The use of STarT BACK Screening Tool in emergency departments for patients with acute low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study

Stratified health care for low back pain using the STarT Back approach: Holy Grail or doomed to fail?

ABSTRACT

There have been at least 7 separate randomised controlled trials published between 2011 and 2023 that have examined primary care for nonspecific low back pain informed by the STarT Back approach to stratified care based on risk prediction, compared with care not informed by this approach. The results, across 4 countries, have been contrasting-some demonstrating effectiveness and/or efficiency of this approach, others finding no benefits over comparison interventions. This review considers possible explanations for the differences, particularly whether this is related to poor predictive performance of the STarT Back risk-prediction tool or to variable degrees of success in implementing the whole STarT Back approach (subgrouping and matching treatments to predicted risk of poor outcomes) in different healthcare systems. The review concludes that although there is room for improving and expanding the predictive value of the STarT Back tool, its performance in allocating individuals to their appropriate risk categories cannot alone explain the variation in results of the trials to date. Rather, the learning thus far suggests that challenges in implementing stratified care in clinical practice and in changing professional practice largely explain the contrasting trial results. The review makes recommendations for future research, including greater focus on studying facilitators of implementation of stratified care and developing better treatments for patients with nonspecific low back pain at high risk of poor outcomes.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity, and psychometric evaluation of the Tamil version STarT back screening tool among low back pain subjects

BACKGROUND

The STarT back screening tool helps primary care workers make the initial clinical decision and classify low back pain subjects into subgroups. Currently, the tool is required for stratification/triaging of low back pain and is commonly used in clinical practice, and requires linguistic validation in Tamil. The study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Tamil version of the STarT back screening tool.

METHODS

The baseline measurements include the Tamil version of the STarT back screening tool-, pain severity using the Numeric pain rating Scale (NPRS), disability status using the Tamil version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and fear avoidance beliefs using the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) - Tamil were obtained. After five days, the retest measures are done to investigate the test-retest reliability.

RESULTS

The current study showed excellent test-retest reliability of total score (ICC - 0.80) and psychosocial subscore (ICC-0.82) with excellent internal consistency and moderate to high validity with clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that the Tamil version of the STarT Back Screening Questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool that reported good understanding and easy completion by the subject.

Predictors of response in PROMIS-global in a chronic low back pain specialty clinic: STarTBack and chronic overlapping pain conditions

BACKGROUND

Tools, such as the STarTBack Screening Tool (SBT), have been developed to identify risks of progressing to chronic disability in low back pain (LBP) patients in the primary care population. However, less is known about predictors of change in function after treatment in the specialty care population.

OBJECTIVE

We pursued a retrospective observational cohort study involving LBP patients seen in a multidisciplinary specialty clinic to assess which features can predict change in function at follow-up.

METHODS

The SBT was administered at initial visit, and a variety of patient characteristics were available in the chart including the presence of chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs). Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10) global physical health (PH) and global mental health (MH) were measured at baseline and at pragmatic time points during follow-up. Linear regression was used to estimate adjusted associations between available features and changes in PROMIS scores.

RESULTS

241 patients were followed for a mean of 17.0 ± 7.5 months. Mean baseline pain was 6.7 (SD 2.1), PROMIS-10 global MH score was 44.8 (SD 9.3), and PH score was 39.4 (SD 8.6). 29.7% were low-risk on the SBT, 41.8% were medium-risk, and 28.5% were high-risk. Mean change in MH and PH scores from baseline to the follow-up questionnaire were 0.86 (SD 8.11) and 2.39 (SD 7.52), respectively. Compared to low-risk patients, high-risk patients had a mean 4.35 points greater improvement in their MH score (p= 0.004) and a mean 3.54 points greater improvement in PH score (p= 0.006). Fewer COPCs also predicted greater improvement in MH and PH.

CONCLUSIONS

SBT and the presence of COPC, which can be assessed at initial presentation to a specialty clinic, can predict change in PROMIS following treatment. Effort is needed to identify other factors that can help predict change in function after treatment in the specialty care setting.

