ライフサイエンスコーパス: low back pain

1 , and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain).

2 thy controls and patients with pain (chronic low back pain).

3 f glial activation, in patients with chronic low back pain.

4 ation of muscle fat content in patients with low back pain.

5 ion and to ameliorate IVD-associated chronic low back pain.

6 d degeneration are believed to contribute to low back pain.

7 sed the relationships of BMI and height with low back pain.

8 cceptability of acupuncture to patients with low back pain.

9 ity, and they can be responsible for chronic low back pain.

10 tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain.

11 spinal injections of methylprednisolone for low back pain.

12 o intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration and low back pain.

13 int degeneration is a major cause of chronic low back pain.

14 effective treatment for chronic or recurrent low back pain.

15 ted the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain.

16 e lumbar facet joints has been implicated in low back pain.

17 osis, acute myocardial infarction, and acute low back pain.

18 ivity during movement-evoked pain in chronic low back pain.

19 ises following acute, experimentally induced low back pain.

20 Mr S, a 50-year-old man, has long-standing low back pain.

21 ach to using available treatment options for low back pain.

22 gic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain.

23 for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain.

24 l restoration are also effective for chronic low back pain.

25 fective primary care management strategy for low back pain.

26 e, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain.

27 e the most frequently prescribed therapy for low back pain.

28 en among older individuals with arthritis or low back pain.

29 to recovery in populations of patients with low back pain.

30 ollowing diskectomy for persistent radicular low back pain.

31 arch shows widespread use of acupuncture for low back pain.

32 Acupuncture effectively relieves chronic low back pain.

33 tients consulting primary care with subacute low back pain.

34 MRI changes are the strongest predictor of low back pain.

35 to improve decision making for patients with low back pain.

36 eplacement for radiographs for patients with low back pain.

37 ical outcomes for primary care patients with low back pain.

38 ing worse physical health than patients with low back pain.

39 xercise programs in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

40 Alzheimer's disease, headache disorder, and low back pain.

41 bark and magnets, have marginal benefit for low back pain.

42 h reduced incidence of back injury claims or low back pain.

43 on our small group of subjects with chronic low back pain.

44 role in the development and perpetuation of low back pain.

45 ination for the effective treatment of acute low back pain.

46 r clinical results in patients with subacute low back pain.

47 d spinal manipulation for some patients with low back pain.

48 damaged tissues in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

49 ve effectiveness and costs of treatments for low back pain.

50 ertebral disc in the pathogenesis of chronic low back pain.

51 ertebral disc in the pathogenesis of chronic low back pain.

52 follow published guidelines for treatment of low back pain.

53 g modalities in the evaluation of persistent low back pain.

54 ement for plain radiography in patients with low back pain.

55 structural integrity and elicit debilitating low back pain.

56 acologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain.

57 d exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain.

58 r acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.

59 r acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.

60 uideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain.

61 s associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain.

62 udes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.

63 ness and harms of SMT for acute (</=6 weeks) low back pain.

64 states including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain.

65 rstand the role of MBSR in the management of low back pain.

66 recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain.

67 tebral disc degeneration (IVDD) is linked to low back pain.

68 efficacy and safety of MBSR in patients with low back pain.

69 bility as a primary outcome in patients with low back pain.

70 essed nonpharmacologic treatment options for low back pain.

71 or young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain.

72 e treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain.

73 clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain.

74 transitional vertebra in young patients with low-back pain.

75 iations between allergies and depression and low-back pain.

76 nondrug treatments for patients with chronic low back pain?

77 10 patients who sought chiropractic care for low back pain, 1088 (83%) had spinal manipulation.

78 131 consecutive patients with low back pain, 18 to 60 years of age, who were referred

79 prevalence of back and/or neck pain was 31% (low back pain: 34 million, neck pain: 9 million, both ba

80 The PP group had a significant reduction of low back pain (66.2% vs 50.0%; P = 0.04) and analgesic c

81 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain, a positive diagnostic block at the facet

82 egenerative disc disease often causes severe low-back pain, a public health problem with huge economi

83 Low back pain affects a minority of individuals over 65

84 Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leadin

85 am (SMP) on primary care patients with acute low back pain (ALBP) from low income, inner city neighbo

86 Main outcome measures were Aberdeen Low Back Pain (ALBP) score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score

87 that acupuncture may be useful for headache, low back pain, alcohol dependence, and paralysis resulti

88 verity were divided according to symptoms of low back pain alone and symptoms of low back pain with o

89 pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain, although this difference became nonsignif

90 n of potential therapeutics for treatment of low back pain and disc degeneration.

