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

Effects of matched vs. unmatched physical therapy interventions on pain or disability in patients with neck pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The interventions performed in most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on neck pain patients are standardized, irrespective of the high heterogeneity of patients. However, clinicians tend to choose an intervention based on the patients' clinical characteristics, and thus match the treatment to the patient.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of interventions matched to the clinical characteristics of patients with neck pain versus the same, but unmatched treatment for improving pain or disability.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted following Cochrane guidelines.

METHODS

Databases searches were performed from inception to September 2023. RCTs were included if the patients in the experimental group received a treatment matched to clinical presentation or to clinicians' assessment, if the patients in the control group received a similar but unmatched treatment, and if pain or disability were reported as outcome measures.

RESULTS

The literature search produced 9516 records of which 27 met the inclusion criteria. Matched exercise therapy was superior to unmatched exercise for pain (SMD -0.57; 95% CI -0.95, -0.18) and for disability (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -1.14, -0.23) at short term, but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Matched manual treatment was not superior to unmatched manual therapy for pain or for disability at short or intermediate-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that matching exercise to movement limitation, trapezius myalgia, or forward head position may lead to better outcomes in the short term, but not in the intermediate-term. Matched manual therapy was not superior to unmatched treatment either short or intermediate-term. Further research is warranted to verify if those criteria are potentially useful matching criteria.

Six Externally Validated Prognostic Models Have Potential Clinical Value to Predict Patient Health Outcomes in the Rehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and appraise externally validated prognostic models to predict a patient's health outcomes relevant to physical rehabilitation of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 8 databases and reported our findings according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020. An information specialist designed a search strategy to identify externally validated prognostic models for MSK conditions. Paired reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text and conducted data extraction. We extracted characteristics of included studies (eg, country and study design), prognostic models (eg, performance measures and type of model) and predicted clinical outcomes (eg, pain and disability). We assessed the risk of bias and concerns of applicability using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. We proposed and used a 5-step method to determine which prognostic models were clinically valuable.

RESULTS

We found 4896 citations, read 300 full-text articles, and included 46 papers (37 distinct models). Prognostic models were externally validated for the spine, upper limb, lower limb conditions, and MSK trauma, injuries, and pain. All studies presented a high risk of bias. Half of the models showed low concerns for applicability. Reporting of calibration and discrimination performance measures was often lacking. We found 6 externally validated models with adequate measures, which could be deemed clinically valuable [ie, (1) STart Back Screening Tool, (2) Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation RisK model, (3) Da Silva model, (4) PICKUP model, (5) Schellingerhout rule, and (6) Keene model]. Despite having a high risk of bias, which is mostly explained by the very conservative properties of the PROBAST tool, the 6 models remain clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

We found 6 externally validated prognostic models developed to predict patients' health outcomes that were clinically relevant to the physical rehabilitation of MSK conditions.

IMPACT

Our results provide clinicians with externally validated prognostic models to help them better predict patients' clinical outcomes and facilitate personalized treatment plans. Incorporating clinically valuable prognostic models could inherently improve the value of care provided by physical therapists.

External validation and updating of prognostic models for predicting recovery of disability in people with (sub)acute neck pain was successful: broad external validation in a new prospective cohort

QUESTION

Can existing post-treatment prognostic models for predicting neck pain recovery (primarily in terms of disability and secondarily in terms of pain intensity and perceived improvement) be externally validated and updated at the end of the treatment period and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up in a new Dutch cohort of people with neck pain treated with guideline-based usual care physiotherapy?

DESIGN

External validation and model updating in a new prospective cohort of three previously developed prognostic models.

PARTICIPANTS

People with (sub)acute neck pain and registered for primary care physiotherapy treatment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recovery of disability, pain intensity, and perceived recovery at 6 and 12 weeks and at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

Discriminative performance (c-statistic) of the disability model at 6 weeks was 0.73 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.77) and reasonably well calibrated after intercept recalibration. The disability model at 12 weeks and at the end of the treatment period showed discriminative c-statistic performance values of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.73) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.72), respectively, and was well calibrated. Pain models and perceived recovery models did not reach acceptable performance. Cervical mobility added value to the disability models and pain catastrophising to the disability and pain models at 6 weeks.

DISCUSSION

Broad external validation of the disability model was successful in people with (sub)acute neck pain and clinicians may use this model in clinical practice with reasonable accuracy. Further research is required to assess the disability model's clinical impact and generalisability, and to identify additional valuable model predictors.

REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/a6r3k/.

A study protocol for the validation of a prognostic model with an emphasis on modifiable factors to predict chronic pain after a new episode of acute- or subacute nonspecific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain presenting in primary care

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study is to identify which modifiable and non-modifiable factors are independent predictors of the development of chronic pain in patients with acute- or subacute nonspecific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain, and secondly, to combine these to develop and internally validate a prognostic prediction model.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study will be conducted by physiotherapists in 30 primary physiotherapy practices between January 26, 2020, and August 31, 2022, with a 6-month follow-up until March 17, 2023. Patients who consult a physiotherapist with a new episode of acute- (0 to 3 weeks) or subacute neck pain (4 to 12 weeks) will complete a baseline questionnaire. After their first appointment, candidate prognostic variables will be collected from participants regarding their neck pain symptoms, prior conditions, work-related factors, general factors, psychological and behavioral factors. Follow-up assessments will be conducted at six weeks, three months, and six months after the initial assessment. The primary outcome measure is the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to examine the presence of chronic pain. If the pain is present at six weeks, three months, and six months with a score of NPRS ≥3, it is classified as chronic pain. An initial exploratory analysis will use univariate logistic regression to assess the relationship between candidate prognostic factors at baseline and outcome. Multiple logistic regression analyses will be conducted. The discriminative ability of the prognostic model will be determined based on the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC), calibration will be assessed using a calibration plot and formally tested using the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, and model fit will be quantified as Nagelkerke's R2. Internal validation will be performed using bootstrapping-resampling to yield a measure of overfitting and the optimism-corrected AUC.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will improve the understanding of prognostic and potential protective factors, which will help clinicians guide their clinical decision making, develop an individualized treatment approach, and predict chronic neck pain more accurately.

Machine learning versus logistic regression for prognostic modelling in individuals with non-specific neck pain

PURPOSE

Prognostic models play an important clinical role in the clinical management of neck pain disorders. No study has compared the performance of modern machine learning (ML) techniques, against more traditional regression techniques, when developing prognostic models in individuals with neck pain.

METHODS

A total of 3001 participants suffering from neck pain were included into a clinical registry database. Three dichotomous outcomes of a clinically meaningful improvement in neck pain, arm pain, and disability at 3 months follow-up were used. There were 26 predictors included, five numeric and 21 categorical. Seven modelling techniques were used (logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], gradient boosting [Xgboost], K nearest neighbours [KNN], support vector machine [SVM], random forest [RF], and artificial neural networks [ANN]). The primary measure of model performance was the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of the validation set.

RESULTS

The ML algorithm with the greatest AUC for predicting arm pain (AUC = 0.765), neck pain (AUC = 0.726), and disability (AUC = 0.703) was Xgboost. The improvement in classification AUC from stepwise logistic regression to the best performing machine learning algorithms was 0.081, 0.103, and 0.077 for predicting arm pain, neck pain, and disability, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The improvement in prediction performance between ML and logistic regression methods in the present study, could be due to the potential greater nonlinearity between baseline predictors and clinical outcome. The benefit of machine learning in prognostic modelling may be dependent on factors like sample size, variable type, and disease investigated.

Clinical Efficacy of Epidural Injections of Local Anesthetic Alone or Combined with Steroid for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims

To compare the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic with vs. without a steroid.

Methods

Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) were used to search and assess all clinical randomized controlled trials regarding the clinical efficacy of epidural injections from January 01, 2009, to October 31, 2020. Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment instrument were used to evaluate the methodologic quality of the included studies. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed according to best evidence synthesis principles and by single-arm meta-analysis, respectively.

Results

Based on the search criteria, 4 RCTs were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed in the single-arm meta-analysis. Treatment with lidocaine alone or with the steroid resulted in decreases of 4.46 and 4.29 points, respectively, in pain scores and of 15.8 and 14.46 points, respectively, in functional scores at 6 months. Similar trends were observed at the 1-year follow-up: pain scores decreased by 4.27 and 4.14 points, while functional scores decreased by 15.94 and 14.44 points in patients with neck pain who received lidocaine without or with the steroid, respectively. In the 3 studies that reported 2-year follow-up data, patients with neck pain treated with lidocaine or lidocaine + steroid showed 4.2- and 4.14-point decreases, in pain score and 15.92- and 14.89-point decreases, respectively, in functional scores.

