Physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding clinical prediction rules for low back pain

Influence of research evidence on the use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in primary care: an exploratory qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are widely used in primary care. They accumulate research evidence through derivation, external validation, and impact studies. However, existing knowledge about the influence of research evidence on the use of CPRs is limited. Therefore, we explored how primary care clinicians' perceptions of and experiences with research influence their use of cardiovascular CPRs.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory qualitative interview study with thematic analysis. Primary care clinicians were recruited from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). We used purposeful sampling to ensure maximum variation within the participant group. Data were collected by conducting semi-structured online interviews. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis to identify commonalities and differences within themes.

RESULTS

Of 29 primary care clinicians who completed the questionnaire, 15 participated in the interview. We identified two main themes relating to the influence of clinicians' perceptions of and experiences with cardiovascular CPR research on their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs: "Seek and judge" and "be acquainted and assume." When clinicians are familiar with, trust, and feel confident in using research evidence, they might actively search and assess the evidence, which may then influence their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. However, clinicians, who are unfamiliar with, distrust, or find it challenging to use research evidence, might be passively acquainted with evidence but do not make their own judgment on the trustworthiness of such evidence. Therefore, these clinicians might not rely on research evidence when making decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians' perceptions and experiences could influence how they use research evidence in decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. This implies, when promoting evidence-based decisions, it might be useful to target clinicians' unfamiliarity, distrust, and challenges regarding the use of research evidence rather than focusing only on their knowledge and skills. Further, because clinicians often rely on evidence-unrelated factors, guideline developers and policymakers should recommend cardiovascular CPRs supported by high-quality evidence.

Development and internal validation of a machine learning prediction model for low back pain non-recovery in patients with an acute episode consulting a physiotherapist in primary care

Background

While low back pain occurs in nearly everybody and is the leading cause of disability worldwide, we lack instruments to accurately predict persistence of acute low back pain. We aimed to develop and internally validate a machine learning model predicting non-recovery in acute low back pain and to compare this with current practice and ‘traditional’ prediction modeling.

Methods

Prognostic cohort-study in primary care physiotherapy. Patients (n = 247) with acute low back pain (≤ one month) consulting physiotherapists were included. Candidate predictors were assessed by questionnaire at baseline and (to capture early recovery) after one and two weeks. Primary outcome was non-recovery after three months, defined as at least mild pain (Numeric Rating Scale > 2/10). Machine learning models to predict non-recovery were developed and internally validated, and compared with two current practices in physiotherapy (STarT Back tool and physiotherapists’ expectation) and ‘traditional’ logistic regression analysis.

Results

Forty-seven percent of the participants did not recover at three months. The best performing machine learning model showed acceptable predictive performance (area under the curve: 0.66). Although this was no better than a’traditional’ logistic regression model, it outperformed current practice.

Conclusions

We developed two prognostic models containing partially different predictors, with acceptable performance for predicting (non-)recovery in patients with acute LBP, which was better than current practice. Our prognostic models have the potential of integration in a clinical decision support system to facilitate data-driven, personalized treatment of acute low back pain, but needs external validation first.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05718-7.

Mastering Prognostic Tools: An Opportunity to Enhance Personalized Care and to Optimize Clinical Outcomes in Physical Therapy

