Diagnostic classification of non-specific low back pain. A new system integrating patho-anatomic and clinical categories

Parkinson's disease - palliative care needs assessment tool: adaptation and psychometric testing

OBJECTIVE

Parkinson's disease is a progressive, life-limiting disease, which benefits from structured palliative care. Systematic recognition and triage of needs helps facilitate care, allows focused referral to specialist palliative care and aids sustainability of services. Existing palliative care tools for Parkinson's are patient/caregiver completed and focus on quantification rather than identification of the need. The Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease in Cancer was designed for rapid identification of unmet needs in cancer. We describe adaptation and psychometric testing of the tool for Parkinson's disease (NAT:Parkinson's disease).

METHODS

Set in secondary care, Parkinson's disease outpatient clinics in the UK, this study included people with Parkinson's, age >18, including all disease stages. People with atypical Parkinsonian syndromes were excluded. Adaptation was made using systematic review and focus groups. Construct validity was tested in 50 consecutive patients against established patient and caregiver measures, analysed with Kendall's Tau B. Inter-rater reliability, using video consultations, were calculated in broad range of clinicians involved in Parkinson's disease care using a weighted kappa; 0-0.2=slight, 0.21-0.40=fair, 0.41-0.60=moderate, 0.61-0.80=substantial and p<0.05 indicative of statistically significant agreement.

RESULTS

Validity was substantial for two, moderate for five and fair for four constructs. Inter-rater reliability was substantial for one, moderate for three and fair for six constructs. Two constructs failing to demonstrate fair reliability did show very high percentage agreement.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the suitability of the NAT:Parkinson's disease for everyday clinical use in the identification and triage of unmet palliative need for people with Parkinson's disease.

Back pain treatment: a new perspective

This article aims to provide new perspectives for the treatment of low back pain (LBP). A narrative literature review highlights the treatment strategies currently anchored in the guidelines as well as the extensive attempts to identify subgroups within the non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) classification. A variety of multimodal approaches exist for both diagnostic assessments and therapy approaches. Nonetheless, there are often gaps in the classification systems as well as in published treatment concepts with regard to the implementation of musculoskeletal functional disorders. Indeed, a growing body of evidence shows that more holistic and flexible approaches are needed to individually diagnose and target the complexity of LBP. As an example, both a diagnostic and a (independently developed) therapeutic LBP concept will be presented and discussed. Ultimately, guidelines and subgroup classification systems can only reflect the complexity of LBP, if they capture its entire multidimensional and biopsychosocial character in both the diagnostic and therapeutic processes. Furthermore, the expansion of the pain definition to include the nociplastic pain mechanism, as an important driver of LBP, has the potential to provide important impulses for further necessary research. In conclusion, the implementation of a functional musculoskeletal approach along with the emerging nociceptive pain concept in individually targeted holistic approaches seems to be the successful way to deal with the complexity of LBP.

Psychometric properties of chronic low back pain diagnostic classification systems: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify and critically appraise studies evaluating psychometric properties of functionally oriented diagnostic classification systems for Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain (NS-CLBP).

METHODS

This review employed methodology consistent with PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases and journals: (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PEDro, CINAHL, Index to chiropractic literature, ProQuest, Physical Therapy, Journal of Physiotherapy, Canadian Physiotherapy and Physiotherapy Theory and Practice) were searched from inception until January 2020. Included studies evaluated the validity and reliability of NS-CLBP diagnostic classification systems in adults. Risk of bias was assessed using a Critical Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were eligible: Five investigated inter-rater reliability, and 17 studies analyzed validity of O'Sullivan's classification system (OCS, n = 15), motor control impairment (MCI) test battery (n = 1), and Pain Behavior Assessment (PBA, n = 1). Evidence from multiple low risk of bias studies demonstrates that OCS has moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability (kappa > 0.4). Also, two low risk of bias studies support of OCS-MCI subcategory. Three tests within the MCI test battery show acceptable inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical use (the "sitting knee extension," the "one leg stance," and the "pelvic tilt" tests). Evidence for the reliability and validity of the PBA is limited to one high bias risk study.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple low risk of bias studies demonstrate strong inter-rater reliability for OCS classification specifically OCS-MCI subcategory. Future studies with low risk of bias are needed to evaluate reliability and validity of the MCI test battery and the PBA.

Eligibility of the movement-based classification systems in the diagnosis of patients with low back pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the eligibility of the movement-based classification systems in the diagnosis of patients with low back pain.

METHODS

The present systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta -Analysis guidelines. Different databases including PubMed, Science Direct, OVID, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ProQuest and Google Scholar were searched from January 1990 to December 2017. All studies assessed the reliability and validity of the movement-based classification systems to diagnose patients with low back pain were included. The keywords used to search the studies were: "reliability", "validity", "classification", "movement impairment" and "low back pain". Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were met the inclusion criteria. Of these articles, 13 studies assessed the reliability and validity of movement-based classification systems to categorize patients with low back pain. Two out of 16 articles compared patients with low back pain and healthy subjects and one article had no control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the reviewed studies demonstrated that movement-based classification systems are valid and reliable enough to categorize patients with low back pain.

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.

Hybrid Approach to Treatment Tailoring for Low Back Pain: A Proposed Model of Care

Various approaches have been used to guide the treatment of low back pain. These approaches have been considered in isolation and often tested against each other. An alternative view is that a model of care that involves a hybrid approach may benefit patients with low back pain. This commentary considers the potential benefits of a sequentially applied hybrid approach for treatment tailoring to optimize resource allocation to those most likely to require comprehensive care, and then decision making toward treatment paths with the greatest potential for success. In a first step, a prognosis-based approach, such as the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back Screening Tool (STarT Back), identifies individuals likely to require greater resource allocation. Although a clear path is indicated toward simple and psychologically informed care for the low- and high-risk groups, respectively, there is limited guidance for the large medium-risk group. For that group, the hybrid model provides a stepwise path of additional methods to guide treatment selection. This includes subgrouping based on pain mechanism to guide priority domains for the next phase, which includes tailoring of psychological and movement-based approaches. Motor control approaches to exercise would be indicated for individuals with medium risk and a nociceptive pain mechanism, with treatment guided by detailed assessment via one of several paradigms. Psychologically informed treatments are tailored to those with medium risk and a predominantly central pain mechanism, guided by detailed assessment of psychosocial features. A hybrid approach to a model of care could simplify treatment selection and take advantage of the benefits of each method in a time- and cost-efficient manner. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):453-463. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8774.