Conclusions

The studies showed level I (strong) evidence for short- and long-term improvements in pain relief and functionality with cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic alone or with a steroid in the management of neck pain.

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.

Neck Pain Clinical Prediction Rule to Prescribe Combined Aerobic and Neck-Specific Exercises: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

A previous randomized controlled trial revealed that combined aerobic and neck-specific exercises yielded greater improvement than neck-specific exercises alone after a 6-month intervention in outpatients with nonspecific neck pain (NP). The aim of this secondary analysis was to identify subgroups of patients in the combined exercises group most likely to benefit from the intervention.

METHODS

Sixty-nine patients were included. The original trial was conducted in multiple physical therapy outpatient clinics twice a week for 6 weeks; follow-up was 6 months after assignment. The primary outcome was the therapeutic success rate (Global Rating of Change Score ≥ +5, "quite a bit better") after 6 weeks of training and at the 6-month follow-up. Candidate predictors from patients' medical history and physical examination were selected for univariable regression analysis to determine their association with treatment response status. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to derive preliminary clinical prediction rules.

RESULTS

The clinical prediction rule contained 3 predictor variables: (1) symptom duration ≤6 months, (2) neck flexor endurance ≥18 seconds, and (3) absence of referred pain (Nagelkerke R2 = .40 and -2 log likelihood = 60.30). The pre-test probability of success was 61.0% in the short term and 77.0% in the long term. The post-test probability of success for patients with at least 2 of the 3 predictor variables was 84.0% in the short term and 87.0% in the long term; such patients will likely benefit from this program.

CONCLUSION

A simple 3-item assessment, derived from easily obtainable baseline data, can identify patients with NP who may respond best to combined aerobic and neck-specific exercises. Validation is required before clinical recommendation.

IMPACT

Patients experiencing NP symptoms ≤6 months who have no referred pain and exhibit neck flexor endurance ≥18 seconds may benefit from a simple self-training program of combined aerobic and neck-specific exercises.

Neck Disability Index Is Better in Classification of Recovery after Whiplash Injury in Comparison with Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography of Trapezius Muscle

A prospective observational study comparing shear wave elastography (SWE) of trapezius muscle with Neck Disability Index (NDI) in a prediction model of health status six months after a whiplash injury. Both SWE values, measured by two radiologists, and NDI scores were obtained at baseline and after physical therapy (PT) (6-month period). Those values were compared with a 3-point Likert scale (no, partial or full recovery). Twenty-two subjects completed the study. A decrease in trapezius stiffness was detected by both radiologists, statistically significant for one (Δ10.1 kPa; p = 0.04) but not for the second radiologist (Δ8.63 kPa; p = 0.07). The measurements showed excellent intra-observer (ICC 0.75–0.94) and inter-observer (ICC 0.78–0.88) reliability. After six months, fully recovered patients showed lower NDI scores than partially recovered patients (Δ22.98; p < 0.001). SWE values did not differ with the recovery status (55.6 ± 9.7 vs. 57 ± 15.8, Δ1.45; p = 0.82). The single most accurate variable in classifying health status six months after whiplash injury was the relative change of NDI, and it showed the highest accuracy (73.9%) and low Akaike information criterion (AIC = 39.2). Overall, the most accurate classification was obtained when combining NDI and SWE after physical therapy with an accuracy of 77.3% and a decrease in AIC (32.8).

The Impact of Musculoskeletal Injuries Sustained in Road Traffic Crashes on Work-Related Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Musculoskeletal injuries occur frequently after road traffic crashes (RTCs), and the effect on work participation is not fully understood. The primary aim of this review was to determine the impact of sustaining a musculoskeletal injury during an RTC on the rate of return to work (RTW), sick leave, and other work outcomes. The secondary aim was to determine factors associated with these work-related outcomes. An electronic search of relevant databases to identify observational studies related to work and employment, RTC, and musculoskeletal injuries was conducted. Where possible, outcome data were pooled by follow-up period to answer the primary aim. Fifty-three studies were included in this review, of which 28 were included in meta-analyses. The pooled rate of RTW was 70% at 1 month, 67% at 3 months, 76% at 6 months, 83% at 12 months, and 70% at 24 months. Twenty-seven percent of participants took some sick leave by one month follow-up, 13% by 3 months, 23% by 6 months, 36% by 12 months, and 22% by 24 months. Most of the factors identified as associated with work outcomes were health-related, with some evidence also for sociodemographic factors. While 70% of people with RTC-related musculoskeletal injury RTW shortly after accident, many still have not RTW two years later.