In health care, clinical decision making is typically based on diagnostic findings. Rehabilitation clinicians commonly rely on pathoanatomical diagnoses to guide treatment and define prognosis. Targeting prognostic factors is a promising way for rehabilitation clinicians to enhance treatment decision-making processes, personalize rehabilitation approaches, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. This can be achieved by using prognostic tools that provide accurate estimates of the probability of future outcomes for a patient in clinical practice. Most literature reviews of prognostic tools in rehabilitation have focused on prescriptive clinical prediction rules. These studies highlight notable methodological issues and conclude that these tools are neither valid nor useful for clinical practice. This has raised the need to open the scope of research to understand what makes a quality prognostic tool that can be used in clinical practice. Methodological guidance in prognosis research has emerged in the last decade, encompassing exploratory studies on the development of prognosis and prognostic models. Methodological rigor is essential to develop prognostic tools, because only prognostic models developed and validated through a rigorous methodological process should guide clinical decision making. This Perspective argues that rehabilitation clinicians need to master the identification and use of prognostic tools to enhance their capacity to provide personalized rehabilitation. It is time for prognosis research to look for prognostic models that were developed and validated following a comprehensive process before being simplified into suitable tools for clinical practice. New models, or rigorous validation of current models, are needed. The approach discussed in this Perspective offers a promising way to overcome the limitations of most models and provide clinicians with quality tools for personalized rehabilitation approaches.

IMPACT

Prognostic research can be applied to clinical rehabilitation; this Perspective proposes solutions to develop high-quality prognostic models to optimize patient outcomes.

A Delphi study to establish consensus on an educational package of musculoskeletal clinical prediction rules for physiotherapy clinical educators

BACKGROUND

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are evidence-based tools to aid clinical decision-making, and there are many that are relevant for physiotherapists, especially in the musculoskeletal field. However, a lack of awareness and understanding by physiotherapy clinical educators could limit students' exposure to these potentially valuable tools. An educational package tailored for clinical educators could help them recognise the value of CPRs and implement them in clinical practice with students.

OBJECTIVES

To determine consensus on the essential content and optimal delivery of an educational package on musculoskeletal CPRs for physiotherapy clinical educators.

DESIGN

An online survey of physiotherapy experts who have published on CPRs, using a Delphi approach.

METHOD

Sixteen experts were recruited for a two-round reactive Delphi study in which they rated previously identified elements, as well as suggesting new items for an educational package.

FINDINGS

A pre-defined consensus of ≥70% identified that the content of an educational package should cover fundamental aspects of CPRs including why, when and how to use them clinically, and their limitations. Information on the evidence-base of different types of CPRs, with specific examples, was also identified as important. Online delivery was recommended via self-directed learning and webinars, along with electronic versions of actual CPRs. A self-assessment component was also supported.

CONCLUSIONS

An educational package on musculoskeletal CPRs for clinical educators was supported with key elements outlined by an international panel of experts.

IMPLICATIONS

Improving clinical educators' knowledge of CPRs may lead to physiotherapy students having a greater understanding and ability to use CPRs.

Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that predict the absolute risk of a clinical condition or future outcome for individual patients are abundant in the medical literature; however, systematic reviews have demonstrated shortcomings in the methodological quality and reporting of prediction studies. To maximise the potential and clinical usefulness of CPRs, they must be rigorously developed and validated, and their impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes must be evaluated. This review aims to present a comprehensive overview of the stages involved in the development, validation and evaluation of CPRs, and to describe in detail the methodological standards required at each stage, illustrated with examples where appropriate. Important features of the study design, statistical analysis, modelling strategy, data collection, performance assessment, CPR presentation and reporting are discussed, in addition to other, often overlooked aspects such as the acceptability, cost-effectiveness and longer-term implementation of CPRs, and their comparison with clinical judgement. Although the development and evaluation of a robust, clinically useful CPR is anything but straightforward, adherence to the plethora of methodological standards, recommendations and frameworks at each stage will assist in the development of a rigorous CPR that has the potential to contribute usefully to clinical practice and decision-making and have a positive impact on patient care.

Aspects influencing clinical reasoning and decision-making when matching treatment to patients with low back pain in primary healthcare

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how physiotherapists match treatment to patients with low-back pain (LBP) in primary healthcare. A further exploration of physiotherapists' perspective of matching treatments to the individual patient in this setting is needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore and describe aspects influencing physiotherapists' clinical reasoning in the decision-making on individualized treatment of LBP in primary healthcare.

DESIGN

This was an explorative study using qualitative content analysis.