Does a Diagnostic Classification Algorithm Help to Predict the Course of Low Back Pain? A Study of Danish Chiropractic Patients With 1-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

A diagnostic classification algorithm, "the Petersen classification," consisting of 12 categories based on a standardized examination protocol, was developed for the primary purpose of identifying clinically homogeneous subgroups of individuals with low back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether a diagnostic classification algorithm is associated with activity limitation and LBP intensity at follow-up assessments of 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year, and whether the algorithm improves outcome prediction when added to a set of known predictors.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of 934 consecutive adult patients with new episodes of LBP who were visiting chiropractic practices in primary care and categorized according to the Petersen classification. Outcomes were disability and pain intensity measured with questionnaires at 2 weeks and 3 months, and 1-year trajectories of LBP based on weekly responses to text messages. Associations were analyzed with linear and logistic regression models. In a subgroup of patients, the numbers of visits to primary and secondary care were described.

RESULTS

The Petersen classification was statistically significantly associated with all outcomes (P<.001) but explained very little of the variance (R² = 0.00-0.05). Patients in the nerve root involvement category had the most pain and activity limitation and the most visits to primary and secondary care. Patients in the myofascial pain category were the least affected.

CONCLUSION

The Petersen classification was not helpful in determining individual prognosis in patients with LBP receiving usual care in chiropractic practice. However, patients should be examined for potential nerve root involvement to improve prediction of likely outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):837-846. Epub 8 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8083.

Effectiveness of movement control exercise on patients with non-specific low back pain and movement control impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with low back pain (LBP) and movement control impairment (MVCI) show altered spinal movement patterns. Treatment that aims to change movement behaviour could benefit these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of movement control exercise (MVCE) in terms of clinically relevant measures (disability and pain) on patients with NSLBP.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PUBMED and PEDro databases were searched for RCT's evaluating MVCE treatment in patients with NSLBP from review inception to April 2017. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data and outcomes. PEDro was used to assess methodological quality of the studies and the GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence Data were combined using a random effects meta-analysis and reported as standardized mean differences (SMD).

RESULTS

Eleven eligible RCT's including a total of 781 patients were found. Results show 'very low to moderate quality' evidence of a positive effect of MVCE on disability, both at the end of treatment and after 12 months (SMD -0.38 95%CI -0.68, -0.09 respectively 0.37 95%CI -0.61,-0.04). Pain intensity was significantly reduced after MVCE at the end of treatment (SMD -0.39 95%CI -0.69, -0.04), but not after 12 months (SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.62, 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

MVCE intervention for people with NSLBP and MVCI appears to be more effective in improving disability compared to other interventions, both over the short and long term. Pain was reduced only in the short term. An important factor is the initial identification of patients with MVCI. Registration of the study: The study protocol registration number is CRD42016036662 on PROSPERO.

Hip bone marrow edema presenting as low back pain: a case report

Background: Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is frequently managed by physiotherapists. However, physiotherapists in a direct access setting may encounter patients with serious medical conditions, such as Bone Marrow Edema Syndrome (BMES) of the hip with symptoms mimicking LBP. To our knowledge, this is the first case to describe hip BMES presenting as LBP. Diagnosis was based on the patient's symptoms in conjunction with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In order to avoid misdiagnosing the patient, primary care clinicians should be aware that BMES can mimic nonspecific LBP. Objective: To present a rare clinical presentation of BMES of the hip mimicking nonspecific LBP. To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first case to describe hip BMES presenting as mechanical nonspecific LBP. Case presentation: This case report describes the history, examination findings, and clinical reasoning used for a patient with LBP as a chief complaint. Furthermore, the clinical presentation (i.e. pain location and its changes related to load) and the symptoms behavior (i.e. immediate symptoms decrease after few hip treatment sessions and quick worsening of the hip pain related to loading activities) after two treatment sessions increased the suspicion of an underlying medical condition of the hip joint and lead to the decision for additional evaluation. A MRI showed a serious hip BMES. Conclusions: This case report highlights the importance of including a comprehensive and continuous differential diagnostic process throughout the treatment period, looking for those risk factors (i.e. red flags) that warrant further investigation and referral to the appropriate physician. Physiotherapy diagnosis should include clinical reasoning, clinical presentation, and symptom behavior in addition to appropriate referral for medical assessment and diagnostic imaging when appropriate. Physiotherapists working within a direct access environment have the competence and responsibility to participate with other health professionals in the differential diagnose process especially for patients presenting with serious pathology mimicking musculoskeletal disorders.

Directional preference and functional outcomes among subjects classified at high psychosocial risk using STarT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Physiotherapy has an important role in managing patients with non-specific low back pain who experience elevated psychosocial distress or risk for chronic disability. In terms of evidence-based physiotherapy practice, cognitive-behavioural approaches for patients at high psychosocial risk are the recommended management to improve patient treatment outcomes. Evidence also suggests that directional preference (DP) is an important treatment effect modifier for prescribing specific exercises for patients to improve outcomes. Little is known about the influence of treatment techniques based on DP on outcomes for patients classified as high psychosocial risk using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool. This study aimed to examine the association between functional status (FS) at rehabilitation discharge for patients experiencing low back pain classified at high STarT psychosocial risk and whose symptoms showed a DP versus No-DP.

METHODS

High STarT risk patients (n = 138) completed intake surveys, that is, the lumbar FS of Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., and STarT, and were evaluated for DP by physiotherapists credentialed in McKenzie methods. The FS measure of Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., was repeated at discharge. DP and No-DP prevalence rates were calculated. Associations between first-visit DP and No-DP and change in FS were assessed using univariate and multivariate regression models controlling for 11 risk-adjusted variables.

RESULTS

One hundred nine patients classified as high STarT risk had complete intake and discharge FS and DP data. Prevalence rate for DP was 65.1%. A significant and clinically important difference (7.98 FS points; p = .03) in change in function at discharge between DP and No-DP was observed after controlling for all confounding variables in the final model.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that interventions matched to DP are effective for managing high psychological risk patients and may provide physiotherapists with an alternative treatment pathway compared to managing similar patients with cognitive-behavioural approaches. Stricter research designs are required to validate study conclusions.

Latent class analysis derived subgroups of low back pain patients - do they have prognostic capacity?