Development and internal validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with non-specific neck pain presenting in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Development and internal validation of prognostic models for post-treatment and 1-year recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care manual therapy practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with non-specific neck pain of any duration (n=1193).

INTERVENTION

Usual care manual therapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recovery defined in terms of pain intensity, disability, and global perceived improvement directly post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

All post-treatment models exhibited acceptable discriminative performance after derivation (AUC≥0.7). The developed post-treatment disability model exhibited the best overall performance (R²=0.24; IQR, 0.22-0.26), discrimination (AUC=0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84), and calibration (slope 0.92; IQR, 0.91-0.93). After internal validation and penalization, this model retained acceptable discriminative performance (AUC=0.74). The five other models, including those predicting 1-year recovery, did not reach acceptable discriminative performance after internal validation. Baseline pain duration, disability, and pain intensity were consistent predictors across models.

CONCLUSION

A post-treatment prognostic model for disability was successfully developed and internally validated. This model has potential to inform primary care clinicians about a patient's individual prognosis after treatment, but external validation is required before clinical use can be recommended.

Effectiveness of deep cervical fascial manipulation and yoga postures on pain, function, and oculomotor control in patients with mechanical neck pain: study protocol of a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical neck pain (MNP) is a commonly occurring musculoskeletal condition that is usually managed using electrical modalities, joint mobilization techniques, and therapeutic exercises, but has limited evidence of their efficacy. Pathology (densification) of the deep cervical fascia that occurs due to the increased viscosity of hyaluronic acid (HA) may induce neck pain and associated painful symptoms of the upper quarter region. Fascial manipulation (FM) and yoga poses are considered to reduce the thixotropy of the ground substances of the deep fascia and improve muscle function. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of FM and sequential yoga poses (SYP) when compared to the usual care on pain, function, and oculomotor control in MNP.

METHODS

This FaCe-Man trial will recruit 160 patients with subacute and chronic mechanical neck pain diagnosed using predefined criteria. Participants will be randomized to either the intervention group or the usual care group, using a random allocation ratio of 1:1. Patients in the intervention group will receive FM (4 sessions in 4 weeks) and SYP (12 weeks) whereas the standard care group will receive cervical mobilization/ thoracic manipulation (4 sessions in 4 weeks) and therapeutic exercises (12 weeks). The primary outcome is the change in the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). The secondary outcomes include changes in the patient-specific functional scale and oculomotor control, myofascial stiffness, fear-avoidance behavior questionnaire, and elbow extension range of motion during neurodynamics test 1.

DISCUSSION

If found effective, FM along with SYP investigated in this trial can be considered as a treatment strategy in the management of mechanical neck pain. Considering the magnitude of the problem, and the pragmatic and patient-centered approach to be followed, it is worth investigating this trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov CTRI/2020/01/022934 . Registered on January 24, 2020 with ctri.nic.in. Clinical Trials Registry - India.

Identification of clinically-useful cut scores of the Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) for predicting rate of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma

Objective

The Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) is a 12-item self-report tool intended for prognostic risk phenotyping in people with acute musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma. The initial validation study showed good associations with outcomes 12 weeks later in a cohort of 72 acutely injured patients from one region in Canada. This study aims to provide further clinical utility through identification of meaningful cut scores in a larger, mixed geography sample, and expands the prediction window from 12 to 52 weeks.

Methods

Data were drawn from databanks in London, Canada and Chicago, United States. Participants were recruited within 3 weeks of non-catastrophic MSK trauma and followed for 12 months. Using outcomes trajectories, the TIDS underwent linear regression-based analysis to predict 52-week outcomes, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to identify discriminative accuracy and meaningful cut scores.

Results

N = 224 participants with acute trauma were followed and both %Interference and Pain Severity were captured at intake and 3 follow-ups to establish curvilinear recovery trajectories. The TIDS explained significant variance in both the interference and severity outcomes after controlling for sex, region of injury, and baseline scores. ROC analysis revealed significant discriminative accuracy for predicting both the trajectories and the distal outcomes over 52 weeks. The TIDS was more accurate for identifying the low-risk than high-risk patients.

Conclusion

The TIDS is a useful tool for ‘ruling out’ high risk of poor outcome in a mixed sample of participants from two different countries.