91 s a major pathological process implicated in low back pain and is a prerequisite to disk herniation.

92 lly significant difference in improvement in low back pain and lower extremity pain between groups.

93 with betamethasone and triamcinolone reduced low back pain and lower extremity pain, although there w

94 The strongest associations were between low back pain and MRI change (odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% c

95 al conditions, such as fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain and myofascial pain.

96 anxiety, musculoskeletal disorders including low back pain and neck pain, diabetes, and cirrhosis--in

97 A 20-year-old man presented with 1 week of low back pain and progressive lower extremity weakness.

98 ic images, intracranial pressure processing, low back pain and real-time tumour tracking; (3) outcome

99 in intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and sciatica after lumbar disc herniation.

100 nce (MR) imaging in patients with persistent low back pain and sciatica effectively demonstrates spin

101 ans should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or

102 on (SOE, moderate) are effective for chronic low back pain and strengthens previous findings regardin

103 the most important factor leading to chronic low back pain and subsequent disability after discectomy

104 s important to remember about rare causes of low back pain and to perform detailed physical examinati

105 lation (10 kHz SCS) in subjects with chronic low back pain and/or leg pain and performed post hoc ana

106 chological and health behavior correlates of low back pain and/or neck pain.

107 ale patients) undergoing lumbar spine CT for low back pain and/or radiculopathy.

108 e-sacral articulation of young patients with low-back pain and a lumbosacral transitional vertebra.

109 e; age range, 6-19 y; mean age, 15.7 y) with low-back pain and a lumbosacral transitional vertebra.

110 Although low-back pain and depression are common comorbidities, t

111 maging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying co

112 r imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious

113 ed by local DRG inflammation (a rat model of low back pain) and by a peripheral paw inflammation mode

114 h as imaging for patients with uncomplicated low back pain) and using the results for public reportin

115 nophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chron

116 nophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chron

117 eported by 71% of the patients, 55% reported low back pain, and 19% reported RA.

118 served, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for

119 that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest

120 for improving function and reducing chronic low back pain, and the benefits persisted for at least s

121 Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, pri

122 harmacologic therapies for primarily chronic low back pain are associated with small to moderate, usu

123 of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise

124 ood evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle

125 As many as 25% of individuals with low back pain are symptomatic at 12 months, in contradis

126 s for plain radiographs in the evaluation of low back pain are too sensitive and expose patients unne

127 pain-related conditions, but its effects on low back pain are uncertain.

128 , and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief.

129 ronic pain, encompassing conditions, such as low back pain, arthritis, persistent post-surgical pain,

130 ent state of managing chronic (and subacute) low back pain as reflected in recently published guideli

131 ack disorders, with a particular emphasis on low back pain, as this area has been most represented in

132 lts are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings.

133 Low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease

134 d effect on troublesome subacute and chronic low-back pain at a low cost to the health-care provider.

135 in into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with rad

136 ders (1.71 billion people [1.68-1.80]), with low back pain being the most prevalent condition in 134

137 sis and assessment of disease progression in low back pain, brain tumours and primary epilepsy; (2) e

138 ffective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation.

139 The weather affects low back pain but to a minor degree.

140 and height are linked to the pathogenesis of low back pain, but evidence-based confirmation is lackin

141 ion is a commonly used treatment for chronic low back pain, but high-quality evidence for its effecti

142 iscs has been linked with the development of low back pain, but little is known about factors affecti

143 2.4 +/- 13 years old; 13F, 12M) with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and 27 healthy control subjects (48

144 stigated thalamocortical networks in chronic low back pain (cLBP) given its non-specific etiology and

145 Patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (A

146 neural activity in individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP) remains scarce and results are inco

147 ga is effective for mild to moderate chronic low back pain (cLBP), but its comparative effectiveness

148 For many individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is no identifiable cause.

149 Recommendation 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially

150 For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of med

151 eas, including several (such as headache and low back pain) commonly encountered by internal medicine

152 clinically important improvement in chronic low back pain compared with a standardized exercise prog

153 Low back pain continues to affect a significant proporti

154 For patients with acute low back pain, data are sparse and inconclusive.

155 in health centres respiratory insufficiency, low back pain, degree of physical function, presence of

156 arious musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain, despite little scientific support for the

157 f different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses w

158 Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfact

159 Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical caus

160 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April

161 s approximately 1.5), and a history of prior low back pain episodes and demographic variables were no

162 lated for prediction of persistent disabling low back pain for findings attainable during the clinica

163 thritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and low back pain from 12 community pharmacy sites responded

164 radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain from these sources.

