Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain

Journal ArticleBackground: Lumbar segmental rigidity (LSR) and lumbar segmental instability (LSI) are believed to be associated with low back pain (LBP), and identification of these disorders is believed to be useful for directing intervention choices. Previous studies have focussed on lumbar segmental rotation and translation, but have used widely varying methodologies. Cut-off points for the diagnosis of LSR & LSI are largely arbitrary. Prevalence of these lumbar segmental mobility disorders (LSMDs) in a non-surgical, primary care LBP population has not been established. Methods: A cohort of 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP) were recruited in this prospective, pragmatic, multi-centre study. Consenting patients completed pain and disability rating instruments, and were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from the radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. In order to define reference intervals for normal motion, and define LSR and LSI, we approached the kinematic data using two different models. The first model used a conventional Gaussian definition, with motion beyond two standard deviations (2sd) from the reference mean at each segment considered diagnostic of rotational LSMD and translational LSMD. The second model used a novel normalised within-subjects approach, based on mean normalised contributionto-total-lumbar-motion. An LSMD was then defined as present in any segment that contributed motion beyond 2sd from the reference mean contribution-to-normalised-total-lumbar-motion. We described reference intervals for normal segmental mobility, prevalence of LSMDs under each model, and the association of LSMDs with pain and disability. Results: With the exception of the conventional Gaussian definition of rotational LSI, LSMDs were found in statistically significant prevalences in patients with RCLBP. Prevalences at both the segmental and patient level were generally higher using the normalised within-subjects model (2.8 to 16.8% of segments; 23.3 to 35.5% of individuals) compared to the conventional Gaussian model (0 to 15.8%; 4.7 to 19.6%). LSMDs are associated with presence of LBP, however LSMDs do not appear to be strongly associated with higher levels of pain or disability compared to other forms of non-specific LBP. Conclusion: LSMDs are a valid means of defining sub-groups within non-specific LBP, in a conservative care population of patients with RCLBP. Prevalence was higher using the normalised within-subjects contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion approach

Management of Osteoarthritis: A guide to non-surgical intervention Including the exercise therapy and manual therapy treatment protocols used in the MOA Trial

The MOA trial (Management of Osteoarthritis, or Maimoatanga Mate Köiwi) was a randomised clinical trial that aimed to investigate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both a multi-modal, individualised, supervised exercise therapy programme, and an individualised manual therapy programme, compared with usual medical care, for the management of pain and disability in adults with hip or knee OA. The first chapter of this book provides an introduction to OA and its management. The subsequent chapters provide the detailed treatment protocols delivered in the MOA trial.Non Peer Reviewe

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Nepali versions of numerical pain rating scale and global rating of change

Background: Pain intensity and patients' impression of global improvement are widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice and research. They are commonly assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Global Rating of Change (GROC) questionnaires. The GROC is essential as an anchor for evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs. Both of these PROMs are translated to many languages and have shown excellent psychometric properties. Their availability in Nepali would facilitate pain research and cross-cultural comparison of research findings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NPRS and GROC into Nepali and to assess the psychometric properties of the Nepali version of the NPRS (NPRS-NP). Methods: After translating and cross-culturally adapting the NPRS and GROC into Nepali using recommended guidelines, NPRS-NP was administered to 104 individuals with musculoskeletal pain twice. The Nepali version of the GROC (GROC-NP) was administered at the follow-up for anchor-based assessment. (1) Test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change (MDC) among the stable group, (2) construct validity (by single sample t-test within the improved group and independent sample t-test between groups), and (3) concurrent validity were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to determine the responsiveness of the NPRS-NP using the area under the curve (AUC), and minimum important changes (MIC) for small, medium and large improvements. Results: Significant cultural adaptations were required to obtain relevant Nepali versions of both the NPRS and GROC. The NPRS-NP showed excellent test-retest reliability and a MDC of 1.13 points. NPRS-NP demonstrated a good construct validity by significant within-group difference in mean of NPRS score- t(63)= 7.57, P < 0.001 and statistically significant difference of mean score- t(98)= -4.24, P < .001 between the stable and improved groups. It demonstrated moderate concurrent correlation with the GROC-NP; r = 0.43, P < 0.01. Responsiveness of the NPRS-NP was shown at three levels with AUC = 0.68-0.82, and MIC = 1.17-1.33. Conclusions: The NPRS and GROC were successfully translated and culturally adapted into Nepali. The NPRS-NP demonstrated good reliability, validity and responsiveness in assessing musculoskeletal pain intensity in a Nepali population

