Can demographic and anthropometric characteristics predict clinical improvement in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain?

Postural control and trunk stability on sway parameters in adults with and without chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Postural sway changes often reflect functional impairments in adults with chronic low back pain (LBP). However, there is a gap in understanding how these individuals adapt their postural strategies to maintain stability.

PURPOSE

This study investigated postural sway distance and velocity, utilizing the center of pressure (COP) and center of gravity (COG), between adults with and without LBP during repeated unilateral standing trials.

METHODS

Twenty-six subjects with LBP and 39 control subjects participated in the study. Postural sway ranges, COP/COG sways, and sway velocities (computed by dividing path length by time in anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions over 10 s) were analyzed across three unilateral standing trials.

RESULTS

A significant group interaction in sway range difference was observed following repeated trials (F = 5.90, p = 0.02). For COG sway range, significant group interactions were demonstrated in both directions (F = 4.28, p = 0.04) and repeated trials (F = 5.79, p = 0.02). The LBP group demonstrated reduced ML sway velocities in the first (5.21 ± 2.43 for the control group, 4.16 ± 2.33 for the LBP group; t = 1.72, p = 0.04) and second (4.87 ± 2.62 for the control group, 3.79 ± 2.22 for the LBP group; t = 1.73, p = 0.04) trials.

CONCLUSION

The LBP group demonstrated decreased ML sway velocities to enhance trunk stability in the initial two trials. The COG results emphasized the potential use of trunk strategies in augmenting postural stability and optimizing neuromuscular control during unilateral standing.

Adaptation of the person centered therapeutic relationship patient version (PCTR-PT) to a version for physiotherapists (PCTR-PHYS) and evaluation of its psychometric properties

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The therapeutic relationship is a central component for developing person-centered care within physiotherapy services. However, it is necessary to understand how this relationship is perceived by both parties involved. The Person Centered Therapeutic Relationship-Patient scale (PCTR-PT) was constructed to identify patients' perceptions. No instruments are currently available to correlate patients' and physiotherapists' perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. This study sought to adapt the PCTR-PT to develop a version for physiotherapists, the Person Centered Therapeutic Relationship Scale for Physiotherapists (PCTR-PHYS) and to determine its psychometric properties.

METHODS

A three-stage study was performed: (1) item generation, (2) pretesting of the questionnaire, (3) analysis of psychometric properties. Factor validity and psychometric properties were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Convergent validity was calculated. Internal consistency was verified using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine temporal stability.

RESULTS

Thirty-three physiotherapists participated in two rounds of cognitive interviews and 343 participated in the analysis of psychometric properties. The CFA confirmed the four-structure model. Reliability of the tool was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.863) for all four dimensions, as all were above 0.70, ranging from 0.704 (relational bond) and 0.898 (therapeutic communication). Test-retest was performed with 2-week intervals, indicating an appropriate stability for the scale (ICC = 0.908).

DISCUSSION

The Person Centered Therapeutic Relationship Scale for Physiotherapists is a useful, valid and applicable instrument to evaluate the person-centered therapeutic relationship during physiotherapy interventions. It will enable the comparison of patients' and physiotherapists' perceptions. To provide person-centered care in physiotherapy services, there is a clear need to incorporate specific resources into clinical practice to evaluate the quality of the therapeutic relationship from the perspective of both the persons being treated and the professionals providing care.

Functional brain mapping in patients with chronic back pain shows age-related differences

ABSTRACT

Low back pain is the most common pain condition and cause for disability in older adults. Older adults suffering from low back pain are more disabled than their healthy peers, are more predisposed to frailty, and tend to be undertreated. The cause of increased prevalence and severity of this chronic pain condition in older adults is unknown. Here, we draw on accumulating data demonstrating a critical role for brain limbic and sensory circuitries in the emergence and experience of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and the availability of resting-state brain activity data collected at different sites to study how brain activity patterns predictive of CLBP differ between age groups. We apply a data-driven multivariate searchlight analysis to amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation brain maps to classify patients with CLBP with >70% accuracy. We observe that the brain activity pattern including the paracingulate gyrus, insula/secondary somatosensory area, inferior frontal, temporal, and fusiform gyrus predicted CLBP. When separated by age groups, brain patterns predictive of older patients with CLBP showed extensive involvement of limbic brain areas including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the nucleus accumbens, and hippocampus, whereas only anterior insula paracingulate and fusiform gyrus predicted CLBP in the younger patients. In addition, we validated the relationships between back pain intensity ratings and CLBP brain activity patterns in an independent data set not included in our initial patterns' identification. Our results are the first to directly address how aging affects the neural signature of CLBP and point to an increased role of limbic brain areas in older patients with CLBP.

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.

