Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments to Assess Chronic Low Back Pain

Open-Label Placebo Injection for Chronic Back Pain With Functional Neuroimaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability. Placebo treatments often provide as much pain relief as bona fide treatments, such as steroid injections. Open-label (honestly prescribed) placebos (OLPs) may relieve CBP without deception, but OLP mechanisms remain poorly understood.

Objective

To investigate the long-term efficacy and neurobiological mechanisms of OLP for CBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized clinical trial of CBP with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) comparing OLP with usual care, with 1-year follow-up, was conducted in a university research setting and a community orthopedic clinic. Participants were individuals aged 21 to 70 years with CBP. The trial was conducted from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Data analysis was performed from April 2020 to May 2024. The primary analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat sample.

Interventions

Participants randomized to OLP received a 1-time subcutaneous lumbar saline injection presented as placebo accompanied by information about the power of placebo to relieve pain, alongside their ongoing care. Usual care participants continued their ongoing care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain intensity (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the most intense) at 1 month posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included pain interference, depression, anxiety, anger, and sleep quality. Functional MRI was performed before and after treatment during evoked and spontaneous back pain.

Results

A total of 101 adults (52 [51.4%] females; mean [SD] age, 40.4 [15.4] years) with moderate severity CBP (mean [SD], 4.10 [1.25] intensity; duration, 9.7 [8.5] years) were enrolled. Compared with usual care, OLP reduced CBP intensity posttreatment (relative reduction, 0.61; Hedges g = 0.45; 95% CI, -0.89 to 0.04; P = .02). Through 1-year follow-up, pain relief did not persist, although significant benefits were observed for depression, anger, anxiety, and sleep disruption (Hedges g = 0.3-0.5; all P < .03). Brain responses to evoked back pain for OLP vs usual care increased in rostral anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and decreased in somatomotor cortices and thalamus. During spontaneous pain, functional connectivity analyses identified OLP vs usual care increases in ventromedial prefrontal cortex connectivity to the rostral ventral medulla, a pain-modulatory brainstem nucleus. No adverse effects of treatment were reported by participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of OLP vs usual care, a single nondeceptive placebo injection reduced CBP intensity for 1 month posttreatment and provided benefits lasting for at least 1 year posttreatment. Brain mechanisms of OLP in a clinical population overlap with those of deceptive placebos in healthy volunteers, including engagement of prefrontal-brainstem pain modulatory pathways.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

Responsiveness and minimal important change of specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures for back patients: the Norwegian Neck and Back Register

PURPOSE

To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain during activity on a numeric rating scale (NRSa) and health related quality of life (EQ-5D) based on data from the Norwegian neck and back registry (NNRR).

METHODS

A total of 1617 patients who responded to NNRR follow-up after both 6 and 12 months were included in this study. Responsiveness was calculated using standardized response mean and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We calculated MIC with both an anchor-based and distribution-based method.

RESULTS

The condition specific ODI had best responsiveness, the more generic NRSa and EQ-5D had lower responsiveness. We found that the MIC for ODI varied from 3.0 to 9.5, from 0.4 to 2.5 for NRSa while the EQ5D varied from 0.05 to 0.12 depending on the method for calculation.

CONCLUSION

In a register based back pain population, the condition specific ODI was more responsive to change than the more generic tools NRSa and EQ5D. The variations in responsiveness and MIC estimates also indicate that they should be regarded as indicative, rather than fixed estimates.

To what degree patient-reported symptoms of central sensitization, kinesiophobia, disability, sleep, and life quality associated with 24-h heart rate variability and actigraphy measurements?

OBJECTIVES

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is associated with decreased parasympathetic and increased sympathetic activity in the autonomic nervous system. The objective of this study was to determine the associations between objective measures of heart rate variability (a measure of autonomic nervous system function), actigraphy (a measure of activity and sleep quality), respiration rates, and subjective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of central sensitization, kinesiophobia, disability, the effect of pain on sleep, and life quality.

METHODS

Thirty-eight study subjects were divided into two subgroups, including low symptoms of central sensitization (n = 18) and high symptoms of central sensitization (n = 20), based on patient-reported scores on the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI). Heart rate variability (HRV) and actigraphy measurements were carried out simultaneously in 24 h measurement during wakefulness and sleep.

