Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Jan 26;8:10.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-10.

The Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method in Addition to First-Line Care for Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

The Effectiveness of the McKenzie Method in Addition to First-Line Care for Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Luciana A C Machado et al. BMC Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Low back pain is a highly prevalent and disabling condition worldwide. Clinical guidelines for the management of patients with acute low back pain recommend first-line treatment consisting of advice, reassurance and simple analgesics. Exercise is also commonly prescribed to these patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of adding the McKenzie method to the first-line care of patients with acute low back pain.

Methods: A multi-centre randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up was conducted between September 2005 and June 2008. Patients seeking care for acute non-specific low back pain from primary care medical practices were screened. Eligible participants were assigned to receive a treatment programme based on the McKenzie method and first-line care (advice, reassurance and time-contingent acetaminophen) or first-line care alone, for 3 weeks. Primary outcome measures included pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) over the first seven days, pain at 1 week, pain at 3 weeks and global perceived effect (-5 to 5 scale) at 3 weeks. Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models.

Results: One hundred and forty-eight participants were randomized into study groups, of whom 138 (93%) completed the last follow-up. The addition of the McKenzie method to first-line care produced statistically significant but small reductions in pain when compared to first-line care alone: mean of -0.4 points (95% confidence interval, -0.8 to -0.1) at 1 week, -0.7 points (95% confidence interval, -1.2 to -0.1) at 3 weeks, and -0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.0) over the first 7 days. Patients receiving the McKenzie method did not show additional effects on global perceived effect, disability, function or on the risk of persistent symptoms. These patients sought less additional health care than those receiving only first-line care (P = 0.002).

Conclusions: When added to the currently recommended first-line care of acute low back pain, a treatment programme based on the McKenzie method does not produce appreciable additional short-term improvements in pain, disability, function or global perceived effect. However, the McKenzie method seems to reduce health utilization although it does not reduce patient's risk of developing persistent symptoms.

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12605000032651.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Dynamic loading strategies applied to the spine in the McKenzie method: (A) flexion in standing; (B) extension in standing; (C) flexion in lying; (D) extension in lying; (E) side glide in standing; (F) therapist-assisted side glide in standing. Reproduced with permission of Spinal Publications NZ Ltd.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow of participants through the trial. *Some patients presented more than one exclusion criteria.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pain scores in the McKenzie and First-line Care groups. Values are unadjusted means and standard errors. For clarity, data for the two groups have been slightly offset on the time axis.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 17 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross T Jr, Shekelle P, Owens D. for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians and the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Inter Med. 2007;147:478–491. - PubMed
    1. Van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T, Breen A, Gil del Real M, Hutchinson A, Koes B, Laerum E, Malmivaara A. on behalf of the COST B13 working group on guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:S169–S191. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-1071-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. NHMRC. Evidence-based management of acute musculoskeletal pain. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2003.
    1. Webster B, Courtney T, Huang Y-H, Matz S, Christiani D. Survey of acute low back pain management by specialty group and practice experience. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48:723–732. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000214356.67689.1f. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, Koes B. Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine. 2000;25:2784–2796. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011010-00011. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback