Usual care including home exercise with versus without spa therapy for chronic low back pain: Protocol for the LOMBATHERM' study, a multicentric randomised controlled trial

7Citations
Citations of this article
181Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Low back pain is highly prevalent and a major source of disability worldwide. Spa therapy is frequently used to treat low back pain, but the associated level of evidence for efficacy is insufficient. To fill this knowledge gap, this protocol proposes an appropriately powered, prospective, evaluator-blinded, multi-centre, two-parallel-arm, randomised (1:1), controlled trial that will compare spa therapy in addition to usual care including home exercise (UCHE) versus UCHE alone for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Methods: Eligible patients (anticipated sample size of 358) will have had low back pain for more than 3 months and scores for pain greater than 40 mm on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Following initial consent for UCHE and baseline evaluations, patients are randomised (1:1) to UCHE alone, or UCHE plus spa therapy (18 days of mud packs, underwater massages, showers and water exercises under medical supervision). Patients in the latter arm will be requested to sign an additional consent form as per Zelen randomisation. Follow-up visits will occur at approximately months 1, 6 and 12 and (along with baseline assessments) will cover changes over time in VAS pain scores, the impact of lower back pain on daily life (the Rolland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)), inappropriate fears and beliefs about lower back pain (the fear, avoidance, belief questionnaire (FABQ)), general quality of life (the Euroqol Group 5 dimension, 5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L)), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), consumption of analgesic drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and overall state of health. Health resource use and days of sick leave (and subsequently the associated costs) will also be recorded. The primary outcome is the presence/absence of a clinically relevant change (improvement of at least 30%) in the VAS score for pain at 6 months. Discussion: Despite the fact that previous, rather dated recommendations encourage spa therapy for the treatment of low back pain, the current literary corpus is methodologically poor. This protocol has been designed to provide results spanning a thorough range of outcomes at the highest evidence level possible. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03910023. Registered on 10 April 2019.

References Powered by Scopus

Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale

4439Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

MEASUREMENT OF PAIN

3403Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The 1982 volvo award in clinical science: A study of the natural history of back pain: Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain

2968Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Peloids as thermotherapeutic agents

26Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Mud therapy and rehabilitation - scientific relevance in the last six years (2015 – 2020) Systematic literature review and meta-analysis based on the PRISMA paradigm

25Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comparison of the efficacies of peloid therapy and paraffin treatment given as an adjuncts to exercise therapy in patients with hallux rigidus: a randomized, uncontrolled, prospective study

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Forestier, R., Suehs, C., Françon, A., Marty, M., Genevay, S., Sellam, J., … Molinari, N. (2020). Usual care including home exercise with versus without spa therapy for chronic low back pain: Protocol for the LOMBATHERM’ study, a multicentric randomised controlled trial. Trials, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04271-9

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

57%

Researcher 11

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 24

41%

Medicine and Dentistry 22

38%

Sports and Recreations 8

14%

Neuroscience 4

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0