Policy Brief 01.1/2020

Working draft - 2020 ANZMUSC Annual Scientific Meeting, 12 February, Wellington, New Zealand. Abbott JH. Policy Discussion: Recommendations for public health policy resulting from the HRC-funded project “The impact and management of rising osteoarthritis burden”. OA SIG Breakfast Meeting, 2020 ANZMUSC Annual Scientific Meeting, 12 February, Wellington, New Zealand.Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of health losses and costs in NZ. The burden of OA is rising as a result of population ageing, rising obesity, increasing injury rates, and earlier onset of disease. The New Zealand health system, already struggling to meet demand for joint replacement surgeries, will be placed under greater pressure by rising rates of OA

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of Nepali versions of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) pain intensity, pain interference, pain behavior, depression, and sleep disturbance short forms in chronic musculoskeletal pain

Purpose: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Meaurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures have been translated into many languages and have been shown to have strong measurement properties across a wide range of clinical conditions. However, Nepali translations of the PROMIS short forms are not yet available. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PROMIS Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, Pain Behavior, Depression, and Sleep Disturbance short forms into Nepali. Methods: We used the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation methodology, which incorporated two forward translations, synthesis of the translations, a back-translation, and three independent reviews, harmonization, cognitive debriefing, revisions, and proof reading. The translation and review teams were fluent in Nepali and English and represented five different countries and four continents. We evaluated the short forms for comprehensibility and relevance (two key aspects of the content validity of an instrument), conducting cognitive debriefing with six adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain, in compliance with recommendations by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The final version was proofread by two native Nepali speakers before and three new proofreaders after cognitive debriefing. Results: All five short forms were successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted into Nepali while maintaining equivalence to the source. Conclusions: The translation and review team, along with a sample from the target population with chronic musculoskeletal pain and the proofreaders considered all five PROMIS short forms relevant and comprehensible. An important next step is to evaluate the measurement properties of these instruments

Does religiosity/spirituality play a role in function, pain-related beliefs, and coping in patients with Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review

This systematic review examined the extent to which measures of religiosity/spirituality (R/S): (1) are associated with pain, function, pain-related beliefs (beliefs), coping responses, and catastrophizing in people with chronic pain; and (2) moderate the association between beliefs, coping and catastrophizing, and pain and function. Experimental and observational studies examining at least one of these research questions in adults with chronic pain were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Twenty studies were included. Most studies focused on the association between R/S and pain or function. When significant associations emerged, those between R/S and psychological function were weak to strong and positive; those between religious/spiritual well-being and pain and physical dysfunction were negative, but weak. Few studies examined the associations between R/S and beliefs/coping/catastrophizing; none examined the moderation role of R/S. The findings suggest that R/S is associated with pain and psychological function in people with chronic pain, and that viewing oneself as being "spiritual," regardless of religion, may contribute to positive psychological adjustment. More research is needed to determine the reliability of this finding. PROSPERO registry CRD42018088803.Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia - FCTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain

BACKGROUND: Lumbar segmental rigidity (LSR) and lumbar segmental instability (LSI) are believed to be associated with low back pain (LBP), and identification of these disorders is believed to be useful for directing intervention choices. Previous studies have focussed on lumbar segmental rotation and translation, but have used widely varying methodologies. Cut-off points for the diagnosis of LSR & LSI are largely arbitrary. Prevalence of these lumbar segmental mobility disorders (LSMDs) in a non-surgical, primary care LBP population has not been established. METHODS: A cohort of 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP) were recruited in this prospective, pragmatic, multi-centre study. Consenting patients completed pain and disability rating instruments, and were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from the radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. In order to define reference intervals for normal motion, and define LSR and LSI, we approached the kinematic data using two different models. The first model used a conventional Gaussian definition, with motion beyond two standard deviations (2sd) from the reference mean at each segment considered diagnostic of rotational LSMD and translational LSMD. The second model used a novel normalised within-subjects approach, based on mean normalised contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion. An LSMD was then defined as present in any segment that contributed motion beyond 2sd from the reference mean contribution-to-normalised-total-lumbar-motion. We described reference intervals for normal segmental mobility, prevalence of LSMDs under each model, and the association of LSMDs with pain and disability. RESULTS: With the exception of the conventional Gaussian definition of rotational LSI, LSMDs were found in statistically significant prevalences in patients with RCLBP. Prevalences at both the segmental and patient level were generally higher using the normalised within-subjects model (2.8 to 16.8% of segments; 23.3 to 35.5% of individuals) compared to the conventional Gaussian model (0 to 15.8%; 4.7 to 19.6%). LSMDs are associated with presence of LBP, however LSMDs do not appear to be strongly associated with higher levels of pain or disability compared to other forms of non-specific LBP. CONCLUSION: LSMDs are a valid means of defining sub-groups within non-specific LBP, in a conservative care population of patients with RCLBP. Prevalence was higher using the normalised within-subjects contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion approach