METHOD

Fifteen semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with physiotherapists, men and women, experienced and novice, working in primary healthcare settings in one sparsely populated region and in one larger city in Sweden.

FINDINGS

Two overarching themes were identified influencing decision-making for individualized treatment of LBP: 1) Matching requires differentiation and adaptation, with categories describing specific patient characteristics, assessment findings and treatment adaptations (classification of pain and bodily findings; patient physical capacity and emotions; patient awareness and motivation; treatment combinations and atypical treatment rationales): and 2) The tension between trust and barriers; with categories describing aspects of physiotherapists' convictions, constraints and working environment (confidence in treatments and oneself; physiotherapists' terms overrule patients' preferences; personal constraints and workplace approach and priorities).

CONCLUSION

This study describes aspects of the patients, the physiotherapists and their workplaces that influence decisions for individualized treatment of LBP. The findings underpin the need for clinician self-reflection, initiatives for skilled clinical competence and the weight clinician observations carry on the complex treatment selection process which need to be appreciated when implementing evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice.

Agreement is very low between a clinical prediction rule and physiotherapist assessment for classifying the risk of poor recovery of individuals with acute whiplash injury

BACKGROUND

A prognostic clinical prediction rule (whiplash CPR) has been validated for use in individuals with acute whiplash associated disorders (WAD). The clinical utility of this tool is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate: 1) the level of agreement between physiotherapist- and whiplash CPR-determined prognostic risk classification of people with acute WAD; 2) which clinical findings are used by physiotherapists to classify prognostic risk; and 3) whether physiotherapists plan to differ the number of treatment sessions provided based on prognostic risk classification.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, observational.

METHOD

38 adults with acute WAD were classified as low, medium, or high risk of poor recovery by their treating physiotherapist (n = 24) at the conclusion of the initial consultation. A weighted Cohen's kappa examined the agreement between physiotherapist estimated risk classification and the whiplash CPR. Physiotherapists' reasons for classification were provided and summarised descriptively. Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn's tests compared projected number of treatment sessions between risk subgroups.

RESULTS

Physiotherapist agreement with the whiplash CPR occurred in 29% of cases (n = 11/38), which was less than what is expected by chance (K = -0.03; 95%CI -0.17 to 0.12). Physiotherapists most frequently considered range of movement (n = 23/38, 61%), a premorbid pain condition (n = 14/38, 37%), response to initial physiotherapy treatment (n = 12/38, 32%), and pain intensity (n = 12/38, 32%) when classifying prognostic risk. The projected number of treatment sessions was not different between risk groups using classifications provided by the physiotherapists (χ²(2) = 2.69, p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Physiotherapists should consider incorporating the whiplash CPR into current assessment processes to enhance accuracy in prognostic decision-making.

The preferences of physiotherapy clinical educators on a learning package for teaching musculoskeletal clinical prediction rules - A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is a growing number of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) relevant to physiotherapy, particularly in the musculoskeletal area, but many students are not learning about them due to lack of awareness or understanding by clinical educators. An educational package specifically designed for physiotherapy clinical educators would aid their understanding of CPRs and ability to utilise them clinically, and also to be able to teach them to students.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the desired content and preferred methods of delivery of an educational package for clinical educators on musculoskeletal CPRs.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive approach using semi-structured group and individual interviews with clinical educators.

METHOD

Educators working in the clinical area of musculoskeletal physiotherapy who had an awareness of or interest in CPRs were recruited and interviewed on their views regarding the content and delivery of an educational package on musculoskeletal CPRs. Audio files were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis to explore and develop themes and subthemes.

FINDINGS

Content of an educational package should include general information on CPRs to improve familiarity and understanding, including a brief description, purpose, stages of development, application, limitations, and Information to dispel common myths and misunderstandings, as well as some specific examples of commonly-used CPRs. The package should be available in multiple formats to allow for different learning styles, both online via video, webinars, and podcasts, and face-to-face in practical sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical educators would find an educational package useful in assisting them to learn about musculoskeletal CPRs and to teach them to students.

