The prognostic value of catastrophizing for predicting the clinical evolution of low back pain patients: a study in routine clinical practice within the Spanish National Health Service

Francisco Javier Cano García es miembro de la Spanish Back Pain Research Network (Red Española de Investigadores en Dolencias de la Espalda (REIDE) y coautor del artículoBackground context Experimental studies suggest that catastrophizing may worsen the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) and LBP-related disability and increase the risk of chronicity. Purpose To assess the prognostic value of baseline catastrophizing for predicting the clinical evolution of LBP patients in routine clinical practice and the association between the evolution of pain and catastrophizing. Study design/setting Prospective study in routine clinical practice of the Spanish National Health Service. Patient sample One thousand four hundred twenty-two acute and chronic adult LBP patients treated in primary and hospital care. Outcome measures Pain, disability, and catastrophizing measured through validated instruments. Methods Patients were managed according to routine clinical practice. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3 months later. Logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between baseline catastrophizing score and the improvement of LBP and disability, adjusting for baseline LBP and leg pain (LP) severity, disability, duration of the pain episode, workers' compensation coverage, radiological findings, failed back surgery, and diagnostic procedures and treatments undertaken throughout the study. Another model was developed to estimate the association between the evolution of LBP and the change in catastrophizing, adjusting for the same possible confounders plus the evolution of LP and disability. Models were repeated excluding the treatments undergone after the baseline assessment. Results Regression models showed that the degree of baseline catastrophizing does not predict the evolution of LBP and disability. Conversely, as the degree of pain improvement increases, so does the odds ratio for improvement in catastrophizing, ranging from three (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.00–4.50; p<.001) for improvements in pain between 1.1 and 4 visual analog scale (VAS) points, to 7.3 (95% CI, 3.49–15.36; p<.001) for improvements in pain more than 6.1 VAS points. Similar results were obtained when treatments were excluded from the models. Conclusions In routine practice, assessing the baseline score for catastrophizing does not help clinicians to predict the evolution of LBP and disability at 3 months.Spanish Ministry of Health’s Agency for QualityKovacs Foundatio

Agreement in metastatic spinal cord compression

Background: Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) is a devastating medical emergency. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the 6-point ESCC scoring system and the identification of the spinal level presenting ESCC. Methods: Clinical data and imaging from 90 patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases were provided to 83 specialists from 44 hospitals. The spinal levels presenting metastases and the ESCC scores for each case were calculated twice by each clinician, with a minimum of 6 weeks' interval. Clinicians were blinded to assessments made by other specialists and their own previous assessment. Fleiss kappa (κ) statistic was used to assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Subgroup analyses were performed according to clinicians' specialty (medical oncology, neurosurgery, radiology, orthopedic surgery, and radiation oncology), years of experience, and type of hospital. Results: Intraobserver and interobserver agreement on the location of ESCC was substantial (κ>0.61). Intraobserver agreement on the ESCC score was 'excellent' (κ=0.82), whereas interobserver agreement was substantial (κ=0.64). Overall agreement with the tumor board classification was substantial (κ=0.71). Results were similar across specialties, years of experience and hospital category. Conclusions: The ESCC score can help improve communication among clinicians involved in oncology care

Agreement in Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression.

Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) is a devastating medical emergency. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the 6-point ESCC scoring system and the identification of the spinal level presenting ESCC. Clinical data and imaging from 90 patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases were provided to 83 specialists from 44 hospitals. The spinal levels presenting metastases and the ESCC scores for each case were calculated twice by each clinician, with a minimum of 6 weeks' interval. Clinicians were blinded to assessments made by other specialists and their own previous assessment. Fleiss kappa (κ) statistic was used to assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Subgroup analyses were performed according to clinicians' specialty (medical oncology, neurosurgery, radiology, orthopedic surgery, and radiation oncology), years of experience, and type of hospital. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement on the location of ESCC was substantial (κ>0.61). Intraobserver agreement on the ESCC score was "excellent" (κ=0.82), whereas interobserver agreement was substantial (κ=0.64). Overall agreement with the tumor board classification was substantial (κ=0.71). Results were similar across specialties, years of experience and hospital category. The ESCC score can help improve communication among clinicians involved in oncology care

Spine Instability Neoplastic Score: agreement across different medical and surgical specialties.

Spinal instability is an acknowledged complication of spinal metastases; in spite of recent suggested criteria, it is not clearly defined in the literature. This study aimed to assess intra and interobserver agreement when using the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) by all physicians involved in its management. Independent multicenter reliability study for the recently created SINS, undertaken with a panel of medical oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists, was carried out. Ninety patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases and magnetic resonance imaging, reviewed at the multidisciplinary tumor board of our institution, were included. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for SINS score agreement. Fleiss kappa statistic was used to assess agreement on the location of the most affected vertebral level; agreement on the SINS category ("stable," "potentially stable," or "unstable"); and overall agreement with the classification established by tumor board. Clinical data and imaging were provided to 83 specialists in 44 hospitals across 14 Spanish regions. No assessment criteria were pre-established. Each clinician assessed the SINS score twice, with a minimum 6-week interval. Clinicians were blinded to assessments made by other specialists and to their own previous assessment. Subgroup analyses were performed by clinicians' specialty, experience (≤7, 8-13, ≥14 years), and hospital category (four levels according to size and complexity). This study was supported by Kovacs Foundation. Intra and interobserver agreement on the location of the most affected levels was "almost perfect" (κ>0.94). Intra-observer agreement on the SINS score was "excellent" (ICC=0.77), whereas interobserver agreement was "moderate" (ICC=0.55). Intra-observer agreement in SINS category was "substantial" (k=0.61), whereas interobserver agreement was "moderate" (k=0.42). Overall agreement with the tumor board classification was "substantial" (κ=0.61). Results were similar across specialties, years of experience, and hospital category. Agreement on the assessment of metastatic spine instability is moderate. The SINS can help improve communication among clinicians in oncology care

Metastatic Versus Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures on MRI: A Blinded, Multicenter, and Multispecialty Observer Agreement Evaluation.

MRI is assumed to be valid for distinguishing metastatic vertebral fractures (MVFs) from osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study assessed (1) concordance between the image-based diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference (biopsy or follow-up of >6 months), (2) interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings and the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, and (3) whether disclosing a patient's history of cancer leads to variations in diagnosis, concordance, or agreement. This retrospective cohort study included clinical data and imaging from 203 patients with confirmed MVF or OVF provided to 25 clinicians (neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists). From January 2018 through October 2018, the clinicians interpreted images in conditions as close as possible to routine practice. Each specialist assessed data twice, with a minimum 6-week interval, blinded to assessments made by other clinicians and to their own previous assessments. The kappa statistic was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings, diagnosis (MVF vs OVF), and concordance with the reference. Subgroup analyses were based on clinicians' specialty, years of experience, and complexity of the hospital where they worked. For diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement was fair, whereas intraobserver agreement was substantial. Only the latter improved to almost perfect when a patient's history of cancer was disclosed. Interobserver agreement for key imaging findings was fair or moderate, whereas intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings was moderate or substantial. Concordance between the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference was moderate. Results were similar regardless of clinicians' specialty, experience, and hospital category. When MRI is used to distinguish MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement and concordance with the reference were moderate. These results cast doubt on the reliability of basing such a diagnosis on MRI in routine practice