Baseline characteristics did not identify people with low back pain who respond best to a Movement System Impairment-Based classification treatment

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

Treatment based on the Movement System Impairment-Based classification for chronic low back pain results in the same benefit when compared to other forms of exercise. It is possible that participant's characteristics measured at baseline can identify people with chronic low back pain who would respond best to a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if specific characteristics of people with chronic low back pain measured at baseline can modify the effects of a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model on pain and disability.

METHODS

Four variables assessed at baseline that could potentially modify the treatment effects of the treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model were selected (age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification). Separate univariate models were used to investigate a possible modifier treatment effect of baseline participant's characteristics on pain and disability after the treatment. Findings of interaction values above 1 point for the outcome mean pain intensity or above 3 points for disability (Roland Morris questionnaire) were considered clinically relevant.

RESULTS

Linear regression analyses for the outcomes of pain and disability did not show interaction values considered clinically relevant for age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification.

CONCLUSION

Age, educational status, physical activity status and STarT back tool classification did not modify the effects of an 8-week treatment based on the Movement System Impairment model in patients with chronic low back pain. Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02221609 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02221609).

Examination of a Subgroup of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Likely to Benefit More From Pilates-Based Exercises Compared to an Educational Booklet

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether 2 previously published classification approaches, the updated treatment-based classification system and a Pilates subgroup defined by a preliminary clinical prediction rule, could identify patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from Pilates exercises compared to an educational booklet.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-two patients received advice and were randomly allocated to a group that received an educational booklet with no additional treatment (n = 74) or a group that received Pilates-based exercise treatment (n = 148) 2 or 3 times a week. At baseline, using a treatment-based classification system, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive movement control) or a poor prognosis. Similarly, using the Pilates clinical prediction rule, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive) or a poor prognosis (negative). The analysis was conducted using linear regression models to analyze the interaction between subgroup characteristics and treatment effect size, with changes in pain and disability from baseline to 6 weeks after randomization as dependent variables.

RESULTS

None of the interaction terms for pain and disability were statistically significant. The treatment effect of Pilates versus an educational booklet was similar in all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The treatment-based classification system and the Pilates clinical prediction rule did not differentiate subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain who were more or less likely to benefit more from Pilates compared to an educational booklet. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(4):189-197. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8839.

Do prognostic variables predict a set of outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain: a long-term follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized control trial

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c.

Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training improves pain-related and balance outcomes in working-age patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training and general trunk exercises have been applied to treat chronic low back pain patients. However, there is currently little study to support the use of one treated intervention over the other to improve clinical outcomes and balance ability.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training on pain intensity, disability and static balance ability in working-age patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Forty-four chronic low back pain participants aged 18-50 years were randomized either to a three-week proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training or to a control group receiving general trunk exercises. Pain intensity, disability and static balance ability were measured before and after the three-week intervention.

RESULTS

The proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training intervention showed a statistically significantly greater reduction in pain intensity and improved functional disability than the controls at three weeks (between-group difference: pain intensity 1.22 score, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.88, p<0.001; disability 2.23 score, 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.24, p<0.001. The proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training intervention also had statistically better parameters of static balance ability than the control group (between-group difference: ellipse sway area during eye opened and closed conditions 129.09mm², 95% CI: 64.93 to 175.25, p<0.01 and 336.27mm², 95% CI: 109.67 to 562.87, p<0.05, respectively; the centre of pressure velocity during eye opened and eye closed conditions 6.68mm/s, 95% CI: 4.41 to 8.95, p<0.01 and 6.77mm/s, 95% CI: 4.01 to 9.54, p<0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The three-week proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation training provides better pain intensity, disability and static balance ability than general trunk exercises for working-age individuals with chronic low back pain but the effects do not reach the clinical meaningful level. The therapists should consider carefully when making recommendations regarding these interventions, taking into account effectiveness and costs.

Description of low back pain clinical trials in physical therapy: a cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the main characteristics of low back pain randomized controlled trials on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and to rank the journals where these trials were published according to their Impact Factor.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. A random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015 were selected from Physiotherapy Evidence Database in February 2016. We collected the following main characteristics of trials: 2015 journal Impact Factor; if the paper was published as open access; CONSORT recommendations endorsement by the journal; methodological quality and statistical reporting measured by the 0-10 items Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data was analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Trials were published in journals with a mean Impact Factor of 2.5 (SD 2.5), from which 55.5% endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. The methodological quality was moderate with 5.8 points (SD 1.6). The top 3 journals according to Impact Factor were: (1) British Medical Journal; (2) Annals of Internal Medicine; and (3) BMC Medicine. Only 6 out of 97 journals publishing low back pain trials combined the following factors: journal Impact Factor higher than 2.0, mean trial methodological quality higher than 6.0 points, endorse CONSORT recommendations and offering papers as open access.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians interested in low back pain trials must look for a wide variety of healthcare journals. A substantial number of low back pain randomized controlled trials did not follow adequate reporting and methodological recommendations.