Assessing a risk tailored intervention to prevent disabling low back pain - protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although most patients with low back pain (LBP) recover within a few weeks a significant proportion has recurrent episodes or will develop chronic low back pain. Several mainly psychosocial risk factors for developing chronic LBP have been identified. However, effects of preventive interventions aiming at behavioural risk factors and unfavourable cognitions have yielded inconsistent results. Risk tailored interventions may provide a cost efficient and effective means to take systematic account of the individual risk factors but evidence is lacking.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study will be a cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing screening and a subsequent risk tailored intervention for patients with low back pain to prevent chronic low back pain compared to treatment as usual in primary care. A total of 600 patients from 20 practices in each study arm will be recruited in Berlin and Goettingen. The intervention comprises the following elements: Patients will be assigned to one of four risk groups based on a screening questionnaire. Subsequently they receive an educational intervention including information and counselling tailored to the risk group. A telephone/email consulting service for back pain related problems are offered independent of risk group assignment. The primary outcomes will be functional capacity and sick leave.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of screening for risk factors for chronic low back pain followed by a risk tailored intervention to prevent chronic low back pain. This trial will contribute new evidence regarding the flexible use of individual physical and psychosocial risk factors in general practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN 68205910</p

Prognostic factors for perceived recovery or functional improvement in non-specific low back pain: secondary analyses of three randomized clinical trials

The objective of this study was to report on secondary analyses of a merged trial dataset aimed at exploring the potential importance of patient factors associated with clinically relevant improvements in non-acute, non-specific low back pain (LBP). From 273 predominantly male army workers (mean age 39 ± 10.5 years, range 20–56 years, 4 women) with LBP who were recruited in three randomized clinical trials, baseline individual patient factors, pain-related factors, work-related psychosocial factors, and psychological factors were evaluated as potential prognostic variables in a short-term (post-treatment) and a long-term logistic regression model (6 months after treatment). We found one dominant prognostic factor for improvement directly after treatment as well as 6 months later: baseline functional disability, expressed in Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire scores. Baseline fear of movement, expressed in Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia scores, had also significant prognostic value for long-term improvement. Less strongly associated with the outcome, but also included in our final models, were supervisor social support and duration of complaints (short-term model), and co-worker social support and pain radiation (long-term model). Information about initial levels of functional disability and fear-avoidance behaviour can be of value in the treatment of patient populations with characteristics comparable to the current army study population (e.g., predominantly male, physically active, working, moderate but chronic back problems). Individuals at risk for poor long-term LBP recovery, i.e., individuals with high initial level of disability and prominent fear-avoidance behaviour, can be distinguished that may need additional cognitive-behavioural treatment

Can group-based reassuring information alter low back pain behavior? A cluster-randomized controlled trial?

Background Low back pain (LBP) is common in the population and multifactorial in nature, often involving negative consequences. Reassuring information to improve coping is recommended for reducing the negative consequences of LBP. Adding a simple non-threatening explanation for the pain (temporary muscular dysfunction) has been successful at altering beliefs and behavior when delivered with other intervention elements. This study investigates the isolated effect of this specific information on future occupational behavior outcomes when delivered to the workforce. Design A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Methods Publically employed workers (n=505) from 11 Danish municipality centers were randomized at center-level (cluster) to either intervention (two 1-hour group-based talks at the workplace) or control. The talks provided reassuring information together with a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP - the ‘functional-disturbance’-model. Data collections took place monthly over a 1-year period using text message tracking (SMS). Primary outcomes were self-reported days of cutting down usual activities and work participation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported back beliefs, work ability, number of healthcare visits, bothersomeness, restricted activity, use of pain medication, and sadness/depression. Results There was no between-group difference in the development of LBP during follow-up. Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no between-group difference on days of cutting down activities, but increased odds for more days of work participation in the intervention group (OR=1.83 95% CI: 1.08-3.12). Furthermore, the intervention group was more likely to report: higher work ability, reduced visits to healthcare professionals, lower bothersomeness, lower levels of sadness/depression, and positive back beliefs. Conclusion Reassuring information involving a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP significantly increased the odds for days of work participation and higher work ability among workers who went on to experience LBP during the 12-month follow-up. Our results confirm the potential for public-health education for LBP, and add to the discussion of simple versus multidisciplinary interventions

An interdisciplinary clinical practice model for the management of low-back pain in primary care: the CLIP project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low-back pain is responsible for significant disability and costs in industrialized countries. Only a minority of subjects suffering from low-back pain will develop persistent disability. However, this minority is responsible for the majority of costs and has the poorest health outcomes. The objective of the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) project was to develop a primary care interdisciplinary practice model for the clinical management of low-back pain and the prevention of persistent disability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a clinical management model for low-back pain was developed by the project team. A structured process facilitating discussions on this model among researchers, stakeholders and clinicians was created. The model was revised following these exchanges, without deviating from the evidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A model consisting of nine elements on clinical management of low-back pain and prevention of persistent disability was developed. The model's two core elements for the prevention of persistent disability are the following: 1) the evaluation of the prognosis at the fourth week of disability, and of key modifiable barriers to return to usual activities if the prognosis is unfavourable; 2) the evaluation of the patient's perceived disability every four weeks, with the evaluation and management of barriers to return to usual activities if perceived disability has not sufficiently improved.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A primary care interdisciplinary model aimed at improving quality and continuity of care for patients with low-back pain was developed. The effectiveness, efficiency and applicability of the CLIP model in preventing persistent disability in patients suffering from low-back pain should be assessed.</p

Systematic review and meta-analysis of immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers in resected oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is one of the fastest rising malignancies with continued poor prognosis. Many studies have proposed novel biomarkers but, to date, no immunohistochemical markers of survival after oesophageal resection have entered clinical practice. Here, we systematically review and meta-analyse the published literature, to identify potential biomarkers. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified via Ovid medline 1946–2013. For inclusion, studies had to conform to REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer (REMARK) prognostic study criteria. The primary end-point was a pooled hazard ratio (HR) and variance, summarising the effect of marker expression on prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 3059 articles were identified. After exclusion of irrelevant titles and abstracts, 214 articles were reviewed in full. Nine molecules had been examined in more than one study (CD3, CD8, COX-2, EGFR, HER2, Ki67, LgR5, p53 and VEGF) and were meta-analysed. Markers with largest survival effects were COX-2 (HR=2.47, confidence interval (CI)=1.15–3.79), CD3 (HR=0.51, 95% CI=0.32–0.70), CD8 (HR=0.55, CI=0.31–0.80) and EGFR (HR=1.65, 95% CI=1.14–2.16). DISCUSSION: Current methods have not delivered clinically useful molecular prognostic biomarkers in OAC. We have highlighted the paucity of good-quality robust studies in this field. A genome-to-protein approach would be better suited for the development and subsequent validation of biomarkers. Large collaborative projects with standardised methodology will be required to generate clinically useful biomarkers