***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Study Design . A prospect i ve , r and omized , single ( investigator ) blind , comparative efficacy trial was conducted . Objective . To compare the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy ( 40 C , 8 hours/day ) with that of ibuprofen ( 1200 mg/day ) and acetaminophen ( 4000 mg/day ) in subjects with acute nonspecific low back pain . Summary of Background Data . The efficacy of topical heat methods , as compared with oral analgesic treatment of low back pain , has not been established . Methods . Subjects ( n = 371 ) were r and omly assigned to heat wrap ( n = 113 ) , acetaminophen ( n = 113 ) , or ibuprofen ( n = 106 ) for efficacy evaluation , or to oral placebo ( n = 20 ) or unheated back wrap ( n = 19 ) for blinding . Outcome measures included pain relief , muscle stiffness , lateral trunk flexibility , and disability . Efficacy was measured over two treatment days and two follow-up days . Results . Day 1 pain relief for the heat wrap ( mean , 2 ) was higher than for ibuprofen ( mean , 1.51;P = 0.0007 ) or acetaminophen ( mean , 1.32;P = 0.0001 ) . Extended mean pain relief ( Days 3 to 4 ) for the heat wrap ( mean , 2.61 ) also was higher than for ibuprofen ( mean , 1.68;P = 0.0001 ) or acetaminophen ( mean , 1.95;P = 0.0009 ) . Lateral trunk flexibility was improved with the heat wrap ( mean change , 4.28 cm ) during treatment ( P ≤ 0.009 vs acetaminophen [ mean change , 2.93 cm ] , P ≤ 0.001 vs ibuprofen [ mean change , 2.51 cm ] ) . The results were similar on Day 4 . Day 1 reduction in muscle stiffness with the heat wrap ( mean , 16.3 ) was greater than with acetaminophen ( mean , 10.5;P = 0.001 ) . Disability was reduced with the heat wrap ( mean , 4.9 ) , as compared with ibuprofen ( mean , 2.7;P = 0.01 ) and acetaminophen ( mean , 2.9;P = 0.0007 ) , on Day 4 . None of the adverse events were serious . The highest rate ( 10.4 % ) was reported in the ibuprofen group . Conclusion . Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was superior to both acetaminophen and ibuprofen for treating low back pain Abstract Objective : To assess the association between competing interests and authors ' conclusions in r and omised clinical trials . Design : Epidemiological study of r and omised clinical trials published in the BMJ from January 1997 to June 2001 . Financial competing interests were defined as funding by for profit organisations and other competing interests as personal , academic , or political . Studies : 159 trials from 12 medical specialties . Main outcome measures : Authors ' conclusions defined as interpretation of extent to which overall results favoured experimental intervention . Conclusions appraised on 6 point scale ; higher scores favour experimental intervention . Results : Authors ' conclusions were significantly more positive towards the experimental intervention in trials funded by for profit organisations alone compared with trials without competing interests ( mean difference 0.48 ( SE 0.13 ) , P=0.014 ) , trials funded by both for profit and non-profit organisations ( 0.30 ( SE 0.10 ) , P=0.003 ) , and trials with other competing interests ( 0.45 ( SE 0.13 ) , P=0.006 ) . Other competing interests and funding from both for profit and non-profit organisations were not significantly associated with authors ' conclusions . The association between financial competing interests and authors ' conclusions was not explained by method ological quality , statistical power , type of experimental intervention ( pharmacological or non-pharmacological ) , type of control intervention ( for example , placebo or active drug ) , or medical specialty . Conclusions : Authors ' conclusions in r and omised clinical trials significantly favoured experimental interventions if financial competing interests were declared . Other competing interests were not significantly associated with authors ' conclusions OBJECTIVE To assess the overall effectiveness of spa therapy compared with usual routine drug therapy in chronic low back pain ( LBP ) . METHODS One hundred and twenty-one patients were r and omly allocated to treatment ( n = 59 ) and control ( n = 62 ) groups . In the treatment group , patients underwent routine drug therapy and spa therapy 6 days/week for 3 consecutive weeks in Saint-Nectaire , France . In the control group , patients received routine drug therapy .  Effectiveness was assessed based on clinical measures , duration and intensity of pain , Rol and and Morris ' disability question naire , the patient 's overall evaluation of back health , and drug consumption ( analgesic and antiinflammatory ) . Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with repeated measures . RESULTS At 3 weeks , patients in the treatment group had significant improvement in all outcome variables ( p < 0.0001 ) except for the Schober index and analgesic and antiinflammatory drug consumption . At 6 months , improvement was still significant for the same outcome variables ( p < 0.0001 ) , plus a significant reduction in analgesic consumption . CONCLUSION This study suggests both immediate and 6 month effectiveness of spa therapy in chronic LBP . Spa therapy may be beneficial in the management of chronic LBP Three treatments for non-specific lumbar pain -- balneotherapy , underwater traction bath , and underwater massage -- were assessed in a r and omised prospect i ve controlled trial in 158 out patients . Each group was treated for four weeks and patients were review ed at the end of this period and at 12 months after entry to the trial . The prescription of analgesics and the pain score were significantly reduced in all three treated groups , but there was no difference between the three groups . No significant change occurred in spinal motion and the straight leg raising test . After one year only the analgesic consumption was significantly lower than in the control group OBJECTIVE --To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy , physiotherapy , treatment by the general practitioner , and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints . DESIGN --R and omised clinical trial . SETTING -- Primary health care in the Netherl and s. PATIENTS --256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks ' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years . INTERVENTIONS --At the discretion of the manipulative therapists , physiotherapists , and general practitioners . Physiotherapy consisted of exercises , massage , and physical therapy ( heat , electrotherapy , ultrasound , shortwave diathermy ) . Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine . Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs ( for example , analgesics ) , advice about posture , home exercises , and (bed)rest . Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy ( 10 minutes ) and detuned ultrasound ( 10 minutes ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES --Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients . RESULTS --Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up . Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy ( 4.5 ) than with physiotherapy ( 3.8 ) after 12 months ' follow up ( difference 0.9 ; 95 % confidence interval 0.1 to 1.7 ) . Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning ( difference 0.6 ; -0.1 to 1.3 ) . The global perceived effect after six and 12 months ' follow up was similar for both treatments . CONCLUSIONS --Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment . Furthermore , manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Since the release of acute low back pain management guidelines in 1994 , little was known about the effect of these guidelines on clinical practice . The purpose of this study was to examine physical therapists ' reported management of acute and subacute lumbar impairment . SUBJECTS One in 10 registered physical therapists who were r and omly selected from southern Ontario , Canada , ( n=454 ) and all registered physical therapists from northern Ontario ( n=331 ) were surveyed . METHODS In the question naire , case scenarios covered 3 areas related to the management of lumbar impairment : ( 1 ) physical examination , ( 2 ) treatment and recommendations , and ( 3 ) therapists ' beliefs regarding its management . RESULTS Five hundred sixty-nine question naires were returned ( response rate=72.5 % ) . Only data obtained for therapists ( n=274 ) whose weekly workload included more than 10 % of people with lumbar impairment were used in the analysis . Overall ,  patient education , exercise , and electrotherapeutic and thermal modalities were the preferred interventions for acute lumbar impairment ( symptom onset of less than 5 weeks ) with or without sciatica , whereas exercise and work modification were preferred for subacute lumbar impairment ( symptom onset of 5 weeks or longer ) . There was a trend of using electrotherapeutic and thermal modalities with uncertain effectiveness . Only 46.3 % of the therapists agreed or strongly agreed that practice guidelines were useful for managing lumbar impairment . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Although the physical therapists surveyed , in general , followed the guidelines in managing acute lumbar impairment , they felt uncertain regarding the value of practice guidelines . Future research should focus on identifying effective treatment approaches and exploring the effectiveness of practice guidelines BACKGROUND CONTEXT Restorative exercise and palliative modalities are frequently used together for the treatment of acute low back pain . However , little is known about the effects of combining these treatments . PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise on the functional ability of patients with acute low back pain . STUDY DESIGN / SETTING A r and omized controlled trial was conducted at three outpatient medical facilities . PATIENT SAMPLE One hundred individuals ( age 31.2+/-10.6 years ) with low back pain of less than 3 months duration . OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was functional ability assessed by the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile question naire . Secondary outcomes were disability assessed by the Rol and -Morris Disability Question naire and pain relief assessed by a 6-point verbal rating scale . METHODS Participants were r and omized to one of four groups : Heat wrap therapy alone ( heat wrap , n=25 ) ; directional preference-based exercise alone ( exercise , n=25 ) ; combination of heat wrap therapy and exercise ( heat+exercise , n=24 ) ; or control ( booklet , n=26 ) . Treatment was administered for five consecutive days and included four visits to the study center over 1 week . RESULTS At 2 days after the conclusion of treatment ( Day 7 ) , functional improvement for heat+exercise was 84 % , 95 % , and 175 % greater than heat wrap , exercise , and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . Seventy-two percent of the subjects in the heat+exercise group demonstrated a return to pre-injury function compared with 20 % , 20 % , and 19 % for heat wrap , exercise , and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . Disability reduction for heat+exercise was 93 % , 139 % , and 400 % greater than heat wrap , exercise , and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . Pain relief for heat+exercise was 70 % and 143 % greater than exercise and booklet , respectively ( p<.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS Combining continuous low-level heat wrap therapy with directional preference-based exercise during the treatment of acute low back pain significantly improves functional outcomes compared with either intervention alone or control . Either intervention alone tends to be more effective than control Ninety-four patients with non-specific lumbar pain referred to hospital rheumatology and orthopaedic clinics participated in a double-blind controlled trial comparing mobilisation and manipulation with placebo physiotherapy . Results were assessed immediately after the tratment course , two months later , and at one year . Many patients showed improvement , but in contrast to a study on general-practitioner patients with nonspecific back pain no definite advantage could be associated with mobilisation and manipulation . The benefits of mobilisation and manipulation for low back pain are probably restricted to hastening recovery in patients likely rapidly to improve spontaneously . Hence patients whose severity and duration of symptoms warrant specialist referral are less likely to benefit from the technique OBJECTIVE To determine whether traditional bone- setting or continuous light exercise therapy could case back pain and improve function better than ordinary physiotherapy . DESIGN Observer-blinded , r and omized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up . SETTING An outpatient institution for folk medicine research . PATIENTS Of 147 back pain patients recruited from local health centers and by newspaper announcements , 132 were found eligible ( non-retired-no contraindications to manipulation ) and entered . A final 114 ( one dropout ) with back pain for longer than 7 weeks were included in this intent to treat analysis . INTERVENTIONS Bone- setting , guidance for continuous light back movements or physiotherapy for up to ten 1-hour sessions during 6 weeks . MAIN OUTCOME 
    Output:
    
There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effects of cold for low-back pain , and conflicting evidence for any differences between heat and cold for low-back pain .
There is moderate evidence in a small number of trials that heat wrap therapy provides a small short-term reduction in pain and disability in a population with a mix of acute and sub-acute low-back pain , and that the addition of exercise further reduces pain and improves function .
No conclusions can be drawn about the use of cold for low-back pain .
There is conflicting evidence to determine the differences between heat and cold for low-back pain