The Nordic Subpopulation Research Programme: prediction of treatment outcome in patients with low back pain treated by chiropractors - does the psychological profile matter?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is clinically important to be able to select patients suitable for treatment and to be able to predict with some certainty the outcome for patients treated for low back pain (LBP). It is not known to what degree outcome among chiropractic patients is affected by psychological factors.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To investigate if some demographic, psychological, and clinical variables can predict outcome with chiropractic care in patients with LBP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective multi-center practice-based study was carried out, in which demographic, clinical and psychological information was collected at base-line. Outcome was established at the 4^thvisit and after three months. The predictive value was studied for all base-line variables, individually and in a multivariable analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all, 55 of 99 invited chiropractors collected information on 731 patients. At the 4^thvisit data were available on 626 patients and on 464 patients after 3 months. Fee subsidization (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.9-5.5), total duration of pain in the past year (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.2), and general health (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.4) remained in the final model as predictors of treatment outcome at the 4^thvisit. The sensitivity was low (12%), whereas the specificity was high (97%). At the three months follow-up, duration of pain in the past year (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.1), and pain in other parts of the spine in the past year (OR1.6; 1.1-2.5) were independently associated with outcome. However, both the sensitivity and specificity were relatively low (60% and 50%). The addition of the psychological variables did not improve the models and none of the psychological variables remained significant in the final analyses. There was a positive gradient in relation to the number of positive predictor variables and outcome, both at the 4^thvisit and after 3 months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Psychological factors were not found to be relevant in the prediction of treatment outcome in Swedish chiropractic patients with LBP.</p

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: predicting outcome among chiropractic patients in Finland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In a previous Swedish study it was shown that it is possible to predict which chiropractic patients with persistent LBP will not report definite improvement early in the course of treatment, namely those with LBP for altogether at least 30 days in the past year, who had leg pain, and who did not report definite general improvement by the second treatment. The objectives of this study were to investigate if the predictive value of this set of variables could be reproduced among chiropractic patients in Finland, and if the model could be improved by adding some new potential predictor variables.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was a multi-centre prospective outcome study with internal control groups, carried out in private chiropractic practices in Finland. Chiropractors collected data at the 1st, 2^ndand 4^thvisits using standardized questionnaires on new patients with LBP and/or radiating leg pain. Status at base-line was identified in relation to pain and disability, at the 2^ndvisit in relation to disability, and "definitely better" at the 4^thvisit in relation to a global assessment. The Swedish questionnaire was used including three new questions on general health, pain in other parts of the spine, and body mass index.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Swedish model was reproduced in this study sample. An alternative model including leg pain (yes/no), improvement at 2^ndvisit (yes/no) and BMI (underweight/normal/overweight or obese) was also identified with similar predictive values. Common throughout the testing of various models was that improvement at the 2^ndvisit had an odds ratio of approximately 5. Additional analyses revealed a dose-response in that 84% of those patients who fulfilled none of these (bad) criteria were classified as "definitely better" at the 4^thvisit, vs. 75%, 60% and 34% of those who fulfilled 1, 2 or all 3 of the criteria, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When treating patients with LBP, at the first visits, the treatment strategy should be different for overweight/obese patients with leg pain as it should be for all patients who fail to improve by the 2^ndvisit. The number of predictors is also important.</p

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program – An interview study on the use of maintenance care in a selected group of Danish chiropractors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although maintenance care appears to be relatively commonly used among chiropractors, the indications for its use are incompletely understood. A questionnaire survey was recently carried out among Swedish chiropractors in order to identify their choice of various management strategies, including maintenance care. That study revealed a common pattern of choice of strategies. However, it would be necessary to verify these findings in another study population and to obtain some additional information best collected through an interview.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The main aim of the present study was to attempt to reproduce the findings in the Swedish study and to obtain more information on the use of maintenance care.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A group of 11 chiropractors were selected because they used maintenance care. They were interviewed using the questionnaire from the previous Swedish survey. The questionnaire consisted of a simple description of a hypothetical patient with low back pain and nine possible ways in which the case could develop ("scenarios"). They could choose between six different management strategies for each scenario. In addition, the chiropractors were encouraged to provide their own definition of maintenance care in an open-ended question. Interviews were taped, transcribed and analyzed. For the open-ended question, statements were identified relating to six pre hoc defined topics on the inclusion criteria/rationale for maintenance care, the frequency of treatments, and the duration of the maintenance care program.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The open-ended question revealed that in patients with low back pain, maintenance care appears to be offered to prevent new events. The rationale was to obtain optimal spinal function. There appears to be no common convention on the frequency of treatments and duration of the treatment program was not mentioned by any of the interviewees.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results from the questionnaire in the Danish survey showed that the response pattern for the nine scenarios was similar to that obtained in the Swedish survey. There seems to be relative agreement between chiropractors working in different countries and sampled through different methods in relation to their choice of management strategies in patients with low back pain. However, more precise information is needed on the indications for maintenance care and its treatment program, before proceeding to studying its clinical validity.</p

Development and External Validation of Individualized Prediction Models for Pain Intensity Outcomes in Patients With Neck Pain, Low Back Pain, or Both in Primary Care Settings