165 udies of patients with fewer than 8 weeks of low back pain from which likelihood ratios (LRs) were ca

166 Chronic low-back pain has also become a diagnosis of convenience

167 nd cost of diagnostic imaging for persistent low back pain have increased.

168 en that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment,

169 aluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall

170 use in 2,374 adult patients with persistent low back pain in 1987-1990 were analyzed.

171 al cost of diagnostic imaging for persistent low back pain in 1990 relative to 1987 was estimated at

172 al cost of diagnostic imaging for persistent low back pain in 1990 relative to 1987 was estimated.

173 We examined the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents and its association with BM

174 Height was associated with increased risk of low back pain in both genders.

175 Low back pain in children and adolescents is a common pr

176 , prognosis of metastatic spinal tumors, and low back pain in health care professionals.

177 Higher BMI was significantly associated with low back pain in males (for overweight, odds ratio = 1.0

178 Recommendations for the management of low back pain in primary care emphasise the importance o

179 Guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early interventi

180 oach for management of non-specific subacute low back pain in primary care.

181 re is a significant genetic effect on severe low back pain in the community.

182 carpal tunnel syndrome, 59 million have had low back pain in the past 3 months, and 30.1 million hav

183 ith DZ twins, equating to a heritability for low back pain in the range of 52-68% and for neck pain i

184 Odds ratios for low back pain in the tallest group compared with the sho

185 ition to best practice advice in people with low-back pain in primary care.

186 Subjects responded to questions regarding low-back pain in the past 12 months and history of asthm

187 The respective odds ratios for low back pain incidence were 0.97 (95% CI, 0.83-1.13) an

188 spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitatio

189 ical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific

190 Low back pain is a common medical problem but has decrea

191 Chronic low back pain is a common problem that has only modestly

192 Low back pain is associated with degeneration of the int

193 Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy

194 e acceptability of acupuncture treatment for low back pain is complex and multifaceted.

195 The most common cause of low back pain is degenerative disease of the interverteb

196 The incidence of low back pain is extremely high and is often linked to i

197 The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients re

198 Low back pain is often the direct result of degeneration

199 Chronic low back pain is one of the most prevalent and costly me

200 Observations: Low back pain is rarely seen in youth before they reach

201 Low back pain is treated by many types of providers, wit

202 Low-back pain is a common and costly problem.

203 niated disc (HD), one of the major causes of low back pain, is often resolved spontaneously without s

204 the afternoon in 47 subjects without current low back pain (IVDs = 230; age range, 20-71 years) after

205 llitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia).

206 eloped to screen for risk factors for future low back pain (LBP) -related disability and work loss re

207 ebral disc (IVD) degeneration and consequent low back pain (LBP) are common and costly pathological p

208 d cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of

209 Low back pain (LBP) contributes to considerable disabili

210 ance differs between people with and without low back pain (LBP) during a low-load lifting task.

211 Low back pain (LBP) in children and adolescents is a com

212 Low back pain (LBP) is a common debilitating condition w

213 Low back pain (LBP) is a widespread debilitating disorde

214 Low back pain (LBP) is common in children but the progno

215 Low back pain (LBP) is common in primary care.

216 Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 mil

217 Low back pain (LBP) is the most frequently reported musc

218 ociated with a specific phenotype of chronic low back pain (LBP).

219 our of the paraspinal muscles in people with low back pain (LBP); but so far, HDEMG has not been used

220 program to adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain led to greater improvements in back functi

221 Low back pain limits activity and is the second most fre

222 For acute low back pain (<4 weeks' duration), the only nonpharmaco

223 with the largest number of YLDs in 2010 were low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculos

224 Patients with low back pain may have fatty degeneration in erector spi

225 Low-back pain may result.

226 nal treatments for participants with chronic low back pain (Mint study) were conducted in 16 multidis

227 s that could be confused for musculoskeletal low back pain (nepholithiasis, urinary tract infection,

228 Among the patients with chronic low back pain, nerves extended into the inner third of t

229 that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had

230 ry of any allergy were more likely to report low-back pain (odds ratio = 1.51; 95% confidence interva

231 ore likely to have both major depression and low-back pain (odds ratio = 3.03; 95% confidence interva

232 therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration.

233 nts consulted primary care with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration.

