Location of Repository

Do baseline characteristics predict response to treatment for low back pain? Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset [ISRCTN32683578]

By Martin Underwood, Veronica Morton and Amanda Farrin

Abstract

Objectives. To identify characteristics of randomized controlled trial participants which predict greater benefits from physical treatments for low back pain. If successful, this would allow more appropriate selection of patients for different treatments.\ud \ud Methods. We did a secondary analysis of the UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation trial (UK BEAM n = 1334) dataset to identify baseline characteristics predicting response to manipulation, exercise and manipulation followed by exercise (combined treatment). Rather than simply identifying factors associated with overall outcome, we tested for the statistical significance of the interaction between treatment allocation, baseline characteristics and outcome to identify factors that predicted response to treatment. We also did a post-hoc subgroup analysis to present separate results for trial participants with subacute and chronic low back pain to inform future evidence synthesis.\ud \ud Results. Age, work status, age of leaving school, ‘pain and disability’, ‘quality of life’ and ‘beliefs’ at baseline all predicted overall outcome. None of these predicted response to treatment. In those allocated to combined treatment, there was a suggestion that expecting treatment to be helpful might improve outcome at 1 yr. Episode length at study entry did not predict response to treatment.\ud \ud Conclusion. Baseline participant characteristics did not predict response to the UK BEAM treatment packages. Using recognized prognostic variables to select patients for different treatment packages, without first demonstrating that these factors affect response to treatment, may be inappropriate. In particular, this analysis suggests that the distinction between subacute and chronic low back pain may not be useful when considering treatment choices

Topics: RM, RA
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Year: 2007
DOI identifier: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem113
OAI identifier: oai:kar.kent.ac.uk:27950

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. doi
  2. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. doi
  3. (1993). A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. doi
  4. A report from the Second International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain. Reexamining priorities. doi
  5. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. doi
  6. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
  7. Applying regression and correlation - a guide for students and researchers.
  8. Back pain and health policy research: the what, why, how, who, and when. doi
  9. Back to Fitness Programme. doi
  10. (1983). Clinical trials: a practical approach, Wiley, doi
  11. (1996). Do attitudes and beliefs influence work loss due to low back trouble? Occup Med doi
  12. Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine 1999;24:1104–12. doi
  13. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27: (3 Suppl):S217–32. doi
  14. (1992). Grading the severity of chronic pain. doi
  15. High fear-avoiders of physical activity benefit from an exercise program for patients with back pain. doi
  16. (2006). Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute ‘‘nonspecific’’ low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine doi
  17. (1999). Information and advice to patients with back pain can have a positive effect. A randomized controlled trial of a novel educational booklet in primary care. doi
  18. (1990). Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. doi
  19. Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness. doi
  20. Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures.
  21. (1998). Outcome of low back pain in general practice: a prospective study. doi
  22. (2006). Patient perceptions of physical therapy within a trial for back pain treatments (UK BEAM) [ISRCTN32683578]. Rheumatology doi
  23. Predictors and modifiers of treatment effect influencing sick leave in subacute low back pain patients. doi
  24. (1995). Randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow up. doi
  25. Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. doi
  26. Randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy compared with advice for low back pain. doi
  27. (2003). Spinal manipulation for low-back pain: a treatment package agreed to by the UK chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professional associations. Man Ther doi
  28. Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. doi
  29. The acceptability to primary care staff of a multidisciplinary training package on acute back pain guidelines. Fam Pract doi
  30. (1996). The Back Book. Norwich: The Stationery Office,
  31. (1992). The distress and risk assessment method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. doi
  32. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. doi
  33. The effect of a fear-avoidance-based physical therapy intervention for patients with acute low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. doi
  34. (1990). The EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy doi
  35. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care doi
  36. (2000). The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine doi
  37. The UK BEAM Trial Team, United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. doi
  38. The UK BEAM Trial Team, United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. doi
  39. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. doi
  40. UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial - national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578]. doi
  41. What’s it got to do with us? Including support staff in general practice training sessions. Educ Primary Care

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.