Systematic review of predictors of hospitalisation for non-specific low back pain with or without referred leg pain

Significant costs and utilisation of healthcare resources are associated with hospitalisations for non-specific low back pain despite clinical guidelines recommending community-based care. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the predictors of hospitalisation for low back pain. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (#CRD42021281827) and conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Database search of Ovid Medline, Emcare, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PEDro and OTSeeker was conducted. Studies were included if they examined a predictor of hospitalisation for non-specific low back pain with or without referred leg pain. Data was extracted and descriptively synthesised. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklists. There were 23 studies published over 29 articles which identified 52 predictor variables of hospitalisation for low back pain. The risk of hospitalisation was grouped into themes: personal, health and lifestyle, psychology, socioeconomic, occupational, clinical, and health systems and processes. There was moderate level evidence that arrival to an emergency department via ambulance with low back pain, and older age increase the risk of hospitalisations for low back pain. There was low level evidence that high pain intensity, past history of low back pain, opioid use, and occupation type increase the risk of hospitalisation for low back pain. Further research into psychological and social factors is warranted given the paucity of available studies. Hospital avoidance strategies, improved patient screening and resource utilisation in emergency departments are considerations for practice.

Predictive performance of the STarT Back tool for poor outcomes in patients with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back Tool (SBT) is a brief multiple-construct risk prediction tool for patients with low back pain (LBP). Thus far, the predictive ability of this tool has been inconsistent. Therefore, we aim to conduct a literature review on the predictive ability of the SBT to determine the outcomes of patients with LBP. The results of this review should improve the ability of the SBT to predict poor outcomes in patients with LBP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Databases, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wanfang will be searched for studies on SBT and LBP from their inception until 31 March 2023. Longitudinal studies investigating the association between SBT subgroups and LBP outcomes, including pain, disability and quality of life, will be included. The identified studies will be independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. A standardised sheet will be used to extract data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by the χ2 test with Cochran's Q statistic and quantified by the I2 statistic. The results will be synthesised qualitatively and presented as pooled risk ratios or beta coefficients quantitatively. The results will also be presented using their 95% confidence limits. Publication bias will be assessed using the method proposed by Egger and by visual inspection of funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a secondary analysis of original studies that received ethics approval. Therefore, prior ethical approval is not required for this study. The findings will be submitted to relevant peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at profession-specific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022309189.

Prospective observational study investigating the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool and the clinical effectiveness of stratified care in an emergency department setting

PURPOSE

To determine the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool (SBT) undertaken at baseline and 6 weeks to classify Emergency Department (ED) patients with LBP into groups at low, medium or high risk of persistent disability at 3 months. A secondary aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of pragmatic risk-matched treatment in an ED cohort at 3 months.

METHODS

A prospective observational multi-centre study took place in the physiotherapy services linked to the ED in four teaching hospitals in Dublin, Ireland. Patients were stratified into low, medium and high-risk groups at their baseline assessment. Participants received stratified care, where the content of their treatment was matched to their risk profile. Outcomes completed at baseline and 3 months included pain and disability. Linear regression analyses assessed if baseline or 6-week SBT score were predictive of disability at 3 months. Changes in the primary outcome of disability were dichotomised into those who achieved/ did not achieve a 30% improvement in their RMDQ at 6 weeks and 3 months.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 118 patients with a primary complaint of LBP ± leg pain with 67 (56.7%) completing their 6-week and 3-month follow-up. Baseline RMDQ and being in medium or high risk SBT group at 6 weeks were predictive of persistent disability at 3 months. A total of 54 (80.6%) participants reported a > 30% improvement at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Disability at baseline and SBT administered at 6 weeks more accurately predicted disability at 3 months than SBT at baseline in an ED population.

Recurrence of an Episode of Low Back Pain: An Inception Cohort Study in Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES

To (1) determine the 1-year estimate of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in a cohort of people presenting to emergency departments who have recently recovered from an episode of acute LBP in a middle-income country, (2) estimate a recurrence of LBP stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST), and (3) determine prognostic factors for the recurrence of LBP.

DESIGN

Prospective inception cohort study.