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. One statistical technique that is increasingly being used is Latent Class Analysis as it performs subgrouping based on pattern recognition with high accuracy. Previously, we developed two novel suggestions for subgrouping patients with low back pain based on Latent Class Analysis of patient baseline characteristics (patient history and physical examination), which resulted in 7 subgroups when using a single-stage analysis, and 9 subgroups when using a two-stage approach. However, their prognostic capacity was unexplored. This study (i) determined whether the subgrouping approaches were associated with the future outcomes of pain intensity, pain frequency and disability, (ii) assessed whether one of these two approaches was more strongly or more consistently associated with these outcomes, and (iii) assessed the performance of the novel subgroupings as compared to the following variables: two existing subgrouping tools (STarT Back Tool and Quebec Task Force classification), four baseline characteristics and a group of previously identified domain-specific patient categorisations (collectively, the 'comparator variables').

METHODS

This was a longitudinal cohort study of 928 patients consulting for low back pain in primary care. The associations between each subgroup approach and outcomes at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months, and with weekly SMS responses were tested in linear regression models, and their prognostic capacity (variance explained) was compared to that of the comparator variables listed above.

RESULTS

The two previously identified subgroupings were similarly associated with all outcomes. The prognostic capacity of both subgroupings was better than that of the comparator variables, except for participants' recovery beliefs and the domain-specific categorisations, but was still limited. The explained variance ranged from 4.3%-6.9% for pain intensity and from 6.8%-20.3% for disability, and highest at the 2 weeks follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Latent Class-derived subgroups provided additional prognostic information when compared to a range of variables, but the improvements were not substantial enough to warrant further development into a new prognostic tool. Further research could investigate if these novel subgrouping approaches may help to improve existing tools that subgroup low back pain patients.

Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews

Background

Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization.

Methods

A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR.

Results

Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making.

Conclusions

This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Identifying subgroups of patients using latent class analysis: should we use a single-stage or a two-stage approach? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain

Background

Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain (LBP) is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) is a statistical technique that is increasingly being used to identify subgroups based on patient characteristics. However, as LBP is a complex multi-domain condition, the optimal approach when using LCA is unknown. Therefore, this paper describes the exploration of two approaches to LCA that may help improve the identification of clinically relevant and interpretable LBP subgroups.

Methods

From 928 LBP patients consulting a chiropractor, baseline data were used as input to the statistical subgrouping. In a single-stage LCA, all variables were modelled simultaneously to identify patient subgroups. In a two-stage LCA, we used the latent class membership from our previously published LCA within each of six domains of health (activity, contextual factors, pain, participation, physical impairment and psychology) (first stage) as the variables entered into the second stage of the two-stage LCA to identify patient subgroups. The description of the results of the single-stage and two-stage LCA was based on a combination of statistical performance measures, qualitative evaluation of clinical interpretability (face validity) and a subgroup membership comparison.

Results

For the single-stage LCA, a model solution with seven patient subgroups was preferred, and for the two-stage LCA, a nine patient subgroup model. Both approaches identified similar, but not identical, patient subgroups characterised by (i) mild intermittent LBP, (ii) recent severe LBP and activity limitations, (iii) very recent severe LBP with both activity and participation limitations, (iv) work-related LBP, (v) LBP and several negative consequences and (vi) LBP with nerve root involvement.

Conclusions

Both approaches identified clinically interpretable patient subgroups. The potential importance of these subgroups needs to be investigated by exploring whether they can be identified in other cohorts and by examining their possible association with patient outcomes. This may inform the selection of a preferred LCA approach.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1411-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Classification characteristics of a chronic low back pain population using a combined McKenzie and patho-anatomical assessment

BACKGROUND

Physiotherapists use musculo-skeletal classification systems for patient assessment. Since its early development, the McKenzie lumbar spine assessment (MK) has been incorporated into examination algorithms and combined with a series of patho-anatomical diagnostic tests. No previous studies have used a MK and a combined examination (MK-C) to provide a detailed profile of patients, report and compare the classification characteristics of a chronic low back pain (CLBP) population.

OBJECTIVE

To report the classification characteristics of a CLBP population using MK and MK-C examinations, and conduct inter-classification comparison of the MK-C for demographics, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Index (RM), Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire (MSPQ), symptom duration and intensity.

METHOD

A prospective cross-sectional study conducted in a spinal clinic by a MK trained physiotherapist.

RESULTS

Results were obtained in 150 patients. Using MK, 31% (n = 47) of participants were classified as inconclusive. Following MK-C only 6% of participants remained inconclusive (n = 9). The most frequent MK-C classification was facet joint syndrome (FJS) (49%). Participants with FJS were significantly older than those classified as discogenic (p < 0.001; CI 3.96 ̶ 19.74), or mixed (p < 0.001; CI 5.98 ̶ 36.41). Participants classified as discogenic had significantly higher RM (p = 0.022) and MSPQ (p = 0.005) scores than FJS.

CONCLUSION

Results indicated that 94% of CLBP patients could be classified using a MK-C. The most common presentation in CLBP was facet joint syndrome. Age, RM and MSPQ appeared to be distinguishing characteristics of this population. Future studies should be conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the MK-C.

Effect of Adding McKenzie Syndrome, Centralization, Directional Preference, and Psychosocial Classification Variables to a Risk-Adjusted Model Predicting Functional Status Outcomes for Patients With Lumbar Impairments

Study Design Retrospective cohort. Background Patient-classification subgroupings may be important prognostic factors explaining outcomes. Objectives To determine effects of adding classification variables (McKenzie syndrome and pain patterns, including centralization and directional preference; Symptom Checklist Back Pain Prediction Model [SCL BPPM]; and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire subscales of work and physical activity) to a baseline risk-adjusted model predicting functional status (FS) outcomes. Methods Consecutive patients completed a battery of questionnaires that gathered information on 11 risk-adjustment variables. Physical therapists trained in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy methods classified each patient by McKenzie syndromes and pain pattern. Functional status was assessed at discharge by patient-reported outcomes. Only patients with complete data were included. Risk of selection bias was assessed. Prediction of discharge FS was assessed using linear stepwise regression models, allowing 13 variables to enter the model. Significant variables were retained in subsequent models. Model power (R(2)) and beta coefficients for model variables were estimated. Results Two thousand sixty-six patients with lumbar impairments were evaluated. Of those, 994 (48%), 10 (<1%), and 601 (29%) were excluded due to incomplete psychosocial data, McKenzie classification data, and missing FS at discharge, respectively. The final sample for analyses was 723 (35%). Overall R(2) for the baseline prediction FS model was 0.40. Adding classification variables to the baseline model did not result in significant increases in R(2). McKenzie syndrome or pain pattern explained 2.8% and 3.0% of the variance, respectively. When pain pattern and SCL BPPM were added simultaneously, overall model R(2) increased to 0.44. Although none of these increases in R(2) were significant, some classification variables were stronger predictors compared with some other variables included in the baseline model. Conclusion The small added prognostic capabilities identified when combining McKenzie or pain-pattern classifications with the SCL BPPM classification did not significantly improve prediction of FS outcomes in this study. Additional research is warranted to investigate the importance of classification variables compared with those used in the baseline model to maximize predictive power. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(9):726-741. Epub 31 Jul 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6266.

