Preliminary state of development of prediction models for primary care physical therapy: a systematic review

Decision Support for Managing Common Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders: Development of a Case-Based Reasoning Application

BACKGROUND

Common interventions for musculoskeletal pain disorders either lack evidence to support their use or have small to modest or short-term effects. Given the heterogeneity of patients with musculoskeletal pain disorders, treatment guidelines and systematic reviews have limited transferability to clinical practice. A problem-solving method in artificial intelligence, case-based reasoning (CBR), where new problems are solved based on experiences from past similar problems, might offer guidance in such situations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to use CBR to build a decision support system for patients with musculoskeletal pain disorders seeking physiotherapy care. This study describes the development of the CBR system SupportPrim PT and demonstrates its ability to identify similar patients.

METHODS

Data from physiotherapy patients in primary care in Norway were collected to build a case base for SupportPrim PT. We used the local-global principle in CBR to identify similar patients. The global similarity measures are attributes used to identify similar patients and consisted of prognostic attributes. They were weighted in terms of prognostic importance and choice of treatment, where the weighting represents the relevance of the different attributes. For the local similarity measures, the degree of similarity within each attribute was based on minimal clinically important differences and expert knowledge. The SupportPrim PT's ability to identify similar patients was assessed by comparing the similarity scores of all patients in the case base with the scores on an established screening tool (the short form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire [ÖMSPQ]) and an outcome measure (the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire [MSK-HQ]) used in musculoskeletal pain. We also assessed the same in a more extensive case base.

RESULTS

The original case base contained 105 patients with musculoskeletal pain (mean age 46, SD 15 years; 77/105, 73.3% women). The SupportPrim PT consisted of 29 weighted attributes with local similarities. When comparing the similarity scores for all patients in the case base, one at a time, with the ÖMSPQ and MSK-HQ, the most similar patients had a mean absolute difference from the query patient of 9.3 (95% CI 8.0-10.6) points on the ÖMSPQ and a mean absolute difference of 5.6 (95% CI 4.6-6.6) points on the MSK-HQ. For both ÖMSPQ and MSK-HQ, the absolute score difference increased as the rank of most similar patients decreased. Patients retrieved from a more extensive case base (N=486) had a higher mean similarity score and were slightly more similar to the query patients in ÖMSPQ and MSK-HQ compared with the original smaller case base.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes the development of a CBR system, SupportPrim PT, for musculoskeletal pain in primary care. The SupportPrim PT identified similar patients according to an established screening tool and an outcome measure for patients with musculoskeletal pain.

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for categorising low back pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a common complex condition, where specific diagnoses are hard to identify. Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are known to improve clinical decision-making. A review of LBP diagnostic-CPRs by Haskins et al. (2015) identified six diagnostic-CPRs in derivation phases of development, with one tool ready for implementation. Recent progress on these tools is unknown. Therefore, this review aimed to investigate developments in LBP diagnostic-CPRs and evaluate their readiness for implementation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on five databases (Medline, Amed, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) combined with hand-searching and citation-tracking to identify eligible studies. Study and tool quality were appraised for risk of bias (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), methodological quality (checklist using accepted CPR methodological standards), and CPR tool appraisal (GRade and ASsess Predictive).

RESULTS

Of 5021 studies screened, 11 diagnostic-CPRs were identified. Of the six previously known, three have been externally validated but not yet undergone impact analysis. Five new tools have been identified since Haskin et al. (2015); all are still in derivation stages. The most validated diagnostic-CPRs include the Lumbar-Spinal-Stenosis-Self-Administered-Self-Reported-History-Questionnaire and Diagnosis-Support-Tool-to-Identify-Lumbar-Spinal-Stenosis, and the StEP-tool which differentiates radicular from axial-LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of LBP diagnostic CPRs found five new tools, all in the early stages of development. Three previously known tools have now been externally validated but should be used with caution until impact evaluation studies are undertaken. Future funding should focus on externally validating and assessing the impact of existing CPRs on clinical decision-making.