METHODS

We included 238 patients who presented to emergency departments with recent-onset nonspecific LBP in São Paulo, Brazil. The outcome was the recurrence of an episode of LBP, assessed using 2 definitions: (1) 12-month recall alone and (2) pain measurements at follow-up. Prognostic factors were determined by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Within 1 year, the estimated recurrence of an episode of LBP ranged from 35% (79/225 events) (first definition) to 44% (100/226 events) (second definition). When patients were stratified by the SBST, the estimate of recurrence ranged from 29% to 37% (21-27/73 events) for low-risk patients, from 33% to 39% (24-28/72 events) for medium-risk patients, and from 43% to 56% (34-45/80 events) for high-risk patients. Age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and disability were independent prognostic factors associated with LBP recurrence within 1 year.

CONCLUSION

After recovering from a previous episode of acute LBP, 4 in every 10 patients experienced a recurrence within 1 year. This estimate varied depending on the classification used in the SBST. Within 1 year, age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and baseline disability were predictors of recurrence. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):484-492. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10775.

Do patients with acute low back pain in emergency departments have more severe symptoms than those in general practice? A systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice versus those presenting to emergency departments.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0-100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using a validated tool for observational studies and the overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analysis using random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings.

RESULTS

We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95%CI: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0-100 scale). Similarly, there was low quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7, 95%CI: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0-100 scale).

CONCLUSION

Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076806.

Effectiveness of stratified treatment for back pain in Danish primary care: A randomized controlled trial

Background

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of stratified care demonstrated superior clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness for low back pain (LBP) patients in UK primary care. This is the first study in Europe, outside of the original UK study, to investigate the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of stratified care compared with current practice for patients with non‐specific LBP.

Methods

The study was a two‐armed RCT. Danish primary care patients with LBP were randomized to stratified care (n = 169) or current practice (n = 164). Primary outcomes at 3‐ and 12‐months' follow‐up were Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDMQ), patient‐reported global change and time off work. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, patient satisfaction, healthcare resource utilization and quality‐adjusted life years.

Results

Intention‐to‐treat analyses found no between‐group difference in RMDQ scores at 3 months (0.5, 95% CI −1.8 to 0.9) or 12 months (0.4, −2.1 to 1.3). No overall differences were found between the arms at 3 and 12 months with respect to time off work or secondary outcomes. Stratified care intervention resulted in significantly fewer treatment sessions (3.5 [SD 3.1] vs. 4.5 [3.5]) and significantly lower total healthcare costs (€) (13.4 [529] vs. 228 [830], p = .002). There was no difference in cost‐effectiveness (0.09, 0.05 to 0.13 vs. 0.10, 0.07–0.14, p = .70).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients with non‐specific LBP receiving stratified care and those receiving current practice. However, stratified care may reduce total healthcare costs if implemented in Danish primary care.

Significance

Stratified care for low back pain based on risk profile is recommended by recent evidence based clinical guidelines. This study is the first broad replication of the STarT Back Trial in Europe. Therefore, the study adds to the body of knowledge evaluating the effectiveness of stratified care for low back pain in primary care, and provides insight into the effects of stratification on clinical practice.

'I'm not in GP pain, I'm in hospital pain': Qualitative study regarding patient decision-making factors in seeking care in the emergency department with non-specific low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate factors contributing to the decision for a working age adult experiencing non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) to seek care at an Australian metropolitan tertiary ED.

METHODS

Participants triaged with NSLBP were recruited from one metropolitan tertiary Australian ED. We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology using semi-structured interviews to collect data. The short-form Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire was administered pre-interview and used to inform discussion of psychosocial factors in the interview.

RESULTS

Patient perception and interpretation of their low back pain symptoms was the most important participant decision-making factor. This was part of the care-seeking decision for all participants. Convenience of care accessed in the ED was also important with many participants aiming to avoid multiple appointments in primary care settings while in pain or attending ED because it was close to home. Participants expected high-quality care in the ED and often did not identify an alternative in primary care they believed could provide an equivalent standard of care. Few participants were advised to attend ED by a GP or physiotherapist, but when given, this advice was a critical factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient beliefs about NSLBP are important drivers of ED care seeking. Evidence-based guidelines recommend screening for red flags and then addressing pain and disability through engagement with patient concerns and providing a management plan/pathway. In the ED setting, addressing the anxieties of these patients and re-interpreting the significance of their pain may be a path to providing time efficient high-value care.