Effects of individualised directional preference management versus advice for reducible discogenic pain: A pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back disorders are prevalent and directional preference management is a common treatment with mixed evidence for effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of individualised directional preference management plus guideline-based advice versus advice alone in participants with reducible discogenic pain of 6-week to 6-month duration.

DESIGN

Pre-planned secondary analysis of a multicentre, parallel group randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

Participants were randomly allocated to receive a 10-week physiotherapy program of 10-sessions of individualised directional preference management plus guideline-based advice (n = 40) or 2-sessions of advice alone (n = 38). Primary outcomes were back pain, leg pain and activity limitation. Outcomes were taken at baseline and 5, 10, 26, and 52-weeks.

RESULTS

Between-group differences significantly favoured directional preference management compared with advice for back pain at 5-weeks (1.28; 95% CI 0.34-2.23) and 10-weeks (1.45; 95% CI 0.51-2.40), and leg pain at 10-weeks (1.21; 95% CI 0.04-2.39). These short-term differences were not maintained. There were no significant differences between-groups for activity limitation. Secondary outcomes and responder analyses favoured directional preference management suggesting between-group differences were clinically important.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with reducible discogenic pain, individualised directional preference management plus guideline-based advice resulted in significant and rapid improvement in short-term back and leg pain compared with advice alone. These effects were not maintained at long-term and there were no differences in activity limitation. Individualised directional preference management could be considered for patients with reducible discogenic pain seeking rapid pain relief however further research is indicated.

Classification of patients with low back-related leg pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The identification of clinically relevant subgroups of low back pain (LBP) is considered the number one LBP research priority in primary care. One subgroup of LBP patients are those with back related leg pain. Leg pain frequently accompanies LBP and is associated with increased levels of disability and higher health costs than simple low back pain. Distinguishing between different types of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is important for clinical management and research applications, but there is currently no clear agreement on how to define and identify LBLP due to nerve root involvement. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise papers that classify or subgroup populations with LBLP, and summarise how leg pain due to nerve root involvement is described and diagnosed in the various systems.

METHODS

The search strategy involved nine electronic databases including Medline and Embase, reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Selected papers were appraised independently by two reviewers using a standardised scoring tool.

RESULTS

Of 13,358 initial potential eligible citations, 50 relevant papers were identified that reported on 22 classification systems. Papers were grouped according to purpose and criteria of the classification systems. Five themes emerged: (i) clinical features (ii) pathoanatomy (iii) treatment-based approach (iv) screening tools and prediction rules and (v) pain mechanisms. Three of the twenty two systems focused specifically on LBLP populations. Systems that scored highest following quality appraisal were ones where authors generally included statistical methods to develop their classifications, and supporting work had been published on the systems' validity, reliability and generalisability. There was lack of consistency in how LBLP due to nerve root involvement was described and diagnosed within the systems.

CONCLUSION

Numerous classification systems exist that include patients with leg pain, a minority of them focus specifically on distinguishing between different presentations of leg pain. Further work is needed to identify clinically meaningful subgroups of LBLP patients, ideally based on large primary care cohort populations and using recommended methods for classification system development.

Knowledge translation from continuing education to physiotherapy practice in classifying patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Physical therapists have used continuing education as a method of improving their skills in conducting clinical examination of patients with low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well the pathoanatomical classification of patients in acute or subacute LBP can be learned and applied through a continuing education format. The patients were seen in a direct access setting.

METHODS

The study was carried out in a large health-care center in Finland. The analysis included a total of 57 patient evaluations generated by six physical therapists on patients with LBP. We analyzed the consistency and level of agreement of the six physiotherapists' (PTs) diagnostic decisions, who participated in a 5-day, intensive continuing education session and also compared those with the diagnostic opinions of two expert physical therapists, who were blind to the original diagnostic decisions. Evaluation of the physical therapists' clinical examination of the patients was conducted by the two experts, in order to determine the accuracy and percentage agreement of the pathoanatomical diagnoses.

RESULTS

The percentage of agreement between the experts and PTs was 72-77%. The overall inter-examiner reliability (kappa coefficient) for the subgroup classification between the six PTs and two experts was 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.77], indicating good agreement between the PTs and the two experts. The overall inter-examiner reliability between the two experts was 0.63 (0.49-0.77) indicating good level of agreement.

DISCUSSION

Our results indicate that PTs' were able to apply their continuing education training to clinical reasoning and make consistently accurate pathoanatomic based diagnostic decisions for patients with LBP. This would suggest that continuing education short-courses provide a reasonable format for knowledge translation (KT) by which physical therapists can learn and apply new information related to the examination and differential diagnosis of patients in acute or subacute LBP.

Movement-based subgrouping in low back pain: synergy and divergence in approaches

BACKGROUND

Classification systems for low back pain (LBP) aim to guide treatment decisions. In physiotherapy, there are five classification schemes for LBP which consider responses to clinical movement examination. Little is known of the relationship between the schemes.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate overlap between subgroups of patients with LBP when classified using different movement-based classification schemes, and to consider how participants classified according to one scheme would be classified by another.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional cohort study.

SETTING

University clinical laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and two participants with LBP were recruited from university, hospital outpatient and private physiotherapy clinics, and community advertisements.

INTERVENTION

Participants underwent a standardised examination including questions and movement tests to guide subgrouping.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants were allocated to a LBP subgroup using each of the five classification schemes: Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT), Movement System Impairment (MSI), O'Sullivan Classification (OSC), Pathoanatomic Based Classification (PBC) and Treatment Based Classification (TBC).