Development of a clinical prediction model to inform clinical decision making for classification of patients with sciatica, based on their clinical characteristics, in the Greek health system: protocol for a prospective predictive exploratory study

INTRODUCTION

Sciatica is one of the most common reasons for seeking healthcare for musculoskeletal pain. Sciatica is primarily considered as neuropathic in nature when neural tissue in the low back is compromised, but sometimes other non-neural structures may be involved. Appropriate assessment and management are important for patients with sciatica. Therapists use several outcome measures to assess patients to inform selection of the most suitable treatment. There is limited evidence for the best treatment of sciatica, and this is likely contributed to by having no reliable algorithm to categorise patients based on their clinical characteristics to inform physiotherapy treatment. The purpose of this study is to develop a clinical prediction model to categorise patients with sciatica, in terms of early clinical outcome, based on their initial clinical characteristics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective observational multicentre design will recruit consecutive patients (n=467) with sciatica referred for physiotherapy. Each patient will be evaluated to determine whether or not they will be accepted into the study by answering some questions that will confirm the study's eligibility criteria. Patients' basic characteristics, patient-reported outcome measures and performance-based measures will be collected at baseline from multiple sites in the Greek territory using this same protocol, prior to commencement of treatment. The main researcher of this study will be responsible for data collection in all sites. On completion of the standard referred physiotherapy treatment after 3 weeks' time, participants will be asked by telephone to evaluate their outcome using the Global Perceived Effect Scale. For the descriptive statistical analysis, the continuous variables will be expressed in the form of 'mean' and 'SD'. In order to assess the prognostic value of each predictor, in terms of the level of improvement or worsening of the symptoms, multiple variable regression analysis will be used.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Τhis study is approved from the Ethics and Deontology Committee of the University of West Attica, Athens, Greece, protocol number: 38313-09/06/2020, 10226-10/02/2021. The study's findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at national and international conferences and through social media.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020168467.

External validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with neck pain

Background

Neck pain is one of the leading causes of disability in most countries and it is likely to increase further. Numerous prognostic models for people with neck pain have been developed, few have been validated. In a recent systematic review, external validation of three promising models was advised before they can be used in clinical practice.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to externally validate three promising models that predict neck pain recovery in primary care.

Methods

This validation cohort consisted of 1311 patients with neck pain of any duration who were prospectively recruited and treated by 345 manual therapists in the Netherlands. Outcome measures were disability (Neck Disability Index) and recovery (Global Perceived Effect Scale) post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. The assessed models were an Australian Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) model (Amodel), a multicenter WAD model (Mmodel), and a Dutch non-specific neck pain model (Dmodel). Models’ discrimination and calibration were evaluated.

Results

The Dmodel and Amodel discriminative performance (AUC < 0.70) and calibration measures (slope largely different from 1) were poor. The Mmodel could not be evaluated since several variables nor their proxies were available.

Conclusions

External validation of promising prognostic models for neck pain recovery was not successful and their clinical use cannot be recommended. We advise clinicians to underpin their current clinical reasoning process with evidence-based individual prognostic factors for recovery. Further research on finding new prognostic factors and developing and validating models with up-to-date methodology is needed for recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care.

Recovery trajectories in common musculoskeletal complaints by diagnosis contra prognostic phenotypes

Background

There are large variations in symptoms and prognostic factors among patients sharing the same musculoskeletal (MSK) diagnosis, making traditional diagnostic labelling not very helpful in informing treatment or prognosis. Recently, we identified five MSK phenotypes across common MSK pain locations through latent class analysis (LCA). The aim of this study was to explore the one-year recovery trajectories for pain and functional limitations in the phenotypes and describe these in relation to the course of traditional diagnostic MSK groups.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal observational study of 147 patients with neck, back, shoulder or complex pain in primary health care physiotherapy. Data on pain intensity and function were collected at baseline (week 0) and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks of follow up using web-based questionnaires and mobile text messages. Recovery trajectories were described separately for the traditional diagnostic MSK groups based on pain location and the same patients categorized in phenotype groups based on prognostic factors shared among the MSK diagnostic groups.

Results

There was a general improvement in function throughout the year of follow-up for the MSK groups, while there was a more modest decrease for pain intensity. The MSK diagnoses were dispersed across all five phenotypes, where the phenotypes showed clearly different trajectories for recovery and course of symptoms over 12 months follow-up. This variation was not captured by the single trajectory for site specific MSK diagnoses.

Conclusion

Prognostic subgrouping revealed more diverse patterns in pain and function recovery over 1 year than observed in the same patients classified by traditional diagnostic groups and may better reflect the diversity in recovery of common MSK disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04332-3.

A conceptual framework for prognostic research

BACKGROUND

Prognostic research has many important purposes, including (i) describing the natural history and clinical course of health conditions, (ii) investigating variables associated with health outcomes of interest, (iii) estimating an individual's probability of developing different outcomes, (iv) investigating the clinical application of prediction models, and (v) investigating determinants of recovery that can inform the development of interventions to improve patient outcomes. But much prognostic research has been poorly conducted and interpreted, indicating that a number of conceptual areas are often misunderstood. Recent initiatives to improve this include the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. In this paper, we aim to show how different categories of prognostic research relate to each other, to differentiate exploratory and confirmatory studies, discuss moderators and mediators, and to show how important it is to understand study designs and the differences between prediction and causation.