Healthcare costs due to low back pain in the emergency department and inpatient setting in Sydney, Australia

Background

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a common presentation to emergency departments, often resulting in subsequent admissions to hospital. There have been several studies investigating the cost of low back pain to society, but few specific to the emergency department and inpatient setting, especially in Australia. The aim was to describe the cost of low back pain in Australian public hospital emergency departments, and inpatient settings, and explore healthcare costs associated with different care pathways.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, we explored the costs associated with an episode of care for low back pain in adults that attended three emergency departments in Sydney between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms (SNOMED) diagnosis codes were used to identify episodes of care where the patients had been diagnosed with non-specific low back pain or lumbosacral radicular syndromes. Serious spinal pathologies were excluded. We determined the costs for different treatment pathways involving the ambulance service, emergency department and inpatient ward care. Hospital costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 Australian dollars (AUD).

Findings

There were 12,399 non-serious low back pain episodes of care during the study period. 4006 (32%) arrived by ambulance and 2067 (17%) were admitted for inpatient care. The total costs of inpatient and emergency department care across the 5-year period were AUD$36.7 million, with a mean of AUD$2959 per episode of care. The mean cost for a patient who had a non-ambulance presentation to the emergency department and was discharged was AUD$584. Patients presenting to the emergency department via ambulance and were discharged had a mean cost of AUD$1022. Patients who presented without the need of an ambulance and were admitted had a mean cost of $13,137. The most expensive care pathway was for patients arriving by ambulance with subsequent admission, with a mean cost of AUD$14,949.

Interpretation

The common practice of admitting patients with non-serious low back pain for inpatient care comes at great cost to the healthcare system. In a resource constrained environment, our data highlights the economic need to implement innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce the inpatient management of these patients.

Funding

Nil.

The Danish Chiropractic Low Back Pain Cohort (ChiCo): Description and Summary of an Available Data Source for Research Collaborations

BACKGROUND

Back pain is among the most frequent reasons for care seeking globally. Observational clinical cohorts are useful for understanding why people seek care, the content of that care, and factors related to prognosis. This paper describes the Danish Chiropractic low back pain Cohort (ChiCo) and summarizes the primary characteristics of the population to inform the scientific community of the availability of these data as a resource for collaborative research projects.

METHODS

Adults seeking chiropractic care for a new episode of non-specific back pain were enrolled at the initial visit and followed up after 2, 13, and 52 weeks, with a subpopulation having weekly follow-ups for 1 year. Patient-reported and clinical-reported data were collected in an electronic database using the REDCap software (REDCap Consortium, projectredcap.org). Variables were chosen to measure pre-defined research domains and questions and to capture information across health constructs deemed relevant for additional research. Non-responders at 13 and 52 weeks were contacted by phone to maximize follow-up data and explore differences on core outcomes between responders and non-responders.

RESULTS

A total of 2848 patients (mean age 45 years, 59% men) were included from 10 clinics with 71%, 68% and 64% responding to follow-ups at 2, 13 and 52 weeks, respectively. Most participants (82%) were employed, nearly half reported current LBP for 1-7 days, and 83% had experienced LBP episodes previously. We did not identify indications of serious attrition bias.

CONCLUSION

We have described the aims and procedures for establishing the ChiCo cohort, characteristics of the cohort, and available information about attrition bias. These data have the potential to be linked, at an individual participant level, to the extensive Danish population-based registries that measure diverse health and social characteristics.

Risk-stratified and stepped models of care for back pain and osteoarthritis: are we heading towards a common model?

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Substantial overlap between interventions and models of care for osteoarthritis and low back pain suggests potential for one common model, which may facilitate implementation.

