Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
van Tulder 2003 Canada | Review of papers examining the use of muscle relaxants in patients with simple low back pain. Only RCTs and CCTs were included in the article. | Systematic review | Benzodiazepine vs placebo in acute back pain | One low quality trial. Benefit in use of benzodiazepines. | This is a well conducted review article. There is also a Cochrane review by the same authors on the same subject. The outcomes in individual trials are often disparate making grouping of results difficult. |
Nonbenzodiazepines vs placebo in acute back pain | 4 trials (3 high quality, 1 low quality) showed benefit to muscle relaxants in short term pain relief , global efficiency and physical outcome. | ||||
Side effects in acute lower back pain | All trials showed clinically and statistically significant increases in side effects of muscle relaxants (e.g. drowsiness, dizziness) | ||||
Antispasticity drugs for acute low back pain | 2 high quality trials both demonstrated a benefit in acute low back pain | ||||
Muscle relaxants + analgesics/NSAIDS vs. placebo + analgesics/NSAIDS in acute back pain | 3 trials. Benefit in use of muscle relaxants but a significant increase in side effect reporting. | ||||
Injection therapy | Strong evidence of benefit in acute back pain | ||||
Bernstein et al 2004 USA | 1633 patients with low back pain. Recruited from community practitioners. Observed to determine if the use of muscle relaxants was associated with a more rapid recovery. No interventions were made by the authors on the care of the patients. | Observational cohort. | Baseline data on patient mix | 24% had sciatica. average pain was 5.4 on a 10 point scale. Average Roland baseline score was 11.2. Mean time to functional recovery (if recovered) was 16.2 days. | Only looked at time to return to normal function. benefit in treatment may be in relief of symptoms only which would be missed on this study. Purely observational study which is prone to a great deal of bias. Groups clearly different at baseline with users of muscle relaxants apparently having a greater degree of illness (though this is adjusted for in the Cox analysis) |
Use of muscle relaxants | 49% of patients used muscle relaxants | ||||
Statistically significant differences in patient characteristics between users and non users | Users were on average 2.3 years younger (p=0.012); female 50% vs 45%; on workers compensation 34% vs 28%; or if they had a higher pain score, roland disability score or if they took longer to recover. They were less likely to be used if the patient had seen a chiropracter as initial provide 18% vs 55%; | ||||
Time to achieve functional recovery on Cox proportional hazards model. | No difference in recovery rates between those using muscle relaxants and those not. | ||||
Hoiriis et al 2004 Switzerland | 192 patients with back pain of 2-6 weeks duration. Randomised to either chiropractic plus placebo, relaxant plus sham chiro or sham both. Followed up for 4 weeks. | PRCT | VAS for pain | All groups reduced significantly. No statistical difference between groups. | Difficult to produce a sham chiropractic but the authors have tried hard to do so in this study. |
Oswestry disability index | All groups reduced significantly. No statistical difference between groups. | ||||
Modified Zung | All groups reduced significantly. No statistical difference between groups. | ||||
Schobers test | No group significantly improved flexibility. No statistical difference between groups. |