MAIN TEXT

We propose that there are four main objectives of prognostic studies - description, association, prediction and causation. By causation, we mean the effect of prediction and decision rules on outcomes as determined by intervention studies and the investigation of whether a prognostic factor is a determinant of outcome (on the causal pathway). These either fall under the umbrella of exploratory (description, association, and prediction model development) or confirmatory (prediction model external validation and investigation of causation). Including considerations of causation within a prognostic framework provides a more comprehensive roadmap of how different types of studies conceptually relate to each other, and better clarity about appropriate model performance measures and the inferences that can be drawn from different types of prognostic studies. We also propose definitions of 'candidate prognostic factors', 'prognostic factors', 'prognostic determinants (causal)' and 'prognostic markers (non-causal)'. Furthermore, we address common conceptual misunderstandings related to study design, analysis, and interpretation of multivariable models from the perspectives of association, prediction and causation.

CONCLUSION

This paper uses a framework to clarify some concepts in prognostic research that remain poorly understood and implemented, to stimulate discussion about how prognostic studies can be strengthened and appropriately interpreted.

Kinesiophobia is not required to predict chronic low back pain in workers: a decision curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently used performance measures for discrimination were not informative to determine the clinical benefit of predictor variables. The purpose was to evaluate if a former relevant predictor, kinesiophobia, remained clinically relevant to predict chronic occupational low back pain (LBP) in the light of a novel discriminative performance measure, Decision Curve Analysis (DCA), using the Net Benefit (NB).

METHODS

Prospective cohort data (n = 170) of two merged randomized trials with workers with LBP on sickleave, treated with Usual Care (UC) were used for the analyses. An existing prediction model for chronic LBP with the variables 'a clinically relevant change in pain intensity and disability status in the first 3 months', 'baseline measured pain intensity' and 'kinesiophobia' was compared with the same model without the variable 'kinesiophobia' using the NB and DCA.

RESULTS

Both prediction models showed an equal performance according to the DCA and NB. Between 10 and 95% probability thresholds of chronic LBP risk, both models were of clinically benefit. There were virtually no differences between both models in the improved classification of true positive (TP) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the variable kinesiophobia, which was originally included in a prediction model for chronic LBP, was not informative to predict chronic LBP by using DCA. DCA and NB have to be used more often to develop clinically beneficial prediction models in workers because they are more sensitive to evaluate the discriminate ability of prediction models.

Development of screening tools to predict the risk of recurrence and related complications following anal fistula surgery: protocol for a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative recurrence and related complications are common and related to poor outcomes in patients with anal fistula (AF). Due to being associated with short-term and long-term cure rates, perioperative complications have received widespread attention following AF surgery. This study aims to identify a set of predictive factors to develop risk prediction models for recurrence and related complications following AF surgery. We plan to develop and validate risk prediction models, using information collected through a WeChat patient-reported questionnaire system combined with clinical, laboratory and imaging findings from the perioperative period until 3-6 months following AF surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective hospital-based cohort study using a linked database of collected health data as well as the follow-up outcomes for all adult patients who suffered from AF at a tertiary referral hospital in Shanghai, China. We will perform logistic regression models to predict anal fistula recurrence (AFR) as well as related complications (eg, wound haemorrhage, faecal impaction, urinary retention, delayed wound healing and unplanned hospitalisation) during and after AF surgery, and machine learning approaches will also be applied to develop risk prediction models. This prospective study aims to develop the first risk prediction models for AFR and related complications using multidimensional variables. These tools can be used to warn, motivate and empower patients to avoid some modifiable risk factors to prevent postoperative complications early. This study will also provide alternative tools for the early screening of high-risk patients with AFR and related complications, helping surgeons better understand the aetiology and outcomes of AF in an earlier stage.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shuguang Hospital affiliated with Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (approval number: 2019-699-54-01). The results of this study will be submitted to international scientific peer-reviewed journals or conferences in surgery, anorectal surgery or anorectal diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900025069; Pre-results.

Modifiable factors and their association with self-reported knee function and activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine if body mass index (BMI), smoking status, prehabilitation or time to reconstruction are associated with recovery of self-reported knee function and activity after ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases were systematically searched.