The overall quality of care for musculoskeletal pain conditions is suboptimal, partly due to a considerable evidence-practice gap. In osteoarthritis and low back pain, structured models of care exist to help overcome that challenge. In osteoarthritis, focus is on stepped care models, where treatment decisions are guided by response to treatment, and increasingly comprehensive interventions are only offered to people with inadequate response to more simple care. In low back pain, the most widely known approach is based on risk stratification, where patients with higher predicted risk of poor outcome are offered more comprehensive care. For both conditions, the recommended interventions and models of care share many commonalities and there is no evidence that one model of care is more effective than the other. Limitations of existing models of care include a lack of integrated information on social factors, comorbid conditions, and previous treatment experience, and they do not support an interplay between health care, self-management, and community-based activities. Moving forwards, a common model across musculoskeletal conditions seems realistic, which points to an opportunity for reducing the complexity of implementation. We foresee this development will use big data sources and machine-learning methods to combine stepped and risk-stratified care and to integrate self-management support and patient-centred care to a greater extent in future models of care.

Clinical course of patients with low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Low back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit.

Methods

Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0–100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation.

Results

Eight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0–100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2–77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2–55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8–21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern.

Conclusions

Patients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.

Use of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapy interventions

BACKGROUND

The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is used to stratify care. It is unclear if the SBST approach works as well for patients in low- and medium-income countries as for patients from high-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To investigate whether patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) stratified by the SBST are different at baseline; (2) to describe the clinical course for each SBST subgroup; (3) to investigate the SBST utility to predict clinical outcomes; and (4) to determine which SBST subgroup show greater clinical improvement.

DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of data derived from a previously published clinical trial.

METHODS

148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were assessed at baseline and at 5, 12, and 24 weeks after baseline. Descriptive data were provided and ANOVA, unadjusted and adjusted regression models, and linear mixed models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Duration of symptoms, use of medication, pain, disability, and global perceived effect were different between SBST subgroups. Clinical improvements over a 6-month period were consistently greater in patients classified as high risk. The SBST was able to predict disability but this predictability decreased when the analysis was adjusted for possible confounders.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcomes were different between SBST subgroups over 6 months. Adjusting for confounders influenced the predictability of SBST. Patients classified as high risk presented higher improvements in terms of disability.

Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.

Profile of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Who Sought Emergency Departments: A Cross-sectional Study

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe the profile of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) who sought emergency departments (EDs) in Brazilian public hospitals. We also described the profile of these patients according to the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LBP is the most common musculoskeletal condition worldwide and is one of the main complaints in EDs. There is a lack of evidence describing the profile of these patients from low- to middle-income countries.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study involving patients with a new episode of nonspecific acute LBP that was conducted between August 2014 and August 2016. Variables related to clinical, psychological, sociodemographic and work status characteristics were investigated through structured, in-person oral questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients were women (58%), with a median of eight points on pain intensity (measured on an 11-point scale) and 17 points on disability (measured on a 24-item questionnaire). With regards to the SBST evaluation, 295 (49.2%) patients were classified as being at high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis with a median pain intensity of nine points on pain intensity, 20 points on disability, and seven points on depression (measured on an 11-point scale). Despite this, the majority of the patients (74%) continued working normally without interference from LBP.

CONCLUSION

Identifying the profile of patients seeking care in EDs can help to define effective management for LBP in low- and middle-income countries. Patients with nonspecific acute LBP who seek EDs in Brazil present high levels of pain intensity and disability. Most patients were classified as having a high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

A Responsiveness Analysis of the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool (SBST) screens patients with low back pain and directs them to different levels of physical therapy treatment. The SBST is also used to monitor changes in a range of modifiable prognostic factors. However, the current evidence on the responsiveness of the SBST is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To test the responsiveness of the SBST at 6 weeks and 6 months.

METHODS

This measurement property study is a secondary analysis of data from 2 previous studies that included 348 participants with nonspecific low back pain. All participants were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. To detect clinical changes, the SBST was compared to 3 one-dimensional constructs: global perceived effect, disability, and pain intensity. To assess responsiveness, we tested 15 specific predefined hypotheses based on correlation, effect size, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. If 75% or more of the hypotheses were accepted, then responsiveness was considered to be high.

RESULTS

Most of the hypotheses were accepted. Testing the SBST as a continuous score, 85.7% and 87.5% of the hypotheses were accepted at 6 weeks and 6 months, respectively. For medium- and high-risk subgroups, 85.7% and 87.5% of the hypotheses were accepted at 6 weeks and 6 months. The low-risk subgroup had 42.9% of the hypotheses accepted at 6 weeks and 100% of the hypotheses accepted at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

The SBST had high responsiveness at 6 weeks in subgroups of patients with a medium and high risk, and poor responsiveness in those with a low risk, of persistent disability. The SBST has high responsiveness in all SBST subgroups at 6 months. Clinicians can confidently use the SBST to measure changes over time in terms of subgroups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Longitudinal clinical measurement, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):725-735. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8776.