234 ostic imaging is indicated for patients with low back pain only if they have severe progressive neuro

235 incidental but may be found in patients with low back pain or neuromuscular deficits.

236 es, women were 1.5 times more likely to have low back pain or symptoms of intervertebral disc herniat

237 ity were half as likely to have work-related low-back pain (OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.96) and nurses rep

238 heumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, chronic low back pain, or ischemic heart disease since 1995.

239 clinical trials of participants with chronic low back pain originating in the facet joints, sacroilia

240 mptoms, and upper body, lower extremity, and low back pain over six months.

241 asone recipients demonstrated improvement in low back pain (P = .04, Fisher exact test), whereas 55%

242 betamethasone recipients had improvement in low back pain (P = .26), whereas 49% of triamcinolone re

243 betamethasone recipients had improvement in low back pain (P = .38), whereas 52% of triamcinolone re

244 Low back pain patients are sometimes offered fusion surg

245 Genome-wide-association studies in chronic low back pain patients identified sepiapterin reductase

246 the most expensive health care providers for low back pain patients.

247 lso observed in a separate cohort of chronic low-back pain patients and was associated with dynamic c

248 rent sites and accurately classified chronic low-back pain patients in two additional independent dat

249 s reproducible across two cohorts of chronic low-back pain patients obtained from different sites and

250 Patients with CLBP had low back pain persisting for at least 12 months that was

251 egeneration (IVDD) as major cause of chronic low back pain represent the most common degenerative joi

252 ated to a person's health status) indicating low back pain severity were divided according to symptom

253 lation, massage, and acupuncture for chronic low back pain (SOE, low to moderate).

254 acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain (SOE, low).

255 logic therapy with proven benefits-for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subac

256 Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associate

257 iagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality e

258 fferent rheumatic conditions (eg, neck pain, low back pain, systemic lupus erythematosus, fibromyalgi

259 After chronic low back pain, Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorders a

260 ncome populations have a lower prevalence of low back pain than high-income populations.

261 atory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was e

262 endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious patho

263 ive inception cohorts of patients with acute low back pain that measured fear of pain (often describe

264 We randomly assigned 321 adults with low back pain that persisted for seven days after a prim

265 e preceding medications for acute or chronic low back pain that reported pain outcomes, back-specific

266 The proportion of visits to specialists for low back pain that were new consultations increased from

267 As the most common cause of low back pain, the cascade of intervertebral disc (IVD)

268 For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy a

269 For acute low back pain, the only therapy with good evidence of ef

270 studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia

271 e authors randomly selected 62 patients with low back pain to undergo either rapid MR imaging or plai

272 idemiologic studies report the prevalence of low back pain to vary from 7.6% to 37% in different popu

273 ic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT co

274 Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with

275 rm trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess seriou

276 ard deviation]; age range, 20-79 years) with low back pain underwent standard 1.5-T MR imaging, which

277 include intense vulvar and vaginal itching, low back pain, uterine cramps, fetal distress, and prete

278 Prevalence of low back pain was 0.2% for both males and females with o

279 ment-evoked pain in individuals with chronic low back pain was associated with longer reaction times,

280 Seven RCTs involving 864 patients with low back pain were eligible for review.

281 raphy by a sports medicine clinic because of low back pain were evaluated for the presence of asympto

282 mponents for predicting persistent disabling low back pain were maladaptive pain coping behaviors, no

283 adults with troublesome subacute or chronic low-back pain were recruited from 56 general practices a

284 nostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic defi

285 ne does not address noninvasive treatment of low back pain, which is covered by a separate ACP guidel

286 atment selection in patients with persistent low back pain who are suspected of having herniated nucl

287 Recommendation 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to non

288 y with SPECT can help identify patients with low back pain who would benefit from facet joint injecti

289 ty-seven patients (23 men and 24 women) with low back pain, who were scheduled for facet joint inject

290 ptoms of low back pain alone and symptoms of low back pain with objective corroborating findings.

291 Low back pain with or without objective findings was ass

292 patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advi

293 s is known about the epidemiology of chronic low-back pain with no associated work disability or comp

294 the preceding therapies for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain) that reported p

295 manipulation, and yoga for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain).

296 ive-month period because of an acute, severe low back pain, with sphincter dysfunction, partially res

297 eporting (OP-8) reduced MR imaging rates for low back pain without conservative therapy in either Med

298 ion of MR imaging examinations performed for low back pain without history of conservative therapy.

299 Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying

300 cians and American Pain Society guideline on low back pain, would provide better care to patients, im