STUDY SELECTION

English language articles were included if: (1) participants aged 16-70 years had primary or first revision ACLR with autograft, following complete rupture; and (2) the association between one of four modifiable factors: (1) BMI; (2) smoking; (3) prehabilitation; or (4) time to reconstruction with self-reported knee function and activity, ACL graft rupture or return to sport was evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve articles (representing 11 studies) were included. Meta-analyses found low-quality evidence of no difference in self-reported knee function (d = -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.23, I² = 0%) or activity levels (d = 0.11, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.41, I² = 0%) between acute and subacute ACLR. There was no difference in the relative risk of ACL graft rupture with the timing of ACLR (one study). Meta-analysis demonstrated very low-quality evidence that smokers had worse self-reported functional outcomes after ACLR compared to non-smokers (d = -0.58, 95% CI -0.788 to -0.28, I² = 59%). One study suggested an inverse relationship between BMI and knee-related quality of life after ACLR. One RCT suggested prehabilitation may reduce time to return to sport.

CONCLUSION

Low-quality evidence suggests there is no difference in delaying ACLR and very low-quality evidence suggests smokers have worse self-reported functional outcome after ACLR compared to non-smokers. High-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the relationship between the four modifiable factors studied and ACLR outcome.

The Evolving Case Supporting Individualised Physiotherapy for Low Back Pain

Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most burdensome health problems in the world. Guidelines recommend simple treatments such as advice that may result in suboptimal outcomes, particularly when applied to people with complex biopsychosocial barriers to recovery. Individualised physiotherapy has the potential of being more effective for people with LBP; however, there is limited evidence supporting this approach. A series of studies supporting the mechanisms underpinning and effectiveness of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine (STOPS) approach to individualised physiotherapy have been published. The clinical and research implications of these findings are presented and discussed. Treatment based on the STOPS approach should also be considered as an approach to individualised physiotherapy in people with LBP.

Predictive models for short-term and long-term improvement in women under physiotherapy for chronic disabling neck pain: a longitudinal cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To develop predictive models for short-term and long-term clinically important improvement in women with non-specific chronic disabling neck pain during the clinical course of physiotherapy.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study based on data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating short-term and long-term effects on sensorimotor function over 11 weeks of physiotherapy.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS

Eighty-nine women aged 31-65 years with non-specific chronic disabling neck pain from Gävle, Sweden.

MEASURES

The outcome, clinically important improvement, was measured with the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale (PGICS) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI), assessed by self-administered questionnaires at 3, 9 and 15 months from the start of the interventions (baseline). Twelve baseline prognostic factors were considered in the analyses. The predictive models were built using random-effects logistic regression. The predictive ability of the models was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Internal validity was assessed with cross-validation using the bootstrap resampling technique.

RESULTS

Factors included in the final PGICS model were neck disability and age, and in the NDI model, neck disability, depression and catastrophising. In both models, the odds for short-term and long-term improvement increased with higher baseline neck disability, while the odds decreased with increasing age (PGICS model), and with increasing level of depression (NDI model). In the NDI model, higher baseline levels of catastrophising indicated increased odds for short-term improvement and decreased odds for long-term improvement. Both models showed acceptable predictive validity with an AUC of 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.73) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Age, neck disability and psychological factors seem to be important predictors of improvement, and may inform clinical decisions about physiotherapy in women with chronic neck pain. Before using the developed predictive models in clinical practice, however, they should be validated in other populations and tested in clinical settings.

Development of a Multivariate Prognostic Model for Pain and Activity Limitation in People With Low Back Disorders Receiving Physiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors for back pain, leg pain, and activity limitation in patients with early persistent low back disorders (LBDs).

DESIGN

Prospective inception cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care private physiotherapy clinics in Melbourne, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals (N=300) aged 18-65 years with low back and/or referred leg pain of ≥6 weeks and ≤6 months duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Numeric rating scales for back pain and leg pain as well as the Oswestry Disability Scale.

RESULTS

Prognostic factors included sociodemographics, treatment related factors, subjective/physical examination, subgrouping factors, and standardized questionnaires. Univariate analysis followed by generalized estimating equations were used to develop a multivariate prognostic model for back pain, leg pain, and activity limitation. Fifty-eight prognostic factors progressed to the multivariate stage where 15 showed significant (P<.05) associations with at least 1 of the 3 outcomes. There were 5 indicators of positive outcome (2 types of LBD subgroups, paresthesia below waist, walking as an easing factor, and low transversus abdominis tone) and 10 indicators of negative outcome (both parents born overseas, deep leg symptoms, longer sick leave duration, high multifidus tone, clinically determined inflammation, higher back and leg pain severity, lower lifting capacity, lower work capacity, and higher pain drawing percentage coverage). The preliminary model identifying predictors of LBDs explained up to 37% of the variance in outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated a comprehensive range of prognostic factors reflective of both the biomedical and psychosocial domains of LBDs. The preliminary multivariate model requires further validation before being considered for clinical use.

