Predictors of Occurrence and Severity of First Time Low Back Pain Episodes: Findings from a Military Inception Cohort

Primary prevention studies suggest that additional research on identifying risk factors predictive of low back pain (LBP) is necessary before additional interventions can be developed. In the current study we assembled a large military cohort that was initially free of LBP and followed over 2 years. The purposes of this study were to identify baseline variables from demographic, socioeconomic, general health, and psychological domains that were predictive of a) occurrence; b) time; and c) severity for first episode of self-reported LBP. Baseline and outcome measures were collected via web-based surveillance system or phone to capture monthly information over 2 years. The assembled cohort consisted of 1230 Soldiers who provided self-report data with 518 (42.1%) reporting at least one episode of LBP over 2 years. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that gender, active duty status, mental and physical health scores were significant predictors of LBP. Cox regression revealed that the time to first episode of LBP was significantly shorter for Soldiers that were female, active duty, reported previous injury, and had increased BMI. Multivariate linear regression analysis investigated severity of the first episode by identifying baseline predictors of pain intensity, disability, and psychological distress. Education level and physical fitness were consistent predictors of pain intensity, while gender, smoking status, and previous injury status were predictors of disability. Gender, smoking status, physical health scores, and beliefs of back pain were consistent predictors of psychological distress. These results provide additional data to confirm the multi-factorial nature of LBP and suggest future preventative interventions focus on multi-modal approaches that target modifiable risk factors specific to the population of interest

Chiropractic and self-care for back-related leg pain: design of a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a common variation of low back pain (LBP), with lifetime prevalence estimates as high as 40%. Often disabling, BRLP accounts for greater work loss, recurrences, and higher costs than uncomplicated LBP and more often leads to surgery with a lifetime incidence of 10% for those with severe BRLP, compared to 1-2% for those with LBP.</p> <p>In the US, half of those with back-related conditions seek CAM treatments, the most common of which is chiropractic care. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is beneficial for patients with BRLP, there is insufficient evidence currently available to assess the effectiveness of this care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study is a two-site, prospective, parallel group, observer-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). A total of 192 study patients will be recruited from the Twin Cities, MN (n = 122) and Quad Cities area in Iowa and Illinois (n = 70) to the research clinics at WHCCS and PCCR, respectively.</p> <p>It compares two interventions: chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise program (HEP) to HEP alone (minimal intervention comparison) for patients with subacute or chronic back-related leg pain.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a costly and often disabling variation of the ubiquitous back pain conditions. As health care costs continue to climb, the search for effective treatments with few side-effects is critical. While SMT is the most commonly sought CAM treatment for LBP sufferers, there is only a small, albeit promising, body of research to support its use for patients with BRLP.</p> <p>This study seeks to fill a critical gap in the LBP literature by performing the first full scale RCT assessing chiropractic SMT for patients with sub-acute or chronic BRLP using important <b>patient-oriented </b>and <b>objective biomechanical </b>outcome measures.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00494065">NCT00494065</a></p

Physicians' Initial Management of Acute Low Back Pain Versus Evidence-Based Guidelines: Influence of Sciatica

BACKGROUND: Little information is available on physician characteristics and patient presentations that may influence compliance with evidence-based guidelines for acute low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether physicians' management decisions are consistent with the Agency for Health Research Quality's guideline and whether responses varied with the presentation of sciatica or by physician characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using a mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were randomly selected from internal medicine, family practice, general practice, emergency medicine, and occupational medicine specialties. MEASUREMENTS: A questionnaire asked for recommendations for 2 case scenarios, representing patients without and with sciatica, respectively. RESULTS: Seven hundred and twenty surveys were completed (response rate=25%). In cases 1 (without sciatica) and 2 (with sciatica), 26.9% and 4.3% of physicians fully complied with the guideline, respectively. For each year in practice, the odds of guideline noncompliance increased 1.03 times (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01 to 1.05) for case 1. With occupational medicine as the referent specialty, general practice had the greatest odds of noncompliance (3.60, 95% CI=1.75 to 7.40) in case 1, followed by internal medicine and emergency medicine. Results for case 2 reflected the influence of sciatica with internal medicine having substantially higher odds (vs case 1) and the greatest odds of noncompliance of any specialty (6.93, 95% CI=1.47 to 32.78), followed by family practice and emergency medicine. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of primary care physicians continue to be noncompliant with evidence-based back pain guidelines. Sciatica dramatically influenced clinical decision-making, increasing the extent of noncompliance, particularly for internal medicine and family practice. Physicians' misunderstanding of sciatica's natural history and belief that more intensive initial management is indicated may be factors underlying the observed influence of sciatica