RESULTS

There was concordance in allocation to subgroups that consider pain relief from direction-specific repeated spinal loading in the MDT, PBC and TBC schemes. There was consistency of subgrouping between the MSI and OSC schemes, which consider pain provocation to specific movement directions. Synergies between other subgroups were more variable. Participants from one subgroup could be subdivided using another scheme.

CONCLUSIONS

There is overlap and discordance between LBP subgrouping schemes that consider movement. Where overlap is present, schemes recommend different treatment options. Where subgroups from one scheme can be subdivided using another scheme, there is potential to further guide treatment. An integrated assessment model may refine treatment targeting.

Stratified models of care

Stratified care for back pain involves targeting treatment to subgroups of patients based on their key characteristics such as prognostic factors, likely response to treatment and underlying mechanisms. It aims to tailor therapeutic decisions in ways that maximise treatment benefit, reduce harm and increase health-care efficiency by offering the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. From being called the 'Holy Grail' of back pain research over a decade ago, stratified care is becoming the zeitgeist in research and clinical practice. In this chapter, we introduce and evaluate the quality and underpinning evidence for three examples of stratified care for back pain to highlight their general principles, research design issues and clinical practice implications. We include consideration of their merits for implementation in practice. We conclude with a set of remaining, key research questions.

Patient characteristics in low back pain subgroups based on an existing classification system. A descriptive cohort study in chiropractic practice

Sub-grouping of low back pain (LBP) is believed to improve prediction of prognosis and treatment effects. The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine whether chiropractic patients could be sub-grouped according to an existing pathoanatomically-based classification system, (2) to describe patient characteristics within each subgroup, and (3) to determine the proportion of patients in whom clinicians considered the classification to be unchanged after approximately 10 days. A cohort of 923 LBP patients was included during their first consultation. Patients completed an extensive questionnaire and were examined according to a standardised protocol. Based on the clinical examination, patients were classified into diagnostic subgroups. After approximately 10 days, chiropractors reported whether they considered the subgroup had changed. The most frequent subgroups were reducible and partly reducible disc syndromes followed by facet joint pain, dysfunction and sacroiliac (SI)-joint pain. Classification was inconclusive in 5% of the patients. Differences in pain, activity limitation, and psychological factors were small across subgroups. Within 10 days, 82% were reported to belong to the same subgroup as at the first visit. In conclusion, LBP patients could be classified according to a standardised protocol, and chiropractors considered most patient classifications to be unchanged within 10 days. Differences in patient characteristics between subgroups were very small, and the clinical relevance of the classification system should be investigated by testing its value as a prognostic factor or a treatment effect modifier. It is recommended that this classification system be combined with psychological and social factors if it is to be useful.

Preliminary evidence for the features of non-reducible discogenic low back pain: survey of an international physiotherapy expert panel with the Delphi technique

OBJECTIVES

The lumbar intervertebral disc is a known source of low back pain (LBP). Various clinical features of discogenic pain have been proposed, but none have been validated. Several subgroups of discogenic pain have been hypothesised, with non-reducible discogenic pain (NRDP) proposed as a relevant clinical subgroup. The objectives of this study were to obtain consensus from an expert panel on the features of discogenic low back pain, the existence of subgroups of discogenic LBP, particularly NRDP, and the associated features of NRDP.

DESIGN

Three-round Delphi survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one international physiotherapists with expertise in LBP.

METHODS

Panellists listed and ranked features that they believed to be indicative of discogenic pain and NRDP. On completion of Round 3, features with ≥50% agreement between panellists were deemed to have reached consensus.

RESULTS

After three rounds, 10 features of discogenic LBP were identified. Nineteen of the panellists believed that NRDP was a subgroup of discogenic LBP, and nine features of NRDP were identified.

CONCLUSION

This study provides preliminary validation for the features associated with discogenic LBP. It also provides evidence supporting the existence and features of NRDP as a separate clinical subgroup of discogenic LBP.

Complexity in the physiotherapy management of low back disorders: clinical and research implications

Over the past decade a wide variety of approaches for the management of low back disorders (LBD) have been developed and evaluated in clinical trials. As a consequence physiotherapists and researchers interested in LBD are faced with a range of issues to do with complexity. These issues will be explored and suggestions made to improve the delivery of high quality research evidence and better patient outcomes.

Prevalence of classification methods for patients with lumbar impairments using the McKenzie syndromes, pain pattern, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules

OBJECTIVES

Aims were (1) to determine the proportion of patients with lumbar impairments who could be classified at intake by McKenzie syndromes (McK) and pain pattern classification (PPCs) using Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) assessment methods, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and (2) for each Man CPR or Stab CPR category, determine classification prevalence rates using McK and PPC.

METHODS

Eight physical therapists practicing in eight diverse clinical settings classified patients typically referred to rehabilitation by McKenzie syndromes (i.e. derangement, dysfunction, posture, or other), pain pattern classification [i.e. centralization (CEN), not centralization (Non CEN), and not classified (NC)], Manipulation CPR (positive, negative), and stabilization CPR (positive, negative). Prevalence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each classification category by McK, PPC, and manipulation and stabilization CPRs. Prevalence rates (95% CIs) for McK and PPC were calculated for each CPR category separately.

RESULTS

Data from 628 adults [mean age: 52±17 years, 56% female] were analyzed. Prevalence rates were: McK - derangement 67%, dysfunction 5%, posture 0%, other 28%; PPC - CEN 43%, Non CEN 39%, NC 18%; manipulation CPR - positive 13%; Stab CPR - positive 7%. For patients positive for manipulation CPR (n = 79), prevalence rates for derangement were 89% and CEN 68%. For patients positive for stabilization CPR (n = 41), prevalence rates for derangement were 83% and CEN 80%.

DISCUSSION

The majority of patients classified based on initial clinical presentation by manipulation and stabilization CPRs were also classified as derangements whose symptoms centralized. Manipulation and stabilization CPRs may not represent a mutually exclusive treatment subgroup but may include patients who can be initially treated using a different classification method.

Clinician's ability to identify neck and low back interventions: an inter-rater chance-corrected agreement pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate inter-rater agreement of physical therapists trained in MDT approach and participating in practice-based evidence (PBE) research to identify 72 physical therapy interventions in video demonstrations on a single model and clinical vignettes. PBE is a well designed observational study and demonstrating clinician observational consistency is an important step in conducting PBE research design.

