A prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of pulse power analysis to monitor cardiac output in critically ill patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intermittent measurement of cardiac output may be performed using a lithium dilution technique (LiDCO). This can then be used to calibrate a pulse power algorithm of the arterial waveform which provides a continuous estimate of this variable. The purpose of this study was to examine the duration of accuracy of the pulse power algorithm in critically ill patients with respect to time when compared to measurements of cardiac output by an independent technique.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Pulse power analysis was performed on critically ill patients using a proprietary commercial monitor (PulseCO). All measurements were made using an in-dwelling radial artery line and according to manufacturers instructions. Intermittent measurements of cardiac output were made with LiDCO in order to validate the pulse power measurements. These were made at baseline and then following 1, 2, 4 and 8 hours. The LiDCO measurement was considered the reference for comparison in this study. The two methods of measuring cardiac output were then compared by linear regression and a Bland Altman analysis. An error rate for the limits of agreement (LOA) between the two techniques of less than 30% was defined as being acceptable for this study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>14 critically ill medical and surgical patients were enrolled over a three month period. At baseline patients showed a wide range of cardiac output (median 7.5 L/min, IQR 5.1 -9.0 L/min). The bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques was deemed acceptable for the first four hours of the study with percentage errors being 29%, 22%, and 285 respectively. The percentage error at eight hours following calibration increased to 36%. The ability of the PulseCo to detect changes in cardiac output was assessed with a similar analysis. The PulseCO tracked the changes in cardiac output with adequate accuracy for the first four hours with percentage errors being 20%, 24% and 25%. However at eight hours the error had increased to 43%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The agreement between lithium dilution cardiac output and the pulse power algorithm in the PulseCO monitor remains acceptable for up to four hours in critically ill patients.</p

Design considerations in a clinical trial of a cognitive behavioural intervention for the management of low back pain in primary care : Back Skills Training Trial

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Risk factors for the development and persistence of LBP include physical and psychological factors. However, most research activity has focused on physical solutions including manipulation, exercise training and activity promotion. Methods/Design This randomised controlled trial will establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group programme, based on cognitive behavioural principles, for the management of sub-acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Our primary outcomes are disease specific measures of pain and function. Secondary outcomes include back beliefs, generic health related quality of life and resource use. All outcomes are measured over 12 months. Participants randomised to the intervention arm are invited to attend up to six weekly sessions each of 90 minutes; each group has 6–8 participants. A parallel qualitative study will aid the evaluation of the intervention. Discussion In this paper we describe the rationale and design of a randomised evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain

Study protocol of effectiveness of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in the evolution of non-speficic sub-acute low back pain in the working population : cluster randomised trial

Background: Non-specific low back pain is a common cause for consultation with the general practitioner, generating increased health and social costs. This study will analyse the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary intervention to reduce disability, severity of pain, anxiety and depression, to improve quality of life and to reduce the incidence of chronic low back pain in the working population with non-specific low back pain, compared to usual clinical care. Methods/Design: A Cluster randomised clinical trial will be conducted in 38 Primary Health Care Centres located in Barcelona, Spain and its surrounding areas. The centres are randomly allocated to the multidisciplinary intervention or to usual clinical care. Patients between 18 and 65 years old (n = 932; 466 per arm) and with a diagnostic of a non-specific sub-acute low back pain are included. Patients in the intervention group are receiving the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, in addition to a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention consisting of group educational sessions lasting a total of 10 hours. The main outcome is change in the score in the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three months after onset of pain. Other outcomes are severity of pain, quality of life, duration of current non-specific low back pain episode, work sick leave and duration, Fear Avoidance Beliefs and Goldberg Questionnaires. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Analysis will be by intention to treat. The intervention effect will be assessed through the standard error of measurement and the effect-size. Responsiveness of each scale will be evaluated by standardised response mean and receiver-operating characteristic method. Recovery according to the patient will be used as an external criterion. A multilevel regression will be performed on repeated measures. The time until the current episode of low back pain takes to subside will be analysed by Cox regression. Discussion: We hope to provide evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in avoiding the chronification of low back pain, and to reduce the duration of non-specific low back pain episodes. If the intervention is effective, it could be applied to Primary Health Care Centres

Reliability and validity study of Persian modified version of MUSIC (musculoskeletal intervention center) – Norrtalje questionnaire