RESULTS

A decrease in HRV during the first 2 h of sleep was stronger in the low CSI subgroup compared to the high CSI subgroup. Otherwise, all other HRV and actigraphy parameters and subjective measures of central sensitization, disability, kinesiophobia, the effect of pain on sleep, and quality of life showed only little associations.

DISCUSSION

The high CSI subgroup reported significantly more severe symptoms of disability, kinesiophobia, sleep, and quality of life compared to the low CSI subgroup. However, there were only small and nonsignificant trend in increased sympathetic nervous system activity and poorer sleep quality on the high central sensitization subgroup. Moreover, very little differences in respiratory rates were found between the groups.

Back pain and disability according to early onset scoliosis etiology in children younger than 10 years

PURPOSE

To determine caregiver-reported back pain prevalence, disability, pain interference, and associations with curve magnitude in early onset scoliosis (EOS) using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) measures.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective review was performed in children below 10 years of age according to EOS etiology. Caregiver-reported back pain prevalence, ODI, PROMIS Pain Interference, Mobility, and Anxiety measures, and curve magnitude were recorded as part of routine clinic appointments.

RESULTS

A total of 1212 patients with EOS (588 idiopathic, 295 congenital, 217 neuromuscular, 112 syndromic) ages 6.6 ± 2.7 were included; 23% had caregiver-reported back pain. Neuromuscular EOS patients had the highest prevalence of back pain (29%). ODI scores were higher in neuromuscular (48%) and syndromic (35%) patients than congenital (20%, p < 0.05) and idiopathic (16%, p < 0.01) patients. Neuromuscular patients also had higher PROMIS Pain Interference scores (53.3) compared to idiopathic (41.6, p < 0.001) and syndromic (45.0, p = 0.016) patients. A higher curve was associated with the presence of back pain (39° vs. 30°, p < 0.001) and had positive correlations with ODI scores (r = 0.38, p < 0.001) and PROMIS Pain Interference scores (r = 0.34, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Approximately one in five children with EOS under the age of 10 have caregiver-reported back pain, with the neuromuscular EOS type exhibiting higher pain prevalence, interference, and disability scores. Larger curve magnitude is associated with an increased prevalence of caregiver-reported back pain, increased disability, and increased pain interference.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 - case-control study.

Can they touch? A novel mental motor imagery task for the assessment of back pain

Introduction

As motor imagery is informed by the anticipated sensory consequences of action, including pain, we reasoned that motor imagery could provide a useful indicator of chronic back pain. We tested the hypothesis that mental motor imagery regarding body movements can provide a reliable assessment of low back pain.

Methods

Eighty-five subjects with back pain and forty-five age-matched controls were shown two names of body parts and asked to indicate if they could imagine moving so that the named body parts touched. Three types of imagined movements were interrogated: movements of arms, movements of legs and movements requiring flexion and/or rotation of the low back.

Results

Accuracy and reaction times were measured. Subjects with back pain were less likely to indicate that they could touch body parts than age-matched controls. The effect was observed only for those movements that required movement of the low back or legs, suggesting that the effect was not attributable to task difficulty or non-specific effects. There was an effect of pain severity. Compared to subjects with mild pain, subjects with severe pain were significantly less likely to indicate that they could move so that named body parts touched. There was a correlation between pain ratings and impaired performance for stimuli that involved the lower but not upper body.

Discussion

As the Can They Touch task is quick, easy to administer and does not require an explicit judgment of pain severity, it may provide useful information to supplement the assessment of subjects with chronic pain.

Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Finnish version of the pain catastrophizing scale in chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

The 13-item pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) is the most commonly used measure of pain catastrophizing. A validated Finnish version of the PCS has previously been unavailable. The objectives were to translate the original English version of the PCS into Finnish (PCS-FI), then to evaluate (i) structural validity of the PCS-FI with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (ii) internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha, Omega, and Omega hierarchical, (iii) convergent validity with measures of well-being, quality of life, sleep quality, symptoms of central sensitization, and anxiety, and (iv) known-groups validity between participants with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and pain-free controls.

