0
Evidence-Based Orthopaedics   |    
Review: Bed Rest Is Not Effective for Acute Low-Back Pain or Sciatica Hagen KB, Hilde G, Jamtvedt G, Winnem MF. The Cochrane review of bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica. Spine. 2000 Nov 15;25:2932-9.
K B Hagen; G Hilde; G Jamtvedt; M F Winnem
View Disclosures and Other Information
Source of funding: In part, Norwegian Fund for Postgraduate Training in Physiotherapy.
For correspondence: Dr. K.B. Hagen, Health Services Research Unit, Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 4404, Torshov, N-04043 Oslo, Norway. E-mail address: k.b.hagen@labmed.uio.no.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:789-789 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
text A A A
Question: In patients with acute low-back pain or sciatica, does bed rest reduce pain and improve function?
Data sources: Studies were identified by searching databases, including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline (to 1998), Embase/Excerpta Medica (to 1998), Sport (to 1998), and Scisearch (to 1998); by scanning reference lists of articles; and by contacting authors.
Study selection: 2 reviewers independently selected studies that were randomized or quasi-randomized trials of bed rest for persons between 16 and 80 years of age who had acute low-back pain with radiation of pain below the knee (sciatica) or no radiation of pain. Exclusion criteria were inflammatory joint disease, infection, neoplasm, metastasis, osteoporosis, and fracture.
Data extraction: 2 reviewers independently assessed the quality of the study methods. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. Data on participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Authors were contacted for any missing data.
Results: 9 studies (3 in North America and 6 in Europe) involving a total of 1435 patients met the selection criteria. 2 of 3 heterogeneous studies comparing the effects of bed rest with those of maintaining activity had high-quality methods, and the pooled results showed no difference in pain intensity in the short term (£3 weeks) or the intermediate term (3 to 12 weeks) (table). The pooled results of 3 studies showed a slight decrease in functional status (Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire) for the bed-rest group in the short term (P < 0.01); the difference was not statistically significant in the intermediate term (table). In 2 studies comparing shorter periods (2 to 4 days) with longer periods (>4 days) of bed rest, no differences existed between groups for pain intensity, functional status, or time to recovery in the short or intermediate term. Of 4 studies that examined other treatments, 2 compared bed rest with exercise and found no differences for pain or restriction of activities of daily living in the short, intermediate, or long (1-year) term. Bed rest did not reduce pain or disability when compared with a combination of bed rest, exercise, and education (1 study) or with manipulation, drug therapy, physiotherapy, back school, or placebo (1 study). Another study, with lower-quality methods, compared bed rest with epidural anesthesia and showed that the mean time to recovery was longer in the bed-rest group than in the epidural group (31 vs. 11 days, P < 0.001). (table)
Conclusion: In patients with low-back pain or sciatica, bed rest does not relieve pain better than advice to maintain activity, and it leads to a decrease in function.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump:  Bed Rest vs. Maintaining Activity for Acute Low-Back Pain or Sciatica*
*All point estimates favor the activity group. CI = confidence interval. †Not statistically significant.
OutcomeNumber of studiesStandardized mean difference (95% CI)
Pain level at £3 wks20.03 (—0.20 to 0.26)†
Pain level at 3 to 12 wks20.20 (—0.03 to 0.43)†
Functional status at £3 wks33.20 (0.64 to 5.75)
Functional status at 3 to 12 wks32.27 (—0.12 to 4.66)†

Submit a comment

Topics

Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump:  Bed Rest vs. Maintaining Activity for Acute Low-Back Pain or Sciatica*
*All point estimates favor the activity group. CI = confidence interval. †Not statistically significant.
OutcomeNumber of studiesStandardized mean difference (95% CI)
Pain level at £3 wks20.03 (—0.20 to 0.26)†
Pain level at 3 to 12 wks20.20 (—0.03 to 0.43)†
Functional status at £3 wks33.20 (0.64 to 5.75)
Functional status at 3 to 12 wks32.27 (—0.12 to 4.66)†
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe




Related Articles
Related Cases
Related Content
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
jbjs jobs
12/22/2011
ME - Central Maine Medical Center
12/22/2011
VA - Charleston Area Medical Center