Finding Cancer in Primary Care Outpatients with Low Back Pain: A Comparison of Diagnostic Strategies

OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for diagnosing cancer in primary care patients with low back pain. Strategies differed in their use of clinical findings, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plain x-rays prior to imaging and biopsy. DESIGN: Decision analysis and cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses. Strategies were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic cost effectiveness ratios. SETTING: Hypothetical MEASUREMENTS: Estimates of disease prevalence and test characteristics were taken from the literature. Costs were represented by the Medicare reimbursement for the tests and procedures employed. MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging procedure prior to a single biopsy, strategies ranged in sensitivity from 0.40 to 0.73, with corresponding diagnostic costs of $14 to$241 per patient and average cost effectiveness ratios of $5,283 to$49,814 per case of cancer found. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios varied from $8,397 to$624,781; 5 strategies were dominant in the baseline analysis. Use of a higher ESR cutoff point (50 mm/hr) improved specificity and cost effectiveness for certain strategies. Imaging with MRI, or bone scan followed in series by MRI, resulted in a fewer unnecessary biopsies than imaging with bone scan alone. Cancer prevalence was an important determinant of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a strategy of imaging patients who have a clinical finding (history of cancer, age ≥50 years, weight loss, or failure to improve with conservative therapy) in combination with either an elevated ESR (≥50 mm/hr) or a positive x-ray, or using the same approach but imaging directly those patients with a history of cancer

Randomized Controlled Trial of Education and Feedback for Implementation of Guidelines for Acute Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE: The effect of clinical guidelines on resource utilization for complex conditions with substantial barriers to clinician behavior change has not been well studied. We report the impact of a multifaceted guideline implementation intervention on primary care clinician utilization of radiologic and specialty services for the care of acute low back pain. DESIGN: Physician groups were randomized to receive guideline education and individual feedback, supporting patient education materials, both, or neither. The impact on guideline adherence and resource utilization was evaluated during the 12-month period before and after implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen physician groups with 120 primary care physician and associate practitioners from 2 group model HMO practices. INTERVENTIONS: Guideline implementation utilized an education/audit/feedback model with local peer opinion leaders. The patient education component included written and videotaped materials on the care of low back pain. MAIN RESULTS: The clinician intervention was associated with an absolute increase in guideline-consistent behavior of 5.4% in the intervention group versus a decline of 2.7% in the control group (P = .04). The patient education intervention produced no significant change in guideline-consistent behavior, but was poorly adopted. Patient characteristics including duration of pain, prior history of low back pain, and number of visits during the illness episode were strong predictors of service utilization and guideline-consistent behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an education and feedback-supported acute low back pain care guideline for primary care clinicians was associated with an increase in guideline-consistent behavior. Patient education materials did not enhance guideline effectiveness. Implementation barriers could limit the utility of this approach in usual care setttings

Evaluating and Managing Acute Low Back Pain in the Primary Care Setting

Acute low back pain is a common reason for patient calls or visits to a primary care clinician. Despite a large differential diagnosis, the precise etiology is rarely identified, although musculoligamentous processes are usually suspected. For most patients, back symptoms are nonspecific, meaning that there is no evidence for radicular symptoms or underlying systemic disease. Because episodes of acute, nonspecific low back pain are usually self-limited, many patients treat themselves without contacting their primary care clinician. When patients do call or schedule a visit, evaluation and management by primary care clinicians is appropriate. The history and physical examination usually provide clues to the rare but potentially serious causes of low back pain, as well as to identify patients at risk for prolonged recovery. Diagnostic testing, including plain x-rays, is often unnecessary during the initial evaluation. For patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain, the primary emphasis of treatment should be conservative care, time, reassurance, and education. Current recommendations focus on activity as tolerated (though not active exercise while pain is severe) and minimal if any bed rest. Referral for physical treatments is most appropriate for patients whose symptoms are not improving over 2 to 4 weeks. Specialty referral should be considered for patients with a progressive neurologic deficit, failure of conservative therapy, or an uncertain or serious diagnosis. The prognosis for most patients is good, although recurrence is common. Thus, educating patients about the natural history of acute low back pain and how to prevent future episodes can help ensure reasonable expectations