METHODS

Two physical therapists volunteered to participate in pilot reliability testing and seven other physical therapists trained in McKenzie Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) methods volunteered for the inter-rater chance-corrected agreement study. All therapists identified interventions presented within 52 videos and 5 written clinical vignettes describing 20 more intervention techniques. Therapists independently identified all interventions. We assessed inter-rater chance-corrected agreement of therapists' ability to identify intervention techniques using Kappa coefficients with associated 95% confidence intervals and indices for bias and prevalence.

RESULTS

Of the 147 kappa coefficients estimated, 7% were ⩽0·6, 10% were >0·6 and ⩽0·8, and 83% were >0·8. Agreement was lowest for identifying cognitive behavioral techniques (median kappa = 0·79). The minimum and maximum prevalence and bias indices were 0·33 and 0·85 and 0 and 0·33, respectively suggesting kappa coefficient estimates were strong. Generalized kappa coefficients ranged from 0·73 to 1·00.

DISCUSSION

Results provide evidence that substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement could be expected when trained therapists identify physical therapy interventions used for patients with spinal impairments from staged videos and vignettes. This may be helpful to reassure clinicians of the quality of the reporting of intervention(s) performed when conducting multivariable analyses in future pragmatic PBE studies. Additional studies are needed to test whether these results can be validated using larger groups of therapists, trained and not trained in MDT methods, as well as examining different methods to examine inter-rater agreement for identifying diverse interventions commonly used for managing patients during routine practice.

IFOMPT 2012: a rendez-vous of hands and minds

Since its founding in Montreal, Canada in 1974, the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) has been providing orthopaedic and manual therapists from around the world with the highest-quality learning opportunities through a conference held every 4 years. In 2012, IFOMPT is partnering with The International Private Practitioners Association (IPPA) to host this prestigious event in Quebec City, Canada. As more than 51% of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association membership is working in private practice, this adds even greater value to this quadrennial event. This conference emulates best-evidence practice in the marriage of research and clinical excellence by pulling together some of the best and brightest hands and minds in orthopaedic physiotherapy. Through a call for proposals that equally emphasized research, clinical excellence, and the knowledge translation link between the two, the IFOMPT mandate of clinical and academic excellence has been kept at the forefront of this year's conference. Included in this supplement are the IFOMPT 2012 keynote addresses, schedule, and abstracts.

Influence of directional preference on two clinical dichotomies: acute versus chronic pain and axial low back pain versus sciatica

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether outcomes from treatment determined by subjects' directional preference (ie, reduction in back and/or leg pain, by performing a single direction of repeated end-range lumbar movement) would vary based on pain duration, location, or neurologic status.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Eleven physical therapy departments or clinics in 5 countries, with referrals for both acute and chronic low back pain.

SUBJECTS

Seventy-one of 80 subjects with acute to chronic low back pain, and with and without radicular leg pain, and with or without mild neurologic deficit, were found at baseline to have a directional preference and were then treated with directional exercises that matched their directional preference.

METHODS

All of the subjects were treated for 2 weeks with directional exercises and compatible posture modifications. Independent variables were pain duration, pain location, and neurologic status.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Primary measures were back and leg pain intensity and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnare). Secondary measures were activity interference, medication use, depression (Beck Depression Inventory), and a self-report of improvement.

RESULTS

The subjects significantly improved their back and leg pain intensity, disability, and all secondary outcome measures, but pain duration, location, and neurologic status classification did not predict treatment responsiveness. Across all pain duration categories, 91%-100% either improved or resolved completely. There also was significant improvement across all pain location and neurologic status categories, with no significant differences across the outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects found to have a directional preference who then treated themselves with matching directional exercises, neither pain duration nor pain location and neurologic status predicted their uniformly good-to-excellent outcomes.

Centralization and directional preference: a systematic review

Centralization is a symptom response to repeated movements that can be used to classify patients into sub-groups, determine appropriate management strategies, and prognosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature relating to centralization and directional preference, and specifically report on prevalence, prognostic validity, reliability, loading strategies, and diagnostic implications. Search was conducted to June 2011; multiple study designs were considered. 62 studies were included in the review; 54 related to centralization and 8 to directional preference. The prevalence of centralization was 44.4% (range 11%-89%) in 4745 patients with back and neck pain in 29 studies; it was more prevalent in acute (74%) than sub-acute or chronic (42%) symptoms. The prevalence of directional preference was 70% (range 60%-78%) in 2368 patients with back or neck pain in 5 studies. Twenty-one of 23 studies supported the prognostic validity of centralization, including 3 high quality studies and 4 of moderate quality; whereas 2 moderate quality studies showed evidence that did not support the prognostic validity of centralization. Data on the prognostic validity of directional preference was limited to one study. Centralization and directional preference appear to be useful treatment effect modifiers in 7 out of 8 studies. Levels of reliability were very variable (kappa 0.15-0.9) in 5 studies. Findings of centralization or directional preference at baseline would appear to be useful indicators of management strategies and prognosis, and therefore warrant further investigation.

Pathoanatomy and classification of low back disorders

Over the past decade research into the effectiveness of low back disorders (LBDs) has focused on the classification of subgroups more likely to respond to specific treatment. Much of this research has explicitly excluded a focus on pathoanatomical factors based on a questionable interpretation of the biopsychosocial model. Common justifications and potential issues with this approach are explored with recommendations made for future clinical and research practice.

Physiotherapy movement based classification approaches to low back pain: comparison of subgroups through review and developer/expert survey

BACKGROUND

Several classification schemes, each with its own philosophy and categorizing method, subgroup low back pain (LBP) patients with the intent to guide treatment. Physiotherapy derived schemes usually have a movement impairment focus, but the extent to which other biological, psychological, and social factors of pain are encompassed requires exploration. Furthermore, within the prevailing 'biological' domain, the overlap of subgrouping strategies within the orthopaedic examination remains unexplored. The aim of this study was "to review and clarify through developer/expert survey, the theoretical basis and content of physical movement classification schemes, determine their relative reliability and similarities/differences, and to consider the extent of incorporation of the bio-psycho-social framework within the schemes".