Development and validation of two clinical prediction models to inform clinical decision-making for lumbar spinal fusion surgery for degenerative disorders and rehabilitation following surgery: protocol for a prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Potential predictors of poor outcome will be measured at baseline: (1) preoperatively to develop a clinical prediction model to predict which patients are likely to have favourable outcome following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS) and (2) postoperatively to predict which patients are likely to have favourable long-term outcomes (to inform rehabilitation).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Prospective observational study with a defined episode inception of the point of surgery. Electronic data will be collected through the British Spine Registry and will include patient-reported outcome measures (eg, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire) and data items (eg, smoking status). Consecutive patients (≥18 years) undergoing LSFS for back and/or leg pain of degenerative cause will be recruited.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

LSFS for spinal fracture, inflammatory disease, malignancy, infection, deformity and revision surgery. 1000 participants will be recruited (n=600 prediction model development, n=400 internal validation derived model; planning 10 events per candidate prognostic factor). The outcome being predicted is an individual's absolute risk of poor outcome (disability and pain) at 6 weeks (objective 1) and 12 months postsurgery (objective 2). Disability and pain will be measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and severity of pain in the previous week with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS 0-10), respectively. Good outcome is defined as a change of 1.7 on the NRS for pain, and a change of 14.3 on the ODI. Both linear and logistic (to dichotomise outcome into low and high risk) multivariable regression models will be fitted and mean differences or ORs for each candidate predictive factor reported. Internal validation of the derived model will use a further set of British Spine Registry data. External validation will be geographical using two spinal registries in The Netherlands and Switzerland.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval (University of Birmingham ERN_17-0446A). Dissemination through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Development of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic pain and disability following musculoskeletal trauma: protocol for a prospective observational study in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Pain is an expected and appropriate experience following traumatic musculoskeletal injury. By contrast, chronic pain and disability are unhelpful yet common sequelae of trauma-related injuries. Presently, the mechanisms that underlie the transition from acute to chronic disabling post-traumatic pain are not fully understood. Such knowledge would facilitate the development and implementation of precision rehabilitation approaches that match interventions to projected risk of recovery, with the aim of preventing poor long-term outcomes. The aim of this study is to identify a set of predictive factors to identify patients at risk of developing ongoing post-traumatic pain and disability following acute musculoskeletal trauma. To achieve this, we will use a unique and comprehensive combination of patient-reported outcome measures, psychophysical testing and biomarkers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective observational study will recruit two temporally staggered cohorts (n=250 each cohort; at least 10 cases per candidate predictor) of consecutive patients with acute musculoskeletal trauma aged ≥16 years, who are emergency admissions into a Major Trauma Centre in the United Kingdom, with an episode inception defined as the traumatic event. The first cohort will identify candidate predictors to develop a screening tool to predict development of chronic and disabling pain, and the second will allow evaluation of the predictive performance of the tool (validation). The outcome being predicted is an individual's absolute risk of poor outcome measured at a 6-month follow-up using the Chronic Pain Grade Scale (poor outcome ≥grade II). Candidate predictors encompass the four primary mechanisms of pain: nociceptive (eg, injury location), neuropathic (eg, painDETECT), inflammatory (biomarkers) and nociplastic (eg, quantitative sensory testing). Concurrently, patient-reported outcome measures will assess general health and psychosocial factors (eg, pain self-efficacy). Risk of poor outcome will be calculated using multiple variable regression analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approved by the NHS Research Ethics Committee (17/WA/0421).

Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review

QUESTION

Which multivariable prognostic model(s) for recovery in people with neck pain can be used in primary care?

DESIGN

Systematic review of studies evaluating multivariable prognostic models.

PARTICIPANTS

People with non-specific neck pain presenting at primary care.

DETERMINANTS

Baseline characteristics of the participants.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recovery measured as pain reduction, reduced disability, or perceived recovery at short-term and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-three publications were included, of which 46 were derivation studies, four were validation studies, and three concerned combined studies. The derivation studies presented 99 multivariate models, all of which were at high risk of bias. Three externally validated models generated usable models in low risk of bias studies. One predicted recovery in non-specific neck pain, while two concerned participants with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Discriminative ability of the non-specific neck pain model was area under the curve (AUC) 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.71). For the first WAD model, discriminative ability was AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.91). For the second WAD model, specificity was 99% (95% CI 93 to 100) and sensitivity was 44% (95% CI 23 to 65) for prediction of non-recovery, and 86% (95% CI 73 to 94) and 55% (95% CI 41 to 69) for prediction of recovery, respectively. Initial Neck Disability Index scores and age were identified as consistent prognostic factors in these three models.