Clinical prediction rules: A systematic review of healthcare provider opinions and preferences

OBJECTIVE

The act of predicting clinical endpoints and patient trajectories based on past and current states is on the precipice of a technological revolution. This systematic review summarises the available evidence describing healthcare provider opinions and preferences with respect to the use of clinical prediction rules. The primary goal of this work is to inform the design and implementation of future systems, and secondarily to identify gaps for the development of clinician education programs.

METHODS

Five databases were systematically searched in May 2016 for studies collecting empirical opinions of healthcare providers regarding clinical prediction rule usage. Reference lists were scanned for additional eligible materials and an update search was made in August 2017. Data was extracted on high-level study features, before in-depth thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

45 articles were identified from 9 countries. Most studies utilised surveys (28) or interviews (14). Fewer employed focus groups (9) or formal usability testing (4). Three high-level themes were identified, which form the basis of healthcare provider opinions of clinical prediction rules and their implementation - utility, credibility and usability.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the objections and preferences stated by healthcare providers are inherent to the nature of the clinical problem addressed, which may or may not be within the designer's capacity to change; however, others (in particular - actionability, validation, integration and provision of high quality education materials) should be considered by prediction rule designers and implementation teams, in order to increase user acceptance and improve uptake of these tools. We summarise these findings across the clinical prediction rule lifecycle and pose questions for the rule developers, in order to produce tools that are more likely to successfully translate into clinical practice.

A meta-ethnography of health-care professionals’ experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain to improve the experience and quality of health care

Background

People with chronic pain do not always feel that they are being listened to or valued by health-care professionals (HCPs). We aimed to understand and improve this experience by finding out what HCPs feel about providing health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain. We did this by bringing together the published qualitative research.

Objectives

(1) To undertake a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) to increase our understanding of what it is like for HCPs to provide health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain; (2) to make our findings easily available and accessible through a short film; and (3) to contribute to the development of methods for QESs.

Design

We used the methods of meta-ethnography, which involve identifying concepts and progressively abstracting these concepts into a line of argument.

Data sources

We searched five electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) from inception to November 2016. We included studies that explored HCPs’ experiences of providing health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain. We utilised the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) framework to rate our confidence in the findings.

Results

We screened 954 abstracts and 184 full texts and included 77 studies reporting the experiences of > 1551 HCPs. We identified six themes: (1) a sceptical cultural lens and the siren song of diagnosis; (2) navigating juxtaposed models of medicine; (3) navigating the patient–clinician borderland; (4) the challenge of dual advocacy; (5) personal costs; and (6) the craft of pain management. We produced a short film, ‘Struggling to support people to live a valued life with chronic pain’, which presents these themes (seeReport Supplementary Material 1; URL:www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr/1419807/#/documentation; accessed 24 July 2017). We rated our confidence in the review findings using the GRADE-CERQual domains. We developed a conceptual model to explain the complexity of providing health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain. The innovation of this model is to propose a series of tensions that are integral to the experience: a dualistic biomedical model compared with an embodied psychosocial model; professional distance compared with proximity; professional expertise compared with patient empowerment; the need to make concessions to maintain therapeutic relationships compared with the need for evidence-based utility; and patient advocacy compared with health-care system advocacy.

Limitations

There are no agreed methods for determining confidence in QESs.

Conclusions

We highlight areas that help us to understand why the experience of health care can be difficult for patients and HCPs. Importantly, HCPs can find it challenging if they are unable to find a diagnosis and at times this can make them feel sceptical. The findings suggest that HCPs find it difficult to balance their dual role of maintaining a good relationship with the patient and representing the health-care system. The ability to support patients to live a valued life with pain is described as a craft learnt through experience. Finally, like their patients, HCPs can experience a sense of loss because they cannot solve the problem of pain.

