Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in modern societies. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in LBP may help to identify patients with an unfavourable outcome. In this systematic review screening instruments published between 1970 and 2007 were identified by a literature search. Nine different instruments were analysed and their different items grouped into ten structures. Finally, the predictive effectiveness of these structures was examined for the dependent variables including "work status", "functional limitation”, and "pain". The strongest predictors for "work status” were psychosocial and occupational structures, whereas for "functional limitation” and "pain” psychological structures were dominating. Psychological and occupational factors show a high reliability for the prognosis of patients with LBP. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in patients with LBP should include these factors as a minimum core se

Attitudes towards complementary and alternative medicine in chronic pain syndromes: a questionnaire-based comparison between primary headache and low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is widely used and popular among patients with primary headache or low back pain (LBP). Aim of the study was to analyze attitudes of headache and LBP patients towards the use of CAM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two questionnaire-based surveys were applied comparing 432 primary headache and 194 LBP patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 84.75% of all patients reported use of CAM; with significantly more LBP patients. The most frequently-used CAM therapies in headache were acupuncture (71.4%), massages (56.4%), and thermotherapy (29.2%), in LBP thermotherapy (77.4%), massages (62.7%), and acupuncture (51.4%). The most frequent attitudes towards CAM use in headache vs. LBP: "leave nothing undone" (62.5% vs. 52.1%; p = 0.006), "take action against the disease" (56.8% vs. 43.2%; p = 0.006). Nearly all patients with previous experience with CAM currently use CAM in both conditions (93.6% in headache; 100% in LBP). However, the majority of the patients had no previous experience.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Understanding motivations for CAM treatment is important, because attitudes derive from wishes for non-pharmacological treatment, to be more involved in treatment and avoid side effects. Despite higher age and more permanent pain in LBP, both groups show high use of CAM with only little specific difference in preferred methods and attitudes towards CAM use. This may reflect deficits and unfulfilled goals in conventional treatment. Maybe CAM can decrease the gap between patients' expectations about pain therapy and treatment reality, considering that both conditions are often chronic diseases, causing high burdens for daily life.</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

Barriers and progress in the treatment of low back pain

Low back pain is a common and costly condition and for most people is likely to be a recurrent problem throughout their lifetime. The management of patients with low back pain has been positively influenced by the rise in high quality clinical trials and systematic reviews in recent decades, and this body of evidence, synthesized in many clinical practice guidelines, has improved our knowledge about which treatments for low back pain are useful and which are not. For the largest group of patients, those with non-specific low back pain for whom a clear diagnosis cannot be given, the reality is that the treatments we have to offer tend to produce small effects, often only in the short term and none appear to effectively change long-term prognosis. This commentary summarizes the array of treatments currently available, notes the results of recent trials and guidelines and considers alternative approaches that may prove more valuable in achieving better patient outcomes in the future

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study aims to examine if</p> <p>1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP</p> <p>2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP</p> <p>3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.</p> <p>This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.</p> <p>Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.</p

Movement control exercise versus general exercise to reduce disability in patients with low back pain and movement control impairment. A randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in subacute and chronic stages can be treated effectively with exercise therapy. Research guidelines recommend evaluating different treatments in defined subgroups of patients with NSLBP. A subgroup of patients with movement control impairment (MCI) improved significantly on patient specific function and disability in a previous case series after movement control exercises.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) we will compare the effectiveness of movement control and general exercise in patients with MCI. 106 participants aged 18 - 75 will be recruited in 5 outpatient hospital departments and 7 private practices.</p> <p>Patients randomly assigned to the movement control exercise group will be instructed to perform exercises according to their MCI. The general exercise group will follow an exercise protocol aimed at improving endurance and flexibility. Patients in both groups will receive 9 - 18 treatments and will be instructed to do additional exercises at home.</p> <p>The primary outcome is the level of disability assessed using the patient specific functional scale (PSFS) which links the perceived pain to functional situations and is measured before treatment and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes concern low back pain related disability (Roland Morris questionnaire, RMQ), graded chronic pain scale (GCPS), range of motion and tactile acuity.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge this study will be the first to compare two exercise programs for a specific subgroup of patients with NSLBP and MCI. Results of this study will provide insight into the effectiveness of movement control exercise and contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms behind MCI and its relation to NSLBP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN80064281">ISRCTN80064281</a></p

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and observational studies. METHODS: Source of studies CENTRAL database for RCTs and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and hand search of systematic reviews for cohort studies. Studies include individuals aged 18 or over, and concern non-specific LBP. Trials had to concern primary care treatments. Data were extracted on pain intensity. Meta-regression analysis was used to compare the pooled within-group change in pain in RCTs with that in cohort studies calculated as the standardised mean change (SMC). RESULTS: 70 RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included, out of 1134 and 653 identified respectively. LBP symptoms followed a similar course in RCTs and cohort studies: a rapid improvement in the first 6 weeks followed by a smaller further improvement until 52 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled SMC between RCTs and cohort studies at any time point:- 6 weeks: RCTs: SMC 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.2 (0.7to 1.7); 13 weeks: RCTs 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) and cohorts 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3); 27 weeks: RCTs 1.1 (1.0 to 1.2) and cohorts 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7); 52 weeks: RCTs 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of LBP symptoms followed a pattern that was similar in RCTs and cohort observational studies. In addition to a shared 'natural history', enrolment of LBP patients in clinical studies is likely to provoke responses that reflect the nonspecific effects of seeking and receiving care, independent of the study design