Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load

Objective We explored differences in postural stability between subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) and varying risk levels for developing chronicity measured using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool. Methods This was a cross-sectional, single-session, double-blind experimental study among 65 participants who had LBP for more than 14 days. Postural stability was assessed by measuring the center of pressure (COP) range, displacement area, and velocity in anterior–posterior and mediolateral directions under four sensory and cognitive conditions: (i) eyes open and counting forward, (ii) eyes closed and counting forward, (iii) eyes closed and counting forward in multiples of seven, and (iv) eyes closed and counting backward in multiples of seven. The participants were stratified into low-/medium- (n = 53) and high-risk (n = 9) subgroups. Results There were no significant between-group differences among patients with LBP stratified as having a low/medium or high risk of chronicity in postural stability and sensory and cognitive conditions. Conclusions Impaired postural stability is important to consider when treating patients with LBP. However, we found that these impairments were not strongly aggravated in groups with a higher risk of chronicity, as measured using the STarT Back Tool

Comparison of important factors to patients recovering from pulmonary embolism and items covered in patient-reported outcome measures: A mixed-methods systematic review

ObjectiveUp to 50 % of patients recovering from pulmonary embolism (PE) experience negative long-term outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in identifying what matters to patients. We aimed to identify PROMs used in clinical studies and recommended by the International Consortium of Health Outcomes (ICHOM) and compare individual items with factors considered important by patients recovering from PE.MethodsThis was a convergent mixed-methods systematic review, including quantitative studies, using PROMs and qualitative studies with non-cancer-related PE patients. Items from each PROM and qualitative findings were categorised using an International Classification of Function linking process to allow for integrated synthesis.ResultsA total of 68 studies using 34 different PROMs with 657 items and 13 qualitative studies with 408 findings were included. A total of 104 individual ICF codes were used, and subsequently sorted into 20 distinct categories representing patient concerns. Identified PROMs were found to adequately cover 17/20 categories, including anxiety, fear of bleeding, stress, depression, dizziness/nausea, sleep disturbance, pain, dyspnea, fatigue, activity levels, family and friends, socializing, outlook on life, and medical treatment. PROMs from the ICHOM core set covered the same categories, except for dizziness/nausea.ConclusionsNo single PROM covered all aspects assessed as important by the PE population. PROMs recommended in the ICHOM core set cover 16/20 aspects. However, worrisome thoughts, hypervigilance around symptoms, and uncertainty of illness were experienced by patients with PE but were not covered by PROMS

Performance-based outcome measures for assessing physical capacity in patients with pulmonary embolism: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION: Up to 50 % of patients surviving a pulmonary embolism (PE) report persisting shortness of breath, reduced physical capacity and psychological distress. As the PE population is heterogeneous compared to other cardiovascular patient groups, outcome measures for assessing physical capacity traditionally used in cardiac populations may not be reliable for the PE population as a whole. This scoping review aims to 1) map performance-based outcome measures (PBOMs) used for assessing physical capacity in PE research, and 2) to report the psychometric properties of the identified PBOMs in a PE population.METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline.RESULTS: The systematic search of five databases identified 4585 studies, of which 243 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 185 studies focused on a subgroup of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Ten different PBOMs were identified in the included studies. The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) were the most commonly used, followed by the (Modified) Bruce protocol and Incremental Shuttle Walk test. No studies reported psychometric properties of any of the identified PBOMs in a PE population.CONCLUSIONS: Publication of studies measuring physical capacity within PE populations has increased significantly over the past 5-10 years. Still, not one study was identified, reporting the validity, reliability, or responsiveness for any of the identified PBOMs in a PE population. This should be a priority for future research in the field.</p

sj-pdf-1-imr-10.1177_03000605221112046 - Supplemental material for Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-imr-10.1177_03000605221112046 for Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load by Stian Ingemann-Molden, Rogerio Pessoto Hirata, Martin Bach Jensen, Thomas Graven-Nielsen and Allan Riis in Journal of International Medical Researc

sj-pdf-2-imr-10.1177_03000605221112046 - Supplemental material for Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-imr-10.1177_03000605221112046 for Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load by Stian Ingemann-Molden, Rogerio Pessoto Hirata, Martin Bach Jensen, Thomas Graven-Nielsen and Allan Riis in Journal of International Medical Researc

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load

ObjectiveWe explored differences in postural stability between subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) and varying risk levels for developing chronicity measured using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, single-session, double-blind experimental study among 65 participants who had LBP for more than 14 days. Postural stability was assessed by measuring the center of pressure (COP) range, displacement area, and velocity in anterior–posterior and mediolateral directions under four sensory and cognitive conditions: (i) eyes open and counting forward, (ii) eyes closed and counting forward, (iii) eyes closed and counting forward in multiples of seven, and (iv) eyes closed and counting backward in multiples of seven. The participants were stratified into low-/medium- (n = 53) and high-risk (n = 9) subgroups.ResultsThere were no significant between-group differences among patients with LBP stratified as having a low/medium or high risk of chronicity in postural stability and sensory and cognitive conditions.ConclusionsImpaired postural stability is important to consider when treating patients with LBP. However, we found that these impairments were not strongly aggravated in groups with a higher risk of chronicity, as measured using the STarT Back Tool

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load

ObjectiveWe explored differences in postural stability between subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) and varying risk levels for developing chronicity measured using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, single-session, double-blind experimental study among 65 participants who had LBP for more than 14 days. Postural stability was assessed by measuring the center of pressure (COP) range, displacement area, and velocity in anterior–posterior and mediolateral directions under four sensory and cognitive conditions: (i) eyes open and counting forward, (ii) eyes closed and counting forward, (iii) eyes closed and counting forward in multiples of seven, and (iv) eyes closed and counting backward in multiples of seven. The participants were stratified into low-/medium- (n = 53) and high-risk (n = 9) subgroups.ResultsThere were no significant between-group differences among patients with LBP stratified as having a low/medium or high risk of chronicity in postural stability and sensory and cognitive conditions.ConclusionsImpaired postural stability is important to consider when treating patients with LBP. However, we found that these impairments were not strongly aggravated in groups with a higher risk of chronicity, as measured using the STarT Back Tool