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

Factor analysis of the SRS-22 outcome assessment instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity

PURPOSE: Designed for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the SRS-22 is now widely used as an outcome instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). No studies have confirmed the four-factor structure (pain, function, self-image, mental health) of the SRS-22 in ASD and under different contexts. Factorial invariance of an instrument over time and in different languages is essential to allow for precise interpretations of treatment success and comparisons across studies. This study sought to evaluate the invariance of the SRS-22 structure across different languages and sub-groups of ASD patients. METHODS: Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the 20 non-management items of the SRS-22 with data from 245 American English-, 428 Spanish-, 229 Turkish-, 95 French-, and 195 German-speaking patients. Item loading invariance was compared across languages, age groups, etiologies, treatment groups, and assessment times. A separate sample of SRS-22 data from 772 American surgical patients with ASD was used for cross-validation. RESULTS: The factor structure fitted significantly better to the proposed four-factor solution than to a unifactorial solution. However, items 14 (personal relationships), 15 (financial difficulties), and 17 (days off work) consistently showed weak item loading within their factors across all language versions and in both baseline and follow-up datasets. A trimmed SRS (16 non-management items) that used the four least problematic items in each of the four domains yielded better-fitting models across all languages, but equivalence was still not reached. With this shorter version there was equivalence of item loading with respect to treatment (surgery vs conservative), time of assessment (baseline vs 12 months follow-up), and etiology (degenerative vs idiopathic), but not age (< vs ≥50 years). All findings were confirmed in the cross-validation sample. CONCLUSION: We recommend removal of the worst-fitting items from each of the four domains of the SRS-instrument (items 3, 14, 15, 17), together with adaptation and standardization of other items across language versions, to provide an improved version of the instrument with just 16 non-management items

Development of a mapping function ("crosswalk") for the conversion of scores between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI).

INTRODUCTION The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) are two commonly used self-rating outcome instruments in patients with lumbar spinal disorders. No formal crosswalk between them exists that would otherwise allow the scores of one to be interpreted in terms of the other. We aimed to create such a mapping function. METHODS We performed a secondary analysis of ODI and COMI data previously collected from 3324 patients (57 ± 17y; 60.3% female) at baseline and 1y after surgical or conservative treatment. Correlations between scores and Cohen's kappa for agreement (κ) regarding achievement of the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score on each instrument (ODI, 12.8 points; COMI, 2.2 points) were calculated, and regression models were built. The latter were tested for accuracy in an independent set of registry data from 634 patients (60 ± 15y; 56.8% female). RESULTS All pairs of measures were significantly positively correlated (baseline, 0.73; 1y follow-up (FU), 0.84; change-scores, 0.73). MCIC for COMI was achieved in 53.9% patients and for ODI, in 52.4%, with 78% agreement on an individual basis (κ = 0.56). Standard errors for the regression slopes and intercepts were low, indicating excellent prediction at the group level, but root mean square residuals (reflecting individual error) were relatively high. ODI was predicted as COMI × 7.13-4.20 (at baseline), COMI × 6.34 + 2.67 (at FU) and COMI × 5.18 + 1.92 (for change-score); COMI was predicted as ODI × 0.075 + 3.64 (baseline), ODI × 0.113 + 0.96 (FU), and ODI × 0.102 + 1.10 (change-score). ICCs were 0.63-0.87 for derived versus actual scores. CONCLUSION Predictions at the group level were very good and met standards justifying the pooling of data. However, we caution against using individual values for treatment decisions, e.g. attempting to monitor patients over time, first with one instrument and then with the other, due to the lower statistical precision at the individual level. The ability to convert scores via the developed mapping function should open up more centres/registries for collaboration and facilitate the combining of data in meta-analyses