CONCLUSION

Three externally validated models were found to be usable and to have low risk of bias, of which two showed acceptable discriminative properties for predicting recovery in people with neck pain. These three models need further validation and evaluation of their clinical impact before their broad clinical use can be advocated.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016042204. [Wingbermühle RW, van Trijffel E, Nelissen PM, Koes B, Verhagen AP (2018) Few promising multivariable prognostic models exist for recovery of people with non-specific neck pain in musculoskeletal primary care: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 16-23].

Health practitioners' perceptions of adopting clinical prediction rules in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study in Australia

OBJECTIVES

To investigate health practitioners' understanding and practice behaviours with regards to clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and explore their perceptions of adopting a new whiplash CPR.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using six semistructured focus groups.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapists (n=19), chiropractors (n=6) and osteopaths (n=3) were purposively sampled to include health practitioners who provide routine treatment to people with whiplash-associated disorders.

METHODS

Focus group discussions (n=6) were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Health practitioners' understanding and use of CPRs were mixed. Clinicians considered components relating to acceptability ('whether I agree with it') and implementation ('how I'll use it') when deciding on whether to adopt a new CPR. Acceptability was informed by four themes: knowledge and understanding, CPR type, congruence and weighted value. Consideration of matters that promote implementation occurred once a CPR was deemed to be acceptable. Three themes were identified as potentially enhancing whiplash CPR implementation: the presence of an external driver of adoption, flexibility in how the CPR could be administered and guidance regarding communication of CPR output to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Education on CPR purpose and fit with practice is needed to enhance the perceived acceptability of CPRs. Strategies that facilitate practitioner motivation, enable administrative flexibility and assist clinicians in communicating the results of the whiplash CPR could promote adoption of the whiplash CPR.

Clinical Prediction Models for Patients With Nontraumatic Knee Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Internal Validation Study

Study Design Systematic review and validation study. Background Many prognostic models of knee pain outcomes have been developed for use in primary care. Variability among published studies with regard to patient population, outcome measures, and relevant prognostic factors hampers the generalizability and implementation of these models. Objectives To summarize existing prognostic models in patients with knee pain in a primary care setting and to develop and internally validate new summary prognostic models. Methods After a sensitive search strategy, 2 reviewers independently selected prognostic models for patients with nontraumatic knee pain and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. All predictors of the included studies were evaluated, summarized, and classified. The predictors assessed in multiple studies of sufficient quality are presented in this review. Using data from the Musculoskeletal System Study (BAS) cohort of patients with a new episode of knee pain, recruited consecutively by Dutch general medical practitioners (n = 372), we used predictors with a strong level of evidence to develop new prognostic models for each outcome measure and internally validated these models. Results Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion. We considered 11 studies to be of sufficient quality. None of these studies validated their models. Five predictors with strong evidence were related to function and 6 to recovery, and were used to compose 2 prognostic models for patients with knee pain at 1 year. Running these new models in another data set showed explained variances (R²) of 0.36 (function) and 0.33 (recovery). The area under the curve of the recovery model was 0.79. After internal validation, the adjusted R² values of the models were 0.30 (function) and 0.20 (recovery), and the area under the curve was 0.73. Conclusion We developed 2 valid prognostic models for function and recovery for patients with nontraumatic knee pain, based on predictors with strong evidence. A longer duration of complaints predicted poorer function but did not adequately predict chance of recovery. Level of Evidence Prognosis, levels 1a and 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(8):518-529. Epub 16 Jun 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7142.

Prediction of transition to psychosis in patients with a clinical high risk for psychosis: a systematic review of methodology and reporting

BACKGROUND

To enhance indicated prevention in patients with a clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis, recent research efforts have been increasingly directed towards estimating the risk of developing psychosis on an individual level using multivariable clinical prediction models. The aim of this study was to systematically review the methodological quality and reporting of studies developing or validating such models.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was carried out (up to 14 March 2016) to find all studies that developed or validated a clinical prediction model predicting the transition to psychosis in CHR patients. Data were extracted using a comprehensive item list which was based on current methodological recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 91 studies met the inclusion criteria. None of the retrieved studies performed a true external validation of an existing model. Only three studies (3.5%) had an event per variable ratio of at least 10, which is the recommended minimum to avoid overfitting. Internal validation was performed in only 14 studies (15%) and seven of these used biased internal validation strategies. Other frequently observed modeling approaches not recommended by methodologists included univariable screening of candidate predictors, stepwise variable selection, categorization of continuous variables, and poor handling and reporting of missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review revealed that poor methods and reporting are widespread in prediction of psychosis research. Since most studies relied on small sample sizes, did not perform internal or external cross-validation, and used poor model development strategies, most published models are probably overfitted and their reported predictive accuracy is likely to be overoptimistic.

