Multimodal, polypragmatisch und kostenintensiv: Rückenschmerzbehandlungen auf dem Prüfstand

A cross-sectional study to validate an administrative back pain severity classification tool based on the graded chronic pain scale

Treatment of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) should be stratified for best medical and economic outcome. To improve the targeting of potential participants for exclusive therapy offers from payers, Freytag et al. developed a tool to classify back pain chronicity classes (CC) based on claim data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the model. Administrative claim data and self-reported patient information from 3,506 participants (2014-2021) in a private health insurance health management programme in Germany were used to validate the tool. Sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC) were calculated comparing the prediction with actual grades based on von Korff's graded chronic pain scale (GCPS). The secondary outcome was an updated view on direct health care costs (€) of patients with back pain (BP) grouped by GCPS. Results showed a fair correlation between predicted CC and actual GCPS grades. A total of 69.7% of all cases were correctly classified. Sensitivity and specificity rates of 54.6 and 76.4% underlined precision. Correlation between CC and GCPS with an MCC of 0.304 also indicated a fair relationship between prediction and observation. Cost data could be clearly grouped by GCPS: the higher the grade, the higher the costs and the use of health care. This was the first study to compare the predicted severity of BP using claim data with the actual severity of BP by GCPS. Based on the results, the usage of CC as a single tool to determine who receives CLBP treatment cannot be recommended. CC is a good tool to segment candidates for specific types of intervention in BP. However, it cannot replace a medical screening at the beginning of an intervention, as the rate of false negatives is too high. Trial registration The study was conducted using routinely collected data from an intervention, which was previously evaluated and registered retrospectively in the German Registry of Clinical Trials under DRKS00015463 (04/09/2018). Informed consent and the self-reported questionnaire have remained unchanged since the study and, therefore, are still valid according to the ethics proposal.

[A functional approach to disorders of the loco-motor system-a way to a better understanding?]

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the loco-motor system are frequent and expensive. The current method of diagnosing and treating these disorders does not appear to be successful.

DIAGNOSTICS

A functional approach based on the model of the functional system incorporates all aspects relevant to disorders of the loco-motor system. Most disturbances the system can compensate. If compensating mechanisms are not sufficient, the system decompensates, and symptoms develop. It is important to search not only for structural changes but also for somatic dysfunction, psychosocial factors, and changes in neuromodulation. On this basis, treatment strategies can be developed. If there are complex disturbances on different levels, a multimodal interdisciplinary treatment is indicated. The model of the functional system highlights the important role of manual medicine in the diagnostics, treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation of disorders of the loco-motor system.

Predicting Persistent Back Symptoms by Psychosocial Risk Factors: Validity Criteria for the ÖMPSQ and the HKF-R 10 in Germany

OBJECTIVE

10% of all individuals in Germany develop persistent symptoms due to nonspecific back pain (NSBP) causing up to 90% of direct and indirect expenses for health care systems. Evidence indicates a strong relationship between chronic nonspecific back pain and psychosocial risk factors. The Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) and the German Heidelberger Kurzfragebogen Rückenschmerz (HKF-R 10) are deemed valid in prediction of persistent pain, functional loss or amount of sick leave. This study provides and discusses validity criteria for these questionnaires using ROC-curve analyses. Quality measurements included sensitivity and specificity, likelihood-ratio related test-efficiencies and clinical utility in regard to predictive values.

METHODS

265 patients recruited from primary and secondary care units completed both questionnaires during the same timeframe. From the total, 133 patients returned a 6-month follow-up questionnaire to assess the validity criteria for outcomes of pain, function and sick leave.

RESULTS

Based on heterogeneous cut-offs for the ÖMPSQ, sensitivity and specificity were moderate for outcome of pain (72%/75%). Very high sensitivity was observed for function (97%/57%) and high specificity for sick leave (63%/85%). The latter also applied to the HKF-R 10 (pain 50%/84%). Proportions between sensitivity and specificity were unbalanced except for the ÖMPSQ outcome of pain. Likelihood-ratios and positive predictive values ranged from low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Although the ÖMPSQ may be considered useful in identification of long-term functional loss or pain, over- and underestimation of patients at risk of chronic noncspecific back pain led to limited test-efficiencies and clinical utility for both questionnaires. Further studies are required to quantify the predictive validity of both questionnaires in Germany.

Septic and aseptic complications of corticosteroid injections: an assessment of 278 cases reviewed by expert commissions and mediation boards from 2005 to 2009

BACKGROUND

Local corticosteroid injections can have serious septic and aseptic complications.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2009, medical expert committees and mediation boards reviewed 1528 cases of alleged treatment errors relating to injections.

RESULTS

278 cases were identified in which complications arose after local glucocorticosteroid injections. The injections were intra-articular, paravertebral, intramuscular, and at other sites. In 39.6% of cases, treatment errors or patient information errors of the following types were found: aseptic technique was not maintained, injections were performed in the absence of an indication, time intervals between injections were too short, excessive doses were administered, infections were not diagnosed, erroneous injections were performed, patients were not informed of the risks, and there were errors of organization and documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Injections of glucocorticosteroids must be performed in strict adherence to the manufacturer's instructions with respect to the composition of the solution to be injected, the quantity per injection, and the intervals between injections. Repeated injections with too little time between them raise the risk of infection. Physicians should pay more attention to this fact, particularly when deciding on the indication for paravertebral injections. Aseptic technique should be strictly maintained. The indication for the injection should be clearly documented. When glucocorticosteroids are injected into small joints and tendon spaces, the introduction of crystals into the subcutaneous tissue and adipose tissue should be avoided. The intramuscular administration of depot glucocorticosteroids should be avoided. Patients should be informed of the risk of infection and/or tissue atrophy, as well as of alternative forms of treatment.