Impact statement

The TIDS will be a useful tool for clinicians to predict the rate of recovery by displaying meaningful cut-scores for their patients after an acute musculoskeletal injury. This could lead to reduced burden of care for low risk patients and more informed treatment options for higher risk patients.

Existing validated clinical prediction rules for predicting response to physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal conditions have limited clinical value: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that have undergone validation testing for predicting response to physiotherapy-related interventions for musculoskeletal conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to September 2020. Search terms included musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, physiotherapy interventions and clinical prediction rules. Controlled studies that validated a prescriptive CPR for physiotherapy treatment response in musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility. Original derivation studies of each CPR were identified. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROBAST tool (derivation studies) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group criteria (validation studies).

RESULTS

Nine studies aimed to validate seven prescriptive CPRs for treatment response for MSK conditions including back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatments included manipulation, traction and exercise. Seven studies failed to demonstrate an association between CPR prediction and outcome. Methodological quality of derivation studies was poor and for validation studies was good overall.

CONCLUSION

Results do not support the use of any CPRs identified to aid physiotherapy treatment selection for common musculoskeletal conditions, due to methodological shortcomings in the derivation studies and lack of association between CPR and outcome in validation studies.

Clinical predictive modelling of post-surgical recovery in individuals with cervical radiculopathy: a machine learning approach

Prognostic models play an important role in the clinical management of cervical radiculopathy (CR). No study has compared the performance of modern machine learning techniques, against more traditional stepwise regression techniques, when developing prognostic models in individuals with CR. We analysed a prospective cohort dataset of 201 individuals with CR. Four modelling techniques (stepwise regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], boosting, and multivariate adaptive regression splines [MuARS]) were each used to form a prognostic model for each of four outcomes obtained at a 12 month follow-up (disability-neck disability index [NDI]), quality of life (EQ5D), present neck pain intensity, and present arm pain intensity). For all four outcomes, the differences in mean performance between all four models were small (difference of NDI < 1 point; EQ5D < 0.1 point; neck and arm pain < 2 points). Given that the predictive accuracy of all four modelling methods were clinically similar, the optimal modelling method may be selected based on the parsimony of predictors. Some of the most parsimonious models were achieved using MuARS, a non-linear technique. Modern machine learning methods may be used to probe relationships along different regions of the predictor space.

Consensus of potential modifiable prognostic factors for persistent pain after a first episode of nonspecific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain: results of nominal group and Delphi technique approach

BACKGROUND

Identify and establish consensus regarding potential prognostic factors for the development of chronic pain after a first episode of idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain.

DESIGN

This study used two consensus group methods: a modified Nominal Group (m-NGT) and a Delphi Technique.

METHODS

The goal of the m-NGT was to obtain and categorize a list of potential modifiable prognostic factors. These factors were presented to a multidisciplinary panel in a two-round Delphi survey, which was conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. The participants were asked whether factors identified are of prognostic value, whether these factors are modifiable, and how to measure these factors in clinical practice. Consensus was a priori defined as 70% agreement among participants.

RESULTS

Eighty-four factors were identified and grouped into seven categories during the expert meeting using the modified NGT. A workgroup reduced the list to 47 factors and grouped them into 12 categories. Of these factors, 26 were found to be potentially prognostic for chronification of neck pain (> 70% agreement). Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be potentially modifiable by physiotherapists based on a two-round Delphi survey.

CONCLUSION

Based on an expert meeting (m-NGT) and a two-round Delphi survey, our study documents consensus (> 70%) on 26 prognostic factors. Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be modifiable, and most factors were psychological in nature.

Treatment based classification systems for patients with non-specific neck pain. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify published classification systems with a targeted treatment approach (treatment-based classification systems (TBCSs)) for patients with non-specific neck pain, and assess their quality and effectiveness.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and the grey literature were systematically searched from inception to December 2019.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

The main selection criterium was a TBCS for patients with non-specific neck pain with physiotherapeutic interventions. For data extraction of descriptive data and quality assessment we used the framework developed by Buchbinder et al. We considered as score of ≤3 as low quality, a score between 3 and 5 as moderate quality and a score ≥5 as good quality. To assess the risk of bias of studies concerning the effectiveness of TBCSs (only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included) we used the PEDro scale. We considered a score of ≥ six points on this scale as low risk of bias.

RESULTS

Out of 7664 initial references we included 13 studies. The overall quality of the TBCSs ranged from low to moderate. We found two RCTs, both with low risk of bias, evaluating the effectiveness of two TBCSs compared to alternative treatments. The results showed that both TBCSs were not superior to alternative treatments.