Clinical prediction rules for prognosis and treatment prescription in neck pain: A systematic review

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) developed to identify sub-groups of people with neck pain for different prognoses (i.e. prognostic) or response to treatments (i.e. prescriptive) have been recommended as a research priority to improve health outcomes for these conditions. A systematic review was undertaken to identify prognostic and prescriptive CPRs relevant to the conservative management of adults with neck pain and to appraise stage of development, quality and readiness for clinical application. Six databases were systematically searched from inception until 4th July 2016. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, risk of bias (PEDro and QUIPS), methodological quality and stage of development. 9840 records were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Thirty-two studies reporting on 26 CPRs were included in this review. Methodological quality of included studies varied considerably. Most prognostic CPR development studies employed appropriate designs. However, many prescriptive CPR studies (n = 12/13) used single group designs and/or analysed controlled trials using methods that were inadequate for identifying treatment effect moderators. Most prognostic (n = 11/15) and all prescriptive (n = 11) CPRs have not progressed beyond the derivation stage of development. Four prognostic CPRs relating to acute whiplash (n = 3) or non-traumatic neck pain (n = 1) have undergone preliminary validation. No CPRs have undergone impact analysis. Most prognostic and prescriptive CPRs for neck pain are at the initial stage of development and therefore routine clinical use is not yet supported. Further validation and impact analyses of all CPRs are required before confident conclusions can be made regarding clinical utility.

Risk scores for outcome in bacterial meningitis: Systematic review and external validation study

OBJECTIVES

To perform an external validation study of risk scores, identified through a systematic review, predicting outcome in community-acquired bacterial meningitis.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles published between January 1960 and August 2014. Performance was evaluated in 2108 episodes of adult community-acquired bacterial meningitis from two nationwide prospective cohort studies by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the calibration curve, calibration slope or Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and the distribution of calculated risks.

FINDINGS

Nine risk scores were identified predicting death, neurological deficit or death, or unfavorable outcome at discharge in bacterial meningitis, pneumococcal meningitis and invasive meningococcal disease. Most studies had shortcomings in design, analyses, and reporting. Evaluation showed AUCs of 0.59 (0.57-0.61) and 0.74 (0.71-0.76) in bacterial meningitis, 0.67 (0.64-0.70) in pneumococcal meningitis, and 0.81 (0.73-0.90), 0.82 (0.74-0.91), 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.84 (0.76-0.93), 0.85 (0.75-0.95), and 0.90 (0.83-0.98) in meningococcal meningitis. Calibration curves showed adequate agreement between predicted and observed outcomes for four scores, but statistical tests indicated poor calibration of all risk scores.

INTERPRETATION

One score could be recommended for the interpretation and design of bacterial meningitis studies. None of the existing scores performed well enough to recommend routine use in individual patient management.

Validation and impact analysis of prognostic clinical prediction rules for low back pain is needed: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify prognostic forms of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) related to the nonsurgical management of adults with low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate their current stage of development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review using a sensitive search strategy across seven databases with hand searching and citation tracking.

RESULTS

A total of 10,005 records were screened for eligibility with 35 studies included in the review. The included studies report on the development of 30 prognostic LBP CPRs. Most of the identified CPRs are in their initial phase of development. Three CPRs were found to have undergone validation--the Cassandra rule for predicting long-term significant functional limitations and the five-item and two-item Flynn manipulation CPRs for predicting a favorable functional prognosis in patients being treated with lumbopelvic manipulation. No studies were identified that investigated whether the implementation of a CPR resulted in beneficial patient outcomes or improved resource efficiencies.

CONCLUSION

Most of the identified prognostic CPRs for LBP are in the initial phase of development and are consequently not recommended for direct application in clinical practice at this time. The body of evidence provides emergent confidence in the limited predictive performance of the Cassandra rule and the five-item Flynn manipulation CPR in comparable clinical settings and patient populations.

Evaluation of the usefulness of 2 prediction models of clinical prediction models in physical therapy: a qualitative process evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to (1) evaluate the usefulness of 2 prediction models by assessing the actual use and advantages/disadvantages of application in daily clinical practice and (2) propose recommendations to enhance their implementation.

METHODS

Physical therapists working in 283 practices in the area of Breda (the Netherlands) were invited to participate in this study. Two prediction models were presented: (1) to predict persistent shoulder pain and (2) to predict the preferable treatment in nonspecific neck pain. Participants were asked to apply both models in practice. After 2 months, their opinions about the usefulness of both models were gathered during a focus group meeting or by using an online questionnaire in order to identify the most important advantages/disadvantages of each prediction model.