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and externally validate multivariable prediction models for future pain intensity outcomes to inform targeted interventions for patients with neck or low back pain in primary care settings.METHODS: Model development data were obtained from a group of 679 adults with neck or low back pain who consulted a participating United Kingdom general practice. Predictors included self-report items regarding pain severity and impact from the STarT MSK Tool. Pain intensity at 2 and 6 months was modeled separately for continuous and dichotomized outcomes using linear and logistic regression, respectively. External validation of all models was conducted in a separate group of 586 patients recruited from a similar population with patients' predictor information collected both at point of consultation and 2 to 4 weeks later using self-report questionnaires. Calibration and discrimination of the models were assessed separately using STarT MSK Tool data from both time points to assess differences in predictive performance.RESULTS: Pain intensity and patients reporting their condition would last a long time contributed most to predictions of future pain intensity conditional on other variables. On external validation, models were reasonably well calibrated on average when using tool measurements taken 2 to 4 weeks after consultation (calibration slope = 0.848 [95% CI = 0.767 to 0.928] for 2-month pain intensity score), but performance was poor using point-of-consultation tool data (calibration slope for 2-month pain intensity score of 0.650 [95% CI = 0.549 to 0.750]).CONCLUSION: Model predictive accuracy was good when predictors were measured 2 to 4 weeks after primary care consultation, but poor when measured at the point of consultation. Future research will explore whether additional, nonmodifiable predictors improve point-of-consultation predictive performance.IMPACT: External validation demonstrated that these individualized prediction models were not sufficiently accurate to recommend their use in clinical practice. Further research is required to improve performance through inclusion of additional nonmodifiable risk factors.</p

Prevalence of pain-free weeks in chiropractic subjects with low back pain - a longitudinal study using data gathered with text messages

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>The use of automated text messages has made it possible to identify different courses of low back pain (LBP), and it has been observed that pain often fluctuates and that absolute recovery is rather rare. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of pain-free weeks and pain-free periods in subjects with non-specific LBP treated by chiropractors, and to compare subjects from two different countries in these aspects.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were obtained from two practice-based multicentre prospective outcome studies, one Danish and one Swedish, involving subjects being treated by chiropractors for non-specific LBP. Over 18 weeks, subjects answered a weekly automated text message question on the number of days in the past week that they had experienced bothersome LBP, i.e. a number between 0 and 7. The number of weeks in a row without any LBP at all ("zero weeks") as well as the maximum number of zero weeks in a row was determined for each individual. Comparisons were made between the two study samples. Estimates are presented as percentages with 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the Danish and the Swedish populations respectively, 93/110 (85%) and 233/262 (89%) of the subjects were eligible for analysis. In both groups, zero weeks were rather rare and were most commonly (in 40% of the zero weeks) reported as a single isolated week. The prevalence of pain free periods, i.e. reporting a maximum of 0, 1 or 2, or 3-6 zero weeks in a row, were similar in the two populations (20-31%). Smaller percentages were reported for ≥ 7 zero weeks in a row. There were no significant differences between the two study groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It was uncommon that chiropractic subjects treated for non-specific LBP experienced an entire week without any LBP at all over 18 weeks. When this occurred, it was most commonly reported for brief periods only. Hence, recovery in the sense that patients become absolutely pain free is rare, even in a primary care population.</p

Clustering patients on the basis of their individual course of low back pain over a six month period

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several researchers have searched for subgroups in the heterogeneous population of patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). To date, subgroups have been identified based on psychological profiles and the variation of pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This multicentre prospective observational study explored the 6- month clinical course with measurements of bothersomeness that were collected from weekly text messages that were sent by 176 patients with LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis, Ward's method, was used to cluster patients according to the development of their pain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four clusters with distinctly different clinical courses were described and further validated against clinical baseline variables and outcomes. Cluster 1, a "stable" cluster, where the course was relatively unchanged over time, contained young patients with good self- rated health. Cluster 2, a group of "fast improvers" who were very bothered initially but rapidly improved, consisted of patients who rated their health as relatively poor but experienced the fewest number of days with bothersome pain of all the clusters. Cluster 3 was the "typical patient" group, with medium bothersomeness at baseline and an average improvement over the first 4-5 weeks. Finally, cluster 4 contained the "slow improvers", a group of patients who improved over 12 weeks. This group contained older individuals who had more LBP the previous year and who also experienced most days with bothersome pain of all the clusters.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It is possible to define clinically meaningful clusters of patients based on their individual course of LBP over time. Future research should aim to reproduce these clusters in different populations, add further clinical variables to distinguish the clusters and test different treatment strategies for them.</p

Response to Lawrence DJ: The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of the literature

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor by Dana J. Lawrence. In his letter, Lawrence states that the results of our systematic review may be due to bias. However, he does not adequately substantiate his claims..

Addressing preference heterogeneity in public health policy by combining Cluster Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Proof of Method.

The use of subgroups based on biological-clinical and socio-demographic variables to deal with population heterogeneity is well-established in public policy. The use of subgroups based on preferences is rare, except when religion based, and controversial. If it were decided to treat subgroup preferences as valid determinants of public policy, a transparent analytical procedure is needed. In this proof of method study we show how public preferences could be incorporated into policy decisions in a way that respects both the multi-criterial nature of those decisions, and the heterogeneity of the population in relation to the importance assigned to relevant criteria. It involves combining Cluster Analysis (CA), to generate the subgroup sets of preferences, with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), to provide the policy framework into which the clustered preferences are entered. We employ three techniques of CA to demonstrate that not only do different techniques produce different clusters, but that choosing among techniques (as well as developing the MCDA structure) is an important task to be undertaken in implementing the approach outlined in any specific policy context. Data for the illustrative, not substantive, application are from a Randomized Controlled Trial of online decision aids for Australian men aged 40-69 years considering Prostate-specific Antigen testing for prostate cancer. We show that such analyses can provide policy-makers with insights into the criterion-specific needs of different subgroups. Implementing CA and MCDA in combination to assist in the development of policies on important health and community issues such as drug coverage, reimbursement, and screening programs, poses major challenges -conceptual, methodological, ethical-political, and practical - but most are exposed by the techniques, not created by them