The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites

Objectives: To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates. Methods: A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales. Results: The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Conclusion: People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences

Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain:A Systematic Review

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS)] are the most frequently used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain (LBP). However, their measurement properties in this population have not been systematically reviewed. The goal of this study was to provide such systematic evidence synthesis. Six electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Google Scholar) were searched (July 2017). Studies assessing any measurement property in patients with non-specific LBP were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. For each measurement property: evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low (GRADE approach); results were classified as sufficient, insufficient or inconsistent. Ten studies assessed the VAS, 13 the NRS, four the BPI-PS. The three instruments displayed low or very low quality evidence for content validity. High quality evidence was only available for NRS insufficient measurement error. Moderate evidence was available for: NRS inconsistent responsiveness, BPI-PS sufficient structural validity and internal consistency, and BPI-PS inconsistent construct validity. All VAS measurement properties were underpinned by no, low or very low quality evidence, likewise the other measurement properties of NRS and BPI-PS

Diagnostic Imaging in Chiropractic Practice:A Survey of Opinions and Self-Reported Guideline Adherence of Dutch and Belgian Chiropractors

Objectives: The purpose of this study was (1) to describe diagnostic imaging in Dutch and Belgian chiropractic practice in general, (2) to estimate adherence to the diagnostic imaging guidelines for patients with low back pain (LBP) via vignettes, and (3) to evaluate factors associated with diagnostic imaging and adherence to the guidelines. Methods: We used a web-based survey to collect sociodemographic data, practice characteristics, amount of imaging, opinions, and indications for requesting imaging from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors in 2013. Additionally, adherence to imaging guidelines for LBP was assessed by 6 vignettes in patients with LBP. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between characteristics of chiropractors and the use of imaging. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship with chiropractor's characteristics. Results: The overall response rate was 60% (n = 203 out of 340). In total, 83% of chiropractors viewed diagnostic imaging in general as an important part of their practice. It is important to note that Dutch and Belgian chiropractors are not allowed to refer directly for imaging. Chiropractors reported that they would like to have imaging in 42% of their patients. Imaging had already been performed in 37% of patients before the first visit and was ordered by another health care provider (ie, general practitioner or medical specialist). The most common indication for ordering imaging was exclusion of contraindications (73%). The most common reason against imaging was the perceived limited value (45%). Many chiropractors (71%) were familiar with imaging guidelines. Adherence to the imaging guidelines for LBP based upon the vignettes was 66%. Dutch chiropractors and chiropractors with less than 10 years in practice demonstrated better adherence to guidelines and imaging use as compared with Belgian and those with more than 10 years of experience. Conclusions: Most Dutch and Belgian chiropractors reported that imaging in general was important in chiropractic practice. Self-reported indications for ordering diagnostic imaging were in line with the imaging guidelines in the majority of cases. We found some variances between Belgian and Dutch chiropractors and years of experience related to guideline adherence

PROMIS Physical Function short forms display item- and scale-level characteristics at least as good as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare dimensionality, item-level characteristics, scale-level reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® Physical Function short forms (PROMIS-PF) and 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Secondary care center for rehabilitation and rheumatology. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with non-specific LBP ≥ 3 months (n = 768). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dutch versions of the 4-, 6-, 8-, 10- and 20-item PROMIS-PF, and of the RMDQ-24. RESULTS: Mean age was 49 years (±13), 77% female, 54% displayed pain for more than 5 years. PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8 and RMDQ-24 exhibited sufficient unidimensionality (confirmatory factor analysis: CFI >0.950, TLI >0.950 and RMSEA 0.001). Two-parameter item response theory models found two items with low discrimination for RMDQ-24. All other instruments had adequate fit statistics and item parameters. PROMIS-PF-20 displayed the best scale-level reliability. Construct validity was sufficient for all instruments as all hypotheses on expected correlations with other instruments, and differences between relevant subgroups, were met. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8 and RMDQ-24 exhibited better unidimensionality, whereas PROMIS-PF-4, PROMIS-PF-6 PROMIS-PF-8 and PROMIS-PF-10 showed superior item-level characteristics. PROMIS-PF-20 was the instrument with the best scale-level reliability. This study warrants assessment of other measurement properties of PROMIS-PF short forms in comparison to disease-specific physical functioning instruments in LBP

Patient versus general population health state valuations:a case study of non-specific low back pain

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to compare non-specific low back pain (LBP) patients' health state valuations with those of the general population, and (2) to explore how aspects of health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-3L impact non-specific LBP patient valuations. METHODS: Data were used of a randomized controlled trial, including 483 non-specific LBP patients. Outcomes included the EQ-VAS and the EQ-5D-3L. Patient valuations were derived from the EQ-VAS. Population valuations were derived from the EQ-5D-3L using a Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and population valuations was assessed using t tests. An OLS linear regression model was constructed to explore how various aspects of health-related quality of life as measured by the ED-5D-3L impact non-specific LBP patient valuations. RESULTS: Non-specific LBP patients valued their health states 0.098 (95% CI 0.082-0.115) points higher than the general population. Only 22.2% of the variance in patient valuations was explained by the patients' EQ-5D-3L health states (R (2) = 0.222). Non-specific LBP patients gave the most weight to the anxiety/depression dimension. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that non-specific LBP patients value their health states higher than members of the general population and that the choice of valuation method could have important implications for cost-effectiveness analyses and thus for clinical practice

Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a "satisfactory symptom state" in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The achievement of a given change score on a valid outcome instrument is commonly used to indicate whether a clinically relevant change has occurred after spine surgery. However, the achievement of such a change score can be dependent on baseline values and does not necessarily indicate whether the patient is satisfied with the current state. The achievement of an absolute score equivalent to a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) may be a more stringent measure to indicate treatment success. PURPOSE This study aimed to estimate the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, version 2.1a; 0-100) corresponding to a PASS in patients who had undergone surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This is a cross-sectional study of diagnostic accuracy using follow-up data from an international spine surgery registry. PATIENT SAMPLE The sample includes 1,288 patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders who had undergone elective spine surgery, registered in the EUROSPINE Spine Tango Spine Surgery Registry. OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome measure was the ODI (version 2.1a). METHODS Surgical data and data from the ODI and Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) were included to determine the ODI threshold equivalent to PASS at 1 year (±1.5 months; n=780) and 2 years (±2 months; n=508) postoperatively. The symptom-specific well-being item of the COMI was used as the external criterion in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine the ODI threshold equivalent to PASS. Separate sensitivity analyses were performed based on the different definitions of an "acceptable state" and for subgroups of patients. JF is a copyright holder of the ODI. RESULTS The ODI threshold for PASS was 22, irrespective of the time of follow-up (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.89 [sensitivity {Se}: 78.3%, specificity {Sp}: 82.1%] and AUC: 0.91 [Se: 80.7%, Sp: 85.6] for the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed that the absolute ODI-22 threshold for the two follow-up time-points were robust. A stricter definition of PASS resulted in lower ODI thresholds, varying from 16 (AUC=0.89; Se: 80.2%, Sp: 82.0%) to 18 (AUC=0.90; Se: 82.4%, Sp: 80.4%) depending on the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS An ODI score ≤22 indicates the achievement of an acceptable symptom state and can hence be used as a criterion of treatment success alongside the commonly used change score measures. At the individual level, the threshold could be used to indicate whether or not a patient with a lumbar spine disorder is a "responder" after elective surgery

Management of people with low back pain:a survey of opinions and beliefs of Dutch and Belgian chiropractors

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors commonly provide care to people with low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this survey was to determine the opinions and beliefs of chiropractors regarding the support and management of LBP. We also investigated whether their management is in accordance with the three most commonly recommended approaches to LBP based upon international guidelines (i.e. advice regarding return-to-work, limit bedrest, and stay active). METHODS: A web-based survey was sent out in 2013 to collect data from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors. In addition to providing a description of their sociodemographic and practice characteristics, chiropractors were asked to complete six patient vignettes representing people with LBP who typically present to a chiropractor. The respondents indicated which intervention(s) they would recommend or undertake. Based upon these vignettes, we were able to determine whether their management approach adhered to clinical guidelines. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship to chiropractors' characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 60% (n = 203/340) of the chiropractors who were invited, chose to participate. Chiropractors reported applying a chiropractic adjustment in 90% of all vignettes, while the advice to exercise varied from one-third in the chronic cases to approximately half of those with acute LBP. More than 75% of the chiropractors would initially treat LBP 1-2 times a week. More than 90% of the chiropractors advised against bedrest. Overall, self-reported adherence to clinical guidelines for all six vignettes was [64.5% (CI 58.7-70.0)]. Adherence in the chronic vignettes [73.4% (CI 66.7-79.2)] was better than in the acute vignettes [55.9% (CI 50.5-61.1)]. Importantly, regarding recommended approaches to LBP, chiropractors more consistently followed guidelines regarding advice to limit bedrest [98.5% (CI 97.3-99.1)] than advice to stay active [77.5% (CI 72.3-81.9)] or return-to-work [59.4% (CI 55.2-63.4)]. Finally, Dutch chiropractors were more likely to adhere to the guidelines than Belgian chiropractors. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic adjustments were the most common self-reported treatment modalities supplemented by exercise in the management of LBP patients. Two-thirds of the chiropractors reported adhering to the guidelines regarding management and advice for LBP patients. Practitioners should improve guideline adherence, particularly for acute LBP cases, and when advising on return-to-work

Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 in journals with impact factor of at least 4 by using items of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement published later in 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English-language articles on primary diagnostic accuracy studies in 2000 were identified with validated search strategy in MEDLINE. Articles published in journals with impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. Two independent reviewers evaluated quality of reporting by using STARD statement, which consists of 25 items and encourages use of a flow diagram. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing number of reported items. Subgroup analyses were performed for study design (case-control or cohort study) by using Student t tests for continuous outcomes and chi(2) tests for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in 12 journals: 33 case-control and 91 cohort studies. Only 41% of articles (51 of 124) reported on more than 50% of STARD items, while no articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was presented in two articles. Assessment of reporting on individual items of STARD statement revealed wide variation, with some items described in 11% of articles and others in 92%. Mean STARD score (0-25 points available) was 11.9 (range, 3.5-19.5). Mean difference in STARD score between cohort studies and case-control studies was 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.82). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 is less than optimal, even in journals with high impact factor. Authors, editors, and reviewers should pay more attention to reporting by checking STARD statement items and including a flow diagram to represent study design and patient flow. Supplemental material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2352040507/DC1 (c) RSNA, 200

Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach

Background: Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC. Objectives: To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches. Method: Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point. Results: We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point. Discussion: The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V