CONCLUSION

Existing TBCSs are, at best, of moderate quality. In addition, TBCSs were not shown to be more effective than alternatives. Therefore using these TBCSs in daily practice is not recommended.

Measuring the impact of the French version of The Whiplash Book on both treatment approach and fear-avoidance beliefs among emergency physicians. A cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Whiplash-associated disorders have been the subject of much attention in the scientific literature and remain a major public health problem.

Objective

Measure the impact of a validated information booklet on the fear-avoidance beliefs of emergency physicians and their approach to management regarding the treatment of whiplash-associated disorders.

Methods

A prospective cluster randomized controlled study conducted with a sample of emergency medicine physicians. Fear-avoidance beliefs were measured using The Whiplash Belief Questionnaire (WBQ) and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). We assessed the approach to management based on the prescription of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments based on the advice given to patients. The validated information booklet was the French version of The Whiplash Book. A set of questionnaires was sent to participants pre- and post-intervention. The experimental intervention was the provision of The Whiplash Book. The control arm did not receive any training or information.

Results

Mean fears and beliefs scores on inclusion were high: WBQ = 19.09 (± 4.06); physical activity FABQ = 11.45 (± 4.73); work FABQ = 13.85 (± 6.70). Improvement in fear-avoidance beliefs scores being greater in the intervention group was further confirmed by the variation in WBQ (-20 [-32; -6] vs. -6 [-16; 9]; p = 0.06), physical activity FABQ (-70 [-86; -50] vs. -15 [-40; 11]; p < 0.001), and work FABQ (-40 [-71; 0] vs. 0 [-31; 50]; p = 0.02). The emergency physicians' initial approach to management was not consistent with current guidelines. Reading the French version of The Whiplash Book could contribute to changing their approach to management in several areas on intra-group analysis.

Conclusion

The French version of The Whiplash Book positively influenced fear-avoidance beliefs among emergency physicians.

Predicting the evolution of neck pain episodes in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to develop models for predicting the evolution of a neck pain (NP) episode.

METHODS

Three thousand two hundred twenty-five acute and chronic patients seeking care for NP, were recruited consecutively in 47 health care centers. Data on 37 variables were gathered, including gender, age, employment status, duration of pain, intensity of NP and pain referred down to the arm (AP), disability, history of neck surgery, diagnostic procedures undertaken, imaging findings, clinical diagnosis, and treatments used. Three separate multivariable logistic regression models were developed for predicting a clinically relevant improvement in NP, AP and disability at 3 months.

RESULTS

Three thousand one (93.5%%) patients attended follow-up. For all the models calibration was good. The area under the ROC curve was ≥0.717 for pain and 0.664 for disability. Factors associated with a better prognosis were: a) For all the outcomes: pain being acute (vs. chronic) and having received neuro-reflexotherapy. b) For NP: nonspecific pain (vs. pain caused by disc herniation or spinal stenosis), no signs of disc degeneration on imaging, staying at work, and being female. c) For AP: nonspecific NP and no signs of disc degeneration on imaging. d) For disability: staying at work and no signs of facet joint degeneration on imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

A prospective registry can be used for developing valid predictive models to quantify the odds that a given patient with NP will experience a clinically relevant improvement.

Broad External Validation and Update of a Prediction Model for Persistent Neck Pain After 12 Weeks

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To externally validate the prediction model developed by Schellingerhout and colleagues predicting global perceived effect at 12 weeks in patients with neck pain and to update and internally validate the updated model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Only one prediction model for neck pain has undergone some external validation with good promise. However, the model needs testing in other populations before implementation in clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients with neck pain (n = 773) consulting Norwegian chiropractors were followed for 12 weeks. Parameters from the original prediction model were applied to this sample for external validation. Subsequently, two random samples were drawn from the full study sample. One sample (n = 436) was used to update the model; by recalibration, removing noninformative covariates, and adding new possible predictors. The updated model was tested in the other sample (n = 303) using stepwise logistic regression analysis. Main outcomes for performance of models were discrimination and calibration plots.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy patients (47%) in the full study sample reported persistent pain at 12 weeks. The performance of the original model was poor, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.55 with a Confidence Interval of 0.51-0.59. The updated model included Radiating pain to shoulder and/or elbow, education level, physical activity, consultation-type (first- time, follow-up or maintenance consultation), expected course of neck pain, previous course of neck pain, number of pain sites, and the interaction term Physical activity##Number of pain sites. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.65 with a 95% Confidence Interval of 0.58-0.71 for the updated model.