Future work

Future work to explore the usefulness of the conceptual model and film in clinical education would add value to this study. There is limited primary research that explores HCPs’ experiences with chronic non-malignant pain in diverse ethnic groups, in gender-specific contexts and in older people living in the community.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore healthcare professionals' experience of treating chronic non-malignant pain by conducting a qualitative evidence synthesis. Understanding this experience from the perspective of healthcare professionals will contribute to improvements in the provision of care.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography. We searched five electronic bibliographic databases from inception to November 2016. We included studies that explore healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain. We used the GRADE-CERQual framework to rate confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

We screened the 954 abstracts and 184 full texts and included 77 published studies reporting the experiences of over 1551 international healthcare professionals including doctors, nurses and other health professionals. We abstracted six themes: (1) a sceptical cultural lens, (2) navigating juxtaposed models of medicine, (3) navigating the geography between patient and clinician, (4) challenge of dual advocacy, (5) personal costs and (6) the craft of pain management. We rated confidence in review findings as moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative evidence synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences of treating people with chronic non-malignant pain. We have presented a model that we developed to help healthcare professionals to understand, think about and modify their experiences of treating patients with chronic pain. Our findings highlight scepticism about chronic pain that might explain why patients feel they are not believed. Findings also indicate a dualism in the biopsychosocial model and the complexity of navigating therapeutic relationships. Our model may be transferable to other patient groups or situations.

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.

Prediction Effects of Personal, Psychosocial, and Occupational Risk Factors on Low Back Pain Severity Using Artificial Neural Networks Approach in Industrial Workers

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide an empirical model of predicting low back pain (LBP) by considering the occupational, personal, and psychological risk factor interactions in workers population employed in industrial units using an artificial neural networks approach.

METHODS

A total of 92 workers with LBP as the case group and 68 healthy workers as a control group were selected in various industrial units with similar occupational conditions. The demographic information and personal, occupational, and psychosocial factors of the participants were collected via interview, related questionnaires, consultation with occupational medicine, and also the Rapid Entire Body Assessment worksheet and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index software. Then, 16 risk factors for LBP were used as input variables to develop the prediction model. Networks with various multilayered structures were developed using MATLAB.

RESULTS

The developed neural networks with 1 hidden layer and 26 neurons had the least error of classification in both training and testing phases. The mean of classification accuracy of the developed neural networks for the testing and training phase data were about 88% and 96%, respectively. In addition, the mean of classification accuracy of both training and testing data was 92%, indicating much better results compared with other methods.

CONCLUSION

It appears that the prediction model using the neural network approach is more accurate compared with other applied methods. Because occupational LBP is usually untreatable, the results of prediction may be suitable for developing preventive strategies and corrective interventions.

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.

Prediction of Outcome in Women With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Who Receive Manual Physical Therapy Interventions: A Validation Study

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Background A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) most likely to respond to manual physical therapy has been published but requires further testing to determine its validity. Objective To assess the validity of a clinical prediction rule proposed for the management of patients with CTS in a different group of patients with a variety of treating clinicians. Methods A preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of manual physical therapies, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, in 120 women suffering from CTS was performed. Patients were randomized to receive 3 sessions of manual physical therapy (n = 60) or surgical release/decompression of the carpal tunnel (n = 60). Self-perceived improvement with a global rating of change was recorded at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Pain intensity (mean pain and worst pain on a 0-to-10 numeric pain-rating scale) and scores on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (functional status and symptom severity subscales) were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. A baseline assessment of status on the clinical prediction rule was performed (positive status on the clinical prediction rule was defined as meeting at least 2 of the following criteria: pressure pain threshold of less than 137 kPa over the affected C5-6 joint; heat pain threshold of less than 39.6°C over the affected carpal tunnel; and general health score [Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey] of greater than 66 points). Linear mixed models with repeated measures were used to examine the validity of the rule. Results Participants with a positive status on the rule who received manual physical therapy did not experience greater improvements compared to those with a negative status on the rule for mean pain (P = .65), worst pain (P = .86), function (P = .99), or symptom severity (P = .85). Further, the clinical prediction rule performed no better than chance in identifying the individuals with CTS most likely to respond to manual physical therapy or surgery (mean pain, P = .87; worst pain, P = .91; function, P = .60; severity, P = .66). No differences in self-perceived improvement were observed at either 6 (P = .68) or 12 (P = .36) months, according to the rule. Conclusion The results of this study did not support the validity of the previously developed clinical prediction rule for manual physical therapy in women with CTS. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(6):443-451. Epub 23 Mar 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6348.