Effects of active video games on children and adolescents: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of active video games (AVGs) on obesity-related outcomes and physical activity levels in children and adolescents.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature search was performed in five electronic databases and the main clinical trials registries. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of AVGs compared with no/minimal intervention on obesity-related outcomes (body mass index [BMI], body weight, body fat, and waist circumference) and physical activity levels of children and adolescents were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted the data of each included study. PEDro scale was used to assess risk of bias and GRADE approach to evaluate overall quality of evidence. Pooled estimates were obtained using random effect models.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were considered eligible for this review. Included studies mostly reported outcome data at short-term (less or equal than three months) and intermediate-term follow-up (more than 3 months, but <12 months). AVGs were more effective than no/minimal intervention in reducing BMI/zBMI at short-term (SMD = -0.34; 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.05) and intermediate-term follow-up (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI: -0.01 to -0.71). In addition, AVGs were more effective in reducing body weight compared with no/minimal intervention at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.46 to -0.04). Regarding physical activity levels, AVGs were not more effective compared with minimal intervention at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified that AVGs were better than minimal intervention in reducing BMI and body weight, but not for increasing physical activity in young people.

The contemporary management of nonspecific lower back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is extremely common and causes an enormous burden on the society. This perspective article aims to provide an evidence-based summary in the field of LBP. More specifically, we aimed to present epidemiological data on cost, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention and interventions for patients with LBP. It is critical that both clinicians and policymakers follow best practices by using high-value care for patients with LBP. In addition, nonevidence-based procedures must be immediately abandoned. These actions are likely to reduce societal costs and will improve the quality of life of these patients.

Tackling low back pain in Brazil: a wake-up call

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Brazil based upon Global Burden of Disease estimates. Since 1990, the number of years lived with disability has increased by 79.7%, and this number is expected to continue to rise due to population growth and ageing. Yet, similarly to other countries, little attention has been given to it in both the public and private health systems, arguably making it an overlooked epidemic in Brazil. There is evidence that Brazil has adopted unwarranted practices in the management of low back pain in a similar manner to what has been observed in high-income countries. To tackle the burden of low back pain in Brazil, we need highly coordinated efforts from government, the private sector, universities, health workers and civil society.

OBJECTIVE

This masterclass intends to provide an overview of the challenges faced by Brazil in relation to low back pain management and propose potential solutions that could potentially be implemented based on experiences reported in the literature.

Advancing practice for back pain through stratified care (STarT Back)

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is common, however research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments over the last two decades conclude either no or small differences in the average effects of different treatments. One suggestion to explain this is that patients are not all the same and important subgroups exist that might require different treatment approaches. Stratified care for LBP involves identifying subgroups of patients and then delivering appropriate matched treatments. Research has shown that stratified care for LBP in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs and increase the efficiency of health-care delivery in the UK. The challenge now is to replicate and evaluate this approach in other countries health care systems and to support services to implement it in routine clinical care.

RESULTS

The STarT Back approach to stratified care has been tested in the National Health Service, within the UK, it reduces unnecessary overtreatment in patients who have a good prognosis (those at low risk) yet increases the likelihood of appropriate healthcare and associated improved outcomes for those who are at risk of persistent disabling pain. The approach is cost-effective in the UK healthcare setting and has been recommended in recent guidelines and implemented as part of new LBP clinical pathways of care. This approach has subsequently generated international interest, a replication study is currently underway in Denmark, however, some lessons have already been learnt. There are potential obstacles to implementing stratified care in low-and-middle-income settings and in other high-income settings outside of the UK, however, implementation science literature can inform the development of innovations and efforts to support implementation of stratified care.

CONCLUSIONS

The STarT Back approach to stratified care for LBP is a promising method to advance practice that has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK. Over time, further evidence for both the effectiveness and the adaptations needed to test and implement the STarT Back stratified care approach in other countries is needed.