Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Mar 28:14:117.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-117.

Electrical stimulation for chronic non-specific low back pain in a working-age population: a 12-week double blinded randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Electrical stimulation for chronic non-specific low back pain in a working-age population: a 12-week double blinded randomized controlled trial

Matthew S Thiese et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Non-invasive electrotherapy is commonly used for treatment of chronic low back pain. Evidence for efficacy of most electrotherapy modalities is weak or lacking. This study aims to execute a high-quality, double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 1) H-Wave(®) Device stimulation plus usual care with 2) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) plus usual care, and 3) Sham electrotherapy plus usual care to determine comparative efficacy for treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain patients.

Patients: Chronic non-specific low back pain patients between ages of 18-65 years, with pain of at least 3 months duration and minimal current 5/10 VAS pain. Patients will have no significant signs or symptoms of lumbosacral nerve impingement, malignancy, spinal stenosis, or mood disorders.

Study design: Double blind RCT with 3 arms and 38 subjects per arm. Randomization by permuted blocks of random length, stratified by Workers Compensation claim (yes vs. no), and use of opioids. The null hypothesis of this study is that there are no statistically significant differences in functional improvement between treatment types during and at the end of a 12-week week treatment period.

Data collection: Subjective data will be collected using Filemaker Pro™ database management collection tools. Objective data will be obtained through functional assessments. Data will be collected at enrollment and at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks for each participant by a blinded assessor.

Interventions: H-Wave(®) device stimulation (Intervention A) plus usual care, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (Intervention B) plus usual care, and sham electrotherapy plus usual care (control). Each treatment arm will have identical numbers of visits (4) and researcher contact time (approximately 15 hours).

Primary outcome measure: Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary measures include: Rowland Morris Instrument, VAS pain score, functional evaluation including strength when pushing and pulling, pain free range of motion in flexion and extension. Outcome measures assessed at baseline, 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Treatment failure will be defined if patient terminates assigned treatment arm for non-efficacy or undergoes invasive procedure or other excluded cointerventions. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis and adjusted for covariates related to LBP (e.g. age) as needed.

Discussion: Study strengths include complex randomization, treatment group allocation concealment, double blinding, controlling for co-interventions, rigorous inclusion criteria, assessment of compliance, plans for limiting dropout, identical assessment methods and timing for each treatment arm, and planned intention-to-treat analyses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial design, procedures, stages and data collection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Shoulder height push assessment using BTE EvalTech system.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Deyo RA. Promises and limitations of the Patient Outcome Research Teams: the low-back pain example. Proc Assoc Am Physicians. 1995;107(3):324–328. - PubMed
    1. Friedman BW. Diagnostic testing and treatment of low back pain in United States emergency departments: a national perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(24):E1406–E1411. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d952a5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Licciardone JC. The epidemiology and medical management of low back pain during ambulatory medical care visits in the United States. Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2008;2:11. doi: 10.1186/1750-4732-2-11. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gore M. The burden of chronic low back pain: clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and health care costs in usual care settings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37(11):E668–E677. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318241e5de. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pai S, Sundaram LJ. Low back pain: an economic assessment in the United States. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00101-9. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types