CONCLUSION

The predictive accuracy of the original model performed insufficiently in the sample of patients from Norwegian chiropractors and the model is therefore not recommended for that setting. Only one predictor from the original model was retained in the updated model, which demonstrated reasonable good performance predicting outcome at 12 weeks. Before considering clinical use, a new external validation is required.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Prognostic factors for persistent pain after a first episode of nonspecific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prognosis of acute idiopathic neck pain is poor. An overview of modifiable and non-modifiable prognostic factors for the development of chronic musculoskeletal neck pain after an episode of idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain is needed.

OBJECTIVE

Identify prognostic factors for pain intensity and perceived non-recovery at three, six and 12 months after a first episode of idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review METHODS: Systematic literature search up to October 21, 2017 for prospective prognostic studies with main outcomes perceived non-recovery and pain intensity. The QUIPS was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Out of 2737 screened articles six prospective studies with high-risk-of-bias were identified, analyzing 47 and 43 factors for the outcome variables 'pain intensity' and 'perceived non-recovery', respectively. Based on univariate- and multivariate analyses we found moderate evidence for 'age> 40 years' and 'concomitant back pain' to be prognostic for 'pain intensity'. For the outcome 'perceived non-recovery' at 12 months, we found moderate evidence for both 'a previous period of neck pain' and 'accompanying headache' as prognostic variables for persistent pain, based on univariate analysis. No prognostic factor was found which was retained in more than one multivariate analysis for the outcome variable 'perceived non-recovery'. However, the quality of the evidence for these prognostic factors was low to very low.

CONCLUSION

This review identifies prognostic factors for neck pain, of which only a few are modifiable. Further research is needed before drawing definite conclusions about the prognostic value of these factors.

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 potential and perils of prognosticating persistent post-traumatic problems from a postpositivist perspective

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Predicting recovery after traumatic neck pain has become an active area of research but is moving in several different directions with currently little consensus on the important outcomes to predict or relevant variables to predict them.

PURPOSE

This editorial explores the current state of prognostic (risk)-based tools or algorithms for predicting the likelihood of chronic problems after acute axial trauma, with a focus on traumatic neck pain (ie, whiplash-associated disorder).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This paper has an editorial study design.

METHOD

This is a narrative commentary.

RESULTS

Prognostic efforts have value in guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing resource allocation to those at highest risk while minimizing iatrogenic disability for those at lower risk, but there are also several important caveats that should be observed when applying and interpreting the results of such tools. These include the biases associated with predicting outcomes based on findings from a single administration of a tool, inappropriate assumptions of causality, assumptions of linear relationships, and inability to consider the unique individual traits and contexts of patients that likely interact with clinical variables to influence the actual degree of risk they impart.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper concludes with a brief overview of trends that are likely to dramatically change the field, including creation of large clinical databases and big data analytics.

Return to Work in Employees on Sick Leave due to Neck or Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Multidisciplinary and Brief Intervention with One-Year Register-Based Follow-Up

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a multidisciplinary intervention (MDI) compared to a brief intervention (BI) with respect to return to work (RTW), pain and disability in workers on sick leave because of neck or shoulder pain. Methods 168 study participants with sickness absence for 4-16 weeks due to neck or shoulder pain were enrolled in a hospital-based clinical study and randomized to either MDI or BI. The primary outcome was RTW obtained by a national registry on public transfer payments. Secondary outcomes were self-reported pain and disability levels. One-year follow-up RTW rates were estimated by Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for gender, age, sick leave prior to inclusion, part-time sick leave and clinical diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regression analysis for pain and disability, respectively. Results In the MDI group, 50 participants (59%) experienced four or more continuous weeks of RTW while 48 (58%) returned to work in the BI group during the 1 year of follow-up. Results showed a statistically non significant tendency towards a lower rate of RTW in the MDI group than in the BI group (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.54, 1.31). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes between the MDI and BI groups. Conclusion The brief and the multidisciplinary interventions performed equally with respect to both primary and secondary outcomes. The added focus on RTW in the multidisciplinary group did not improve RTW rates in this group.

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].

Neck Pain: Revision 2017

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these revised clinical practice guidelines is to review recent peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(7):A1-A83. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0302.