Lack of effectiveness of bed rest for sciatica

被引:123
作者
Vroomen, PCAJ
de Krom, MCTFM
Wilmink, JT
Kester, ADM
Knottnerus, JA
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ Hosp, Dept Neurol, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Maastricht Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Maastricht Univ, Dept Methodol & Stat, Maastricht, Netherlands
[4] Maastricht Univ, Dept Family Practice, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1056/NEJM199902113400602
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and Methods Bed rest is widely advocated for sciatica, but its effectiveness has not been established. To study the effectiveness of bed rest in patients with a lumbosacral radicular syndrome of sufficient severity to justify treatment with bed rest for two weeks, we randomly assigned 183 subjects to either bed rest or watchful waiting for this period. The primary outcome measures were the investigator's and patient's global assessments of improvement after 2 and 12 weeks, and the secondary outcome measures were changes in functional status and in pain scores (after 2, 3, and 12 weeks), absenteeism from work, and the need for surgical intervention. Neither the investigators who assessed the outcomes nor those involved in data entry and analysis were aware of the patients' treatment assignments. Results After two weeks, 64 of the 92 patients in the bed-rest group (70 percent) reported improvement, as compared with 59 of the 91 patients in the control (watchful-waiting) group (65 percent) (adjusted odds ratio for improvement in the bed-rest group, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 2.3). After 12 weeks, 87 percent of the patients in both groups reported improvement. The results of assessments of the intensity of pain, the bothersomeness of symptoms, and functional status revealed no significant differences between the two groups. The extent of absenteeism from work and rates of surgical intervention were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Among patients with symptoms and signs of a lumbosacral radicular syndrome, bed rest is not a more effective therapy than watchful waiting. (N Engl J Med 1999;340:418-23.) (C) 1999, Massachusetts Medical Society.
引用
收藏
页码:418 / 423
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
Altman DG, 1990, PRACTICAL STAT MED R
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Clinical trials: a practical approach
[3]  
[Anonymous], LOGISTIC REGRESSION
[4]   MEASURING THE FUNCTIONAL STATUS OF PATIENTS WITH LOW-BACK-PAIN - ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 4 DISEASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRES [J].
BEURSKENS, AJ ;
DEVET, HC ;
KOKE, AJ ;
VANDERHEIJDEN, GJ ;
KNIPSCHILD, PG .
SPINE, 1995, 20 (09) :1017-1028
[5]  
BONDEPETERSEN F, 1994, ACTA PHYSIOL SCAND, V150, P65
[6]   An overview of the issues: Physiological effects of bed rest and restricted physical activity [J].
Convertino, VA ;
Bloomfield, SA ;
Greenleaf, JE .
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 1997, 29 (02) :187-190
[7]  
COOMES EN, 1961, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V264, P20
[8]  
COX DR, 1972, J R STAT SOC B, V34, P187
[9]   HOW MANY DAYS OF BED REST FOR ACUTE LOW-BACK-PAIN - A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL [J].
DEYO, RA ;
DIEHL, AK ;
ROSENTHAL, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1986, 315 (17) :1064-1070
[10]   WHAT CAN THE HISTORY AND PHYSICAL-EXAMINATION TELL US ABOUT LOW-BACK-PAIN [J].
DEYO, RA ;
RAINVILLE, J ;
KENT, DL .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 268 (06) :760-765