METHODS

A database search for relevant articles related to LBP and subgrouping or classification was conducted. Five dominant movement-based schemes were identified: Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT), Treatment Based Classification (TBC), Pathoanatomic Based Classification (PBC), Movement System Impairment Classification (MSI), and O'Sullivan Classification System (OCS) schemes. Data were extracted and a survey sent to the classification scheme developers/experts to clarify operational criteria, reliability, decision-making, and converging/diverging elements between schemes. Survey results were integrated into the review and approval obtained for accuracy.

RESULTS

Considerable diversity exists between schemes in how movement informs subgrouping and in the consideration of broader neurosensory, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions of LBP. Despite differences in assessment philosophy, a common element lies in their objective to identify a movement pattern related to a pain reduction strategy. Two dominant movement paradigms emerge: (i) loading strategies (MDT, TBC, PBC) aimed at eliciting a phenomenon of centralisation of symptoms; and (ii) modified movement strategies (MSI, OCS) targeted towards documenting the movement impairments associated with the pain state.

CONCLUSIONS

Schemes vary on: the extent to which loading strategies are pursued; the assessment of movement dysfunction; and advocated treatment approaches. A biomechanical assessment predominates in the majority of schemes (MDT, PBC, MSI), certain psychosocial aspects (fear-avoidance) are considered in the TBC scheme, certain neurophysiologic (central versus peripherally mediated pain states) and psychosocial (cognitive and behavioural) aspects are considered in the OCS scheme.

Prevalence of pain-free weeks in chiropractic subjects with low back pain - a longitudinal study using data gathered with text messages

INTRODUCTION

The use of automated text messages has made it possible to identify different courses of low back pain (LBP), and it has been observed that pain often fluctuates and that absolute recovery is rather rare. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of pain-free weeks and pain-free periods in subjects with non-specific LBP treated by chiropractors, and to compare subjects from two different countries in these aspects.

METHODS

Data were obtained from two practice-based multicentre prospective outcome studies, one Danish and one Swedish, involving subjects being treated by chiropractors for non-specific LBP. Over 18 weeks, subjects answered a weekly automated text message question on the number of days in the past week that they had experienced bothersome LBP, i.e. a number between 0 and 7. The number of weeks in a row without any LBP at all ("zero weeks") as well as the maximum number of zero weeks in a row was determined for each individual. Comparisons were made between the two study samples. Estimates are presented as percentages with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In the Danish and the Swedish populations respectively, 93/110 (85%) and 233/262 (89%) of the subjects were eligible for analysis. In both groups, zero weeks were rather rare and were most commonly (in 40% of the zero weeks) reported as a single isolated week. The prevalence of pain free periods, i.e. reporting a maximum of 0, 1 or 2, or 3-6 zero weeks in a row, were similar in the two populations (20-31%). Smaller percentages were reported for ≥ 7 zero weeks in a row. There were no significant differences between the two study groups.

CONCLUSION

It was uncommon that chiropractic subjects treated for non-specific LBP experienced an entire week without any LBP at all over 18 weeks. When this occurred, it was most commonly reported for brief periods only. Hence, recovery in the sense that patients become absolutely pain free is rare, even in a primary care population.

The McKenzie method compared with manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice in low back pain patients presenting with centralization or peripheralization: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of the McKenzie method performed by certified therapists with spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors when used adjunctive to information and advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent guidelines recommend a structured exercise program tailored to the individual patient as well as manual therapy for the treatment of persistent low back pain. There is presently insufficient evidence to recommend the use of specific decision methods tailoring specific therapies to clinical subgroups of patients in primary care.

METHODS

A total of 350 patients suffering from low back pain with a duration of more than 6 weeks who presented with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms with or without signs of nerve root involvement, were enrolled in the trial. Main outcome was number of patients with treatment success defined as a reduction of at least 5 points or an absolute score below 5 points on the Roland Morris Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were reduction in disability and pain, global perceived effect, general health, mental health, lost work time, and medical care utilization.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in this study. At 2 months follow-up, the McKenzie treatment was superior to manipulation with respect to the number of patients who reported success after treatment (71% and 59%, respectively) (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.91, P = 0.018). The number needed to treat with the McKenzie method was 7 (95% CI 4 to 47). The McKenzie group showed improvement in level of disability compared to the manipulation group reaching a statistical significance at 2 and 12 months follow-up (mean difference 1.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, P = 0.022 and 1.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.9, P = 0.030, respectively). There was also a significant difference of 13% in number of patients reporting global perceived effect at end of treatment (P = 0.016). None of the other secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

In patients with low back pain for more than 6 weeks presenting with centralization or peripheralization of symptoms, we found the McKenzie method to be slightly more effective than manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice.

The role of classification of chronic low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the various ways chronic low back pain (CLBP) is classified, to determine if the classification systems are reliable and to assess whether classification-specific interventions have been shown to be effective in treating CLBP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A classification system by which individual patients with CLBP could be identified and directed to an effective treatment protocol would be beneficial. Those systems that direct treatment have the greatest potential influence on patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for English language literature published through January 2011. We included articles that specifically described a clinical classification system for CLBP, reported on the reliability of a classification system, or evaluated the effectiveness of classification-specific interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 60 articles were initially reviewed. We identified 28 classification systems that met inclusion criteria: 16 diagnostic systems, 7 prognostic systems, and 5 treatment-based systems. In addition, we found 10 randomized controlled trials of CLBP treatment from which we compared inclusion and exclusion criteria. Treatment-based systems were all directed at nonoperative management. Four of the 5 treatment-based systems underwent reliability testing and were found to have interobserver agreement of 70% to 100%. Reliability increased with training and familiarity with a given classification. As the number of subgroups within a classification increased, interobserver agreement decreased. Function and pain were similar between patients treated with the McKenzie classification system and those treated with dynamic strengthening training after 8 months of follow-up in one randomized controlled trial. One prospective cohort study reported better pain and function using the Canadian Back Institute Classification system than with standard rehabilitation. An analysis of the admission criteria to recent randomized studies with either nonoperative care or another surgical intervention provided a methodology for refining criteria to be met by patients considering surgery.

CONCLUSION

There currently are many classification systems for CLBP; some that are descriptive, some prognostic, and some that attempt to direct treatment. We recommend that no one classification system be adopted for all purposes. We further recommend that future efforts in developing a classification system focus on one that helps to direct both surgical and nonsurgical treatments.

CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

There currently are many classification systems for CLBP; some that are descriptive, some prognostic, and some that attempt to direct treatment. We recommend that no one classification system be adopted for all purposes. We further recommend that future efforts in developing a classification system focus on one that helps to direct both surgical and nonsurgical treatments.

Specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS): design of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy versus advice for people with subacute low back disorders

Background

Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups.

Methods/Design

A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial is proposed. A minimum of 250 participants with subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) low back pain and/or referred leg pain will be classified into one of five subgroups and then randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapy advice (2 sessions over 10 weeks) or specific physiotherapy treatment (10 sessions over 10 weeks) tailored according to the subgroup of the participant. Outcomes will be assessed at 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months and 12 months following randomisation. Primary outcomes will be activity limitation measured with a modified Oswestry Disability Index as well as leg and back pain intensity measured on separate 0-10 Numerical Rating Scales. Secondary outcomes will include a 7-point global rating of change scale, satisfaction with physiotherapy treatment, satisfaction with treatment results, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersomeness Scale, quality of life (EuroQol-5D), interference with work, and psychosocial risk factors (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire). Adverse events and co-interventions will also be measured. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat principles, using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, Mann Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes, and Chi-square, risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous outcomes.

Discussion

This trial will determine the difference in outcomes between specific physiotherapy treatment tailored to each of the five subgroups versus advice which is recommended in guidelines as a suitable treatment for most people with a low back disorder.

Trial registration

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12609000834257.

Association between centralization, depression, somatization, and disability among patients with nonspecific low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether depression and somatization subscores of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), which have been shown to identify chronic disability in individuals with nonspecific low back pain, are applicable to a different population of individuals with low back pain; and to determine if this potential association is confounded by a combination of centralization and subsequent treatment based on centralization.

BACKGROUND

To help direct management of patients with nonspecific low back pain, recommendations include performing tests designed to identify psychosocial risk factors predictive of poor patient outcomes. SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores have been shown to predict chronic disability among patients with low back pain.

METHODS

SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores and data on centralization were collected during the initial physical therapy examination of 231 consecutive patients treated for low back pain in 2 clinics. Disability was assessed by the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire at intake and discharge from physical therapy, and work status was determined by patient self-report at 6 and 12 months after discharge. Pain intensity was assessed by the numeric pain rating scale at the initial visit, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Data were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Odds ratios for the association between depression and somatization subscores and patient outcomes ranged from 0.76 to 2.93. For analyses in which the data suggested a trend toward an association, the association was less evident following adjustment for centralization and centralization-based treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, in which all individuals received physical therapy, and those who centralized received interventions based on the direction of centralization, SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores were moderately associated with chronic pain and disability. This association was reduced when centralization and centralization-based treatment was considered in multivariable analyses.

Research methods for subgrouping low back pain

Background

There is considerable clinician and researcher interest in whether the outcomes for patients with low back pain, and the efficiency of the health systems that treat them, can be improved by 'subgrouping research'. Subgrouping research seeks to identify subgroups of people who have clinically important distinctions in their treatment needs or prognoses. Due to a proliferation of research methods and variability in how subgrouping results are interpreted, it is timely to open discussion regarding a conceptual framework for the research designs and statistical methods available for subgrouping studies (a method framework). The aims of this debate article are: (1) to present a method framework to inform the design and evaluation of subgrouping research in low back pain, (2) to describe method options when investigating prognostic effects or subgroup treatment effects, and (3) to discuss the strengths and limitations of research methods suitable for the hypothesis-setting phase of subgroup studies.

Discussion

The proposed method framework proposes six phases for studies of subgroups: studies of assessment methods, hypothesis-setting studies, hypothesis-testing studies, narrow validation studies, broad validation studies, and impact analysis studies. This framework extends and relabels a classification system previously proposed by McGinn et al (2000) as suitable for studies of clinical prediction rules. This extended classification, and its descriptive terms, explicitly anchor research findings to the type of evidence each provides. The inclusive nature of the framework invites appropriate consideration of the results of diverse research designs. Method pathways are described for studies designed to test and quantify prognostic effects or subgroup treatment effects, and examples are discussed. The proposed method framework is presented as a roadmap for conversation amongst researchers and clinicians who plan, stage and perform subgrouping research.

Summary

This article proposes a research method framework for studies of subgroups in low back pain. Research designs and statistical methods appropriate for sequential phases in this research are discussed, with an emphasis on those suitable for hypothesis-setting studies of subgroups of people seeking care.

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: can low back pain patterns be predicted from the first consultation with a chiropractor? A longitudinal pilot study

BACKGROUND

It is widely believed that non-specific low back pain (LBP) consists of a number of subgroups which should be identified in order to improve treatment effects. In order to identify subgroups, patient characteristics that relate to different outcomes are searched for. However, LBP is often fluctuating or recurring rather than clearly limited in time. Therefore it would be relevant to consider outcome after completed treatment from a longitudinal perspective (describing "course patterns") instead of defining it from an arbitrarily selected end-point.

AIMS

The objectives of this pilot study were to investigate the interobserver reliability of a diagnostic classification system and to evaluate whether diagnostic classes or other baseline characteristics are associated with the LBP course pattern over a period of 18 weeks.

METHODS

Patients visiting one of 7 chiropractors because of LBP were classified according to a diagnostic classification system, which includes end-range loading, SI-joint pain provocation tests, neurological examination and tests for muscle tenderness and abnormal nerve tension. In addition, age, gender, duration of pain and presence of leg pain were registered in the patient's file. By weekly SMS-messages on their mobile phones, patients were asked how many days they had LBP the preceding week, and these answers were transformed into pain course patterns and the total number of LBP days.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were included and 76 (69%) completed follow-up. Thirty-five patients were examined by two chiropractors. The agreement regarding diagnostic classes was 83% (95% CI: 70 - 96). The diagnostic classes were associated with the pain course patterns and number of LBP days. Patients with disc pain had the highest number of LBP days and patients with muscular pain reported the fewest (35 vs. 12 days, p < 0.01). Men had better outcome than women (17 vs. 29 days, p < 0.01) and patients without leg pain tended to have fewer LBP days than those with leg pain (21 vs.31 days, p = 0.06). Duration of LBP at the first visit was not associated with outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The study indicated that there is a clinically meaningful relationship between diagnostic classes and the course of LBP. This should be evaluated in more depth.