Development and validation of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic low back pain in patients presenting with acute low back pain: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Around 40% of people presenting to primary care with an episode of acute low back pain develop chronic low back pain. In order to reduce the risk of developing chronic low back pain, effective secondary prevention strategies are needed. Early identification of at-risk patients allows clinicians to make informed decisions based on prognostic profile, and researchers to select appropriate participants for secondary prevention trials. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a prognostic screening tool that identifies patients with acute low back pain in primary care who are at risk of developing chronic low back pain. This paper describes the methods and analysis plan for the development and validation of the tool.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

The prognostic screening tool will be developed using methods recommended by the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) Group and reported using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. In the development stage, we will use data from 1248 patients recruited for a prospective cohort study of acute low back pain in primary care. We will construct 3 logistic regression models to predict chronic low back pain according to 3 definitions: any pain, high pain and disability at 3 months. In the validation stage, we will use data from a separate sample of 1643 patients with acute low back pain to assess the performance of each prognostic model. We will produce validation plots showing Nagelkerke R(2) and Brier score (overall performance), area under the curve statistic (discrimination) and the calibration slope and intercept (calibration).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval from the University of Sydney Ethics Committee was obtained for both of the original studies that we plan to analyse using the methods outlined in this protocol (Henschke et al, ref 11-2002/3/3144; Williams et al, ref 11638).

Can experienced physiotherapists identify which patients are likely to succeed with physical therapy treatment?

Background

The purpose of the study was to determine if clinician predicted prognosis is associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

The study was a secondary analysis of data that were collected in 8 physiotherapy outpatient clinics. Nine physiotherapists with post-graduate training in manual therapy (mean 20.3 years of experience) were asked at baseline to project the outcome of the patients evaluated. In total, 112 patients with low back (74 %) or neck (26 %) pain were treated pragmatically with interventions consisting of manual therapy, strengthening, and patient-specific education. Outcomes measures consisted of percent change in disability (Oswestry or Neck Disability Index), self-reported rate of recovery (0–100 %), and percent change in pain (numerical pain rating scale). Hierarchical logistic regression determined potential factors (clinician predicted prognosis score (1–10) at baseline, dichotomised as poor (1–6) and good (7–10); symptom duration categorised as acute, subacute or chronic; same previous injury (yes/no); baseline pain and disability scores; within-session improvement at initial visit (yes/no); and presence of ≥ one psychological factor) associated with meaningful changes in each of the three outcomes at discharge (disability and pain > 50 % improvement, rate of recovery ≥82.5 % improvement).

Results

Clinician predicted prognosis (OR 4.15, 95%CI = 1.31, 13.19, p = 0.02) and duration of symptoms (OR subacute 0.24, 95%CI = 0.07, 0.89, p = 0.03; chronic 0.21, 95%CI = 0.05, 0.90, p = 0.04) were associated with rate of recovery, whereas only clinician predicted prognosis was associated with disability improvement (OR 4.28, 95 % CI 1.37, 13.37, p = 0.01). No variables were associated with pain improvement.

Conclusions

Clinician predicted prognosis is potentially valuable for patients, as a good predicted prognosis is associated with improvements in disability and rate of recovery.

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.