensity at its worst over the past 24-hours
Time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Pain intensity at its least over the past 24-hours
Time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week
Global rating of change
Time frame: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary comparison at 1-week
Patient satisfaction
Time frame: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary comparison at 1-week
Adverse effects
Time frame: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary comparison at 1-week
Treatment fidelity
Time frame: At initial visit
Recruitment rate (to determine feasibility for future trial on healthcare utilization, cost-effectiveness and return to work)
Time frame: Recruitment rate over 4 month period
Retention rate (to determine feasibility for future trial)
Time frame: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 3-month follow-up
Work status - working or not working (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Time frame: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Work status - full or part time (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Time frame: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Work status - full or modified duties/hours(piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Time frame: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Work status - hours worked (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating return to work outcomes)
Time frame: Baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 1-week
Healthcare utilization (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a future trial evaluating healthcare utilization)
Time frame: 1-week, 1-month, 3-months with a primary time-point of 3-months
Costs (piloted to determine the feasibility of conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis in a future trial)
Time frame: All costs incurred between baseline and 3-month follow-up will be calculated
Quality of life (piloted to determine feasibility of performing cost-effectiveness analysis in a future trial)
Time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary time-point of 3-months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Mar 2019.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Low Back Pain
Recruiting
Comparing Myofascial Exercise and Trigger Point Therapy for Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Non-specific Low Back Pain
Active, not recruiting
Integrated Feldenkrais Method With and Without DNS for Chronic Low Back Pain in Females
Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Spinal Mobilization With and Without Clinical Pilates in Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniationc Herniation
Disc Herniation
Not yet recruitingObservational study
SERENITY Study of Chronic Pain Interference in Adults
Chronic Low Back Pain, Spinal Cord Injury
Recruiting
Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Electrical Stimulation for Gluteus Muscle Dysfunction After Low Back Pain Episode
Low Back Pain, Functional Motor Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jordan Miller, PhD principal investigator
Queen's University
Robert Brison, MD principal investigator
Kingston Health Sciences Center and Queen's University
Elizabeth Blackmore, MD principal investigator
Kingston Health Sciences Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Exercise, Advice to stay active and engaged in usual activities. and Advice on use of ice or heat in people with Low Back Pain, run by Queen's University at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Mar 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Self-reported disability (time frame: Change from baseline to 3-months with repeated measures at baseline, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months and a primary comparison at 1-week). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Mar 2019.