RESULTS

In total, 46 physical therapists (13.8%) of 39 practices participated. Evaluative data were available from 32 participants who used the shoulder model 102 times and the neck model 126 times. For the shoulder model, the most frequent advantage (mentioned 14 times) was that it enabled physical therapists to estimate a motivated prognosis, that is, a prognosis based on the score of the model. The most frequent mentioned disadvantage was that participants expressed their doubts about the validity of the model because the model initially was developed for usage in a general practice setting. For the neck model, the most frequently mentioned advantage (29 times) was that the model was easy to interpret. The most important disadvantage (mentioned 14 times) was that the model only takes a few treatment options into account.

CONCLUSIONS

The physical therapists participating in this study reported that both models evaluated in this study were not easy to use in daily practice. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that these models are modified to meet the practical needs of the therapist, before assessing their impact on daily clinical care and patient outcomes.

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for specific subtypes of low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for low back pain (LBP) and to assess their readiness for clinical application.

BACKGROUND

Significant research has been invested into the development of CPRs that may assist in the meaningful subgrouping of patients with LBP. To date, very little is known about diagnostic forms of CPRs for LBP, which relate to the present status or classification of an individual, and whether they have been developed sufficiently to enable their application in clinical practice.

METHODS

A sensitive electronic search strategy using 7 databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion using a 2-stage selection process. The quality appraisal of included studies was conducted by 2 independent raters using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and checklists composed of accepted methodological standards for the development of CPRs.

RESULTS

Of 10 014 studies screened for eligibility, the search identified that 13 diagnostic CPRs for LBP have been derived. Among those, 1 tool for identifying lumbar spinal stenosis and 2 tools for identifying inflammatory back pain have undergone validation. No impact analysis studies were identified.

CONCLUSION

Most diagnostic CPRs for LBP are in their initial development phase and cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice at this time. Validation and impact analysis of the diagnostic CPRs identified in this review are warranted, particularly for those tools that meet an identified unmet need of clinicians who manage patients with LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 2a-.

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria.

RESULTS

10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Three studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies.

Testing a new 10-item scale (Pind's LBP Test) for prediction of sick leave lasting more than three days or more than two weeks after a general practitioner visit for acute low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

A study on acute low back pain (LBP) in consecutive working patients in a multicenter study in general practice.

OBJECTIVE

LBP costs are enormous in all countries. New guidelines are difficult to introduce. On the basis of a new, specially developed LBP scale, the aims were to predict the duration of sick leave (SL), and to examine if the guidelines concerning bed rest (BR) and referral to radiographical examination were followed.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Pain intensity and heavy work influence the course of SL. A finger-to-floor distance test assesses the mobility of the spine, and both the finger-to-floor distance test and the straight leg raising test (SLRT) can be used to predict the course of LBP. BR or waiting time for treatment or referral will prolong SL. The expectations of patients and general practitioners are strong outcome predictors as is information about the prognosis.

METHODS

A user-friendly 10-item questionnaire was specifically developed. The scale included the background date. From a predefined scale the patients were subgrouped into 3 categories in relation to SL: (1) "no SL" or "a few days of SL," (2) "1 week of SL," and (3) "more than 2 weeks of SL." The Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-three doctors examined 207 working patients. A total of 114 patients (56%) completed the follow-up questionnaire. The 10-item scale showed a good correlation between the total score at the first general practitioner visit and predictable time of SL according to the 3 periods.The frequency of BR and referral to radiographical examination was low, and perhaps this was a consequence of using the scale.

CONCLUSION

The specially developed short and user-friendly 10-item LBP scale was a good predictor of the duration of SL. A low rate of BR and radiographical examination may even be the result of using the scale.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Systematic review of prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica

Identification of prognostic factors for surgery in patients with sciatica is important to be able to predict surgery in an early stage. Identification of prognostic factors predicting persistent pain, disability and recovery are important for better understanding of the clinical course, to inform patient and physician and support decision making. Consequently, we aimed to systematically review prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica. A search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl, up to March 2012 was performed for prospective cohort studies on prognostic factors for non-surgically treated sciatica. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pain, disability, recovery and surgery. A best evidence synthesis was carried out in order to assess and summarize the data. The initial search yielded 4392 articles of which 23 articles reporting on 14 original cohorts met the inclusion criteria. High clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity among studies was found. Reported evidence regarding prognostic factors predicting the outcome in sciatica is limited. The majority of factors that have been evaluated, e.g., age, body mass index, smoking and sensory disturbance, showed no association with outcome. The only positive association with strong evidence was found for leg pain intensity at baseline as prognostic factor for subsequent surgery.