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a major health problem in the world. Self-reported questionnaires are a known method for estimating the prevalence of MSDs among the population. One of the studies concerning MSDs and their relation to work-related physical and psychosocial factors, as well as non-work-related factors, is the MUSIC-Norrtalje study in Sweden. In this study, the research group developed a questionnaire, which has been validated during its development process and is now considered a well-known instrument. The aim of this study is to validate the Persian version of this questionnaire.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The first step was to establish two expert panel groups in Iran and Sweden. The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method was used to detect questionnaire face and content validity. To detect questionnaire reliability, we used the test-retest method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Except for two items, all other questions that respondents had problems with in the focus group (20 of 297), had unclear translations; the ambiguity was related to the stem of the questions and the predicted answers were clear for the participants. The concepts of 'household/spare time' and 'physical activity in the workplace' were not understood by the participants of FGD; this has been solved by adding further descriptions to these phrases in the translation. In the test-retest study, the reliability coefficient was relatively high in most items (only 5 items out of 297 had an ICC or kappa below 0.7).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings from the present study provide evidence that the Persian version of the MUSIC questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument.</p

Psychosocial factors and their predictive value in chiropractic patients with low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study

BACKGROUND: Being able to estimate the likelihood of poor recovery from episodes of back pain is important for care. Studies of psychosocial factors in inception cohorts in general practice and occupational populations have begun to make inroads to these problems. However, no studies have yet investigated this in chiropractic patients. METHODS: A prospective inception cohort study of patients presenting to a UK chiropractic practice for new episodes of non-specific low back pain (LBP) was conducted. Baseline questionnaires asked about age, gender, occupation, work status, duration of current episode, chronicity, aggravating features and bothersomeness using Deyo's 'Core Set'. Psychological factors (fear-avoidance beliefs, inevitability, anxiety/distress and coping, and co-morbidity were also assessed at baseline. Satisfaction with care, number of attendances and pain impact were determined at 6 weeks. Predictors of poor outcome were sought by the calculation of relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Most patients presented within 4 weeks of onset. Of 158 eligible and willing patients, 130 completed both baseline and 6-week follow-up questionnaires. Greatest improvements at 6 weeks were in interference with normal work (ES 1.12) and LBP bothersomeness (ES 1.37). Although most patients began with moderate-high back pain bothersomeness scores, few had high psychometric ones. Co-morbidity was a risk for high-moderate interference with normal work at 6 weeks (RR 2.37; 95% C.I. 1.15–4.74). An episode duration of >4 weeks was associated with moderate to high bothersomeness at 6 weeks (RR 2.07; 95% C.I. 1.19 – 3.38) and negative outlook (inevitability) with moderate to high interference with normal work (RR 2.56; 95% C.I. 1.08 – 5.08). CONCLUSION: Patients attending a private UK chiropractic clinic for new episodes of non-specific LBP exhibited few psychosocial predictors of poor outcome, unlike other patient populations that have been studied. Despite considerable bothersomeness at baseline, scores were low at follow-up. In this independent health sector back pain population, general health and duration of episode before consulting appeared more important to outcome than psychosocial factors

Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?

Copyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied interventions and approaches. Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient. An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention. Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed

Frequency and Interrelations of Risk Factors for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Primary Care Setting

INTRODUCTION: Many risk factors have been identified for chronic low back pain (cLBP), but only one study evaluated their interrelations. We aimed to investigate the frequency of cLBP risk factors and their interrelations in patients consulting their general practitioners (GPs) for cLBP. METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, national survey was performed. 3000 GPs randomly selected were asked to include at least one patient consulting for cLBP. Demographic, clinical characteristics and the presence of cLBP risk factors were recorded. The frequency of each cLBP risk factor was calculated and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was performed to study their interrelations. RESULTS: A total of 2068 GPs (68.9%) included at least 1 patient, for 4522 questionnaires analyzed. In the whole sample of patients, the 2 risk factors most commonly observed were history of recurrent LBP (72.1%) and initial limitation of activities of daily living (66.4%). For working patients, common professional risk factors were beliefs, that LBP was due to maintaining a specific posture at work (79.0%) and frequent heavy lifting at work (65.5%). On MCA, we identified 3 risk-factor dimensions (axes) for working and nonworking patients. The main dimension for working patients involved professional risk factors and among these factors, patients' job satisfaction and job recognition largely contribute to this dimension. DISCUSSION: Our results shed in light for the first time the interrelation and the respective contribution of several previously identified cLBP risk factors. They suggest that risk factors representing a "work-related" dimension are the most important cLBP risk factors in the working population