METHODS

The translation process was performed with established guidelines. The PCS-FI was psychometrically validated using 92 participants with CLBP and 53 pain-free controls.

RESULTS

Structural validity with CFA supported a bifactor solution. However, low reliability was found for the three specific factors (ω h ranging from 0.14 to 0.18) compared to the general factor (ω h = 0.88) suggesting that only the total score should be used. Convergent validity analysis showed satisfactory correlations and medium effect sizes with the other patient-reported outcome measures. Participants with CLBP had significantly higher total PCS-FI scores than pain-free controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCS-FI appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing pain-related catastrophizing in Finnish-speaking populations. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Savo Hospital District, identification number 2131/2022, on the 31st of January 2022.

Arabic-Translated Versions of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilized in Spine Research: A Review of Validated Studies

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized tools commonly applied in research and healthcare appraisal. Most were developed in English and the cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) and validation of their translated versions remain topics of contemporary research appeal. This review aimed to identify the Arabic-translated PROMs that were utilized in spine research and to assess the methodological qualities of their studies. The PubMed database was searched, and all relevant publications were identified. The CCA and measurement properties were assessed using the guidelines described by Oliveria and Terwee respectively. Thirty studies that validated the Arabic versions of 26 PROMs were found suitable. The tools that had the highest total citation numbers were Neck Disability Index, Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Scoliosis Research Society-22, Back Beliefs Questionnaire, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form. The Arabic versions of Short Form-36 (SF-36), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were not included due to lack of validation in spine research. All the articles were published from 2007 to 2023 (median 2019) and their journal's impact factor and citation numbers were relatively modest (mean 2 and 6.5 respectively). Most patients had low back pain (19 articles), were recruited from physiotherapy and rehabilitation departments (18 articles) and came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (12 articles). The quality of the CCA of the Arabic versions was rated good in forward translation, synthesis, back translation, and expert committee review but less so in pretesting and submission. The measurement properties of the studies were considered good quality in internal consistency, reliability, structural validity and cross-cultural validity but less so in content validity, error measurement, responsiveness and floor/ceiling effect. In conclusion, with a few exceptions, most of the widely utilized PROMs in spine research have validated Arabic versions. The methodological quality of the studies was good apart from a few shortages that could be improved upon by further research. Work should be done to address the validation of Arabic versions of SF-36, VAS and EQ-5D in spine research. PROMs are valuable in systematizing subjective outcomes. Their usage in research and clinical settings in any validated language should be highly encouraged.

Various Doses of Tanezumab in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP): A Pooled Analysis of 4,514 Patients

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a persistent and debilitating condition characterized by pain and discomfort in the lower back region that lasts more than 12 weeks. This review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of various doses of tanezumab for managing CLBP. The present meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention standards. We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing tanezumab to placebo or different dosage regimens for CLBP in adult patients. The primary outcome was the mean change in low back pain intensity (LBPI) score baseline to the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and the degree of disability or impairment. A total of six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of the data showed that tanezumab 5 mg significantly reduced LBPI compared to placebo at all time points (mean deviation (MD) ranging from -0.31 to -0.5). Similarly, tanezumab 10 mg showed a significant reduction in LBPI compared to placebo at all time points (MD ranging from -0.48 to -0.84). However, tanezumab 5 mg showed significantly less reduction of LBPI compared to 10 mg at two, four, eight, and 12 weeks (MD ranging from 0.19 to 0.32). These findings suggest that tanezumab is an effective treatment for CLBP, with 5 mg and 10 mg doses providing clinically meaningful reductions in LBPI.

Review of the Most Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Studies Published in the Neurospine Surgical Literature

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated tools that are widely utilized in research and patient care. Their diversity, quality, and application remain matters of peak research interest. This article is a review of the PROMs that were utilized in high-impact publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The 50 most cited articles on the subject were selected and analysed. Most (42 articles) were published in spine journals and, in particular, in the journal Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (28 articles). A total of 34 PROMs were utilized, of which 24 were used only once in single studies. The four most common PROMs were Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) (15 articles), Short Form-12 and Short Form-36 (SF-12 and SF-36) (11 articles), Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (nine articles), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (five articles). Nineteen articles focused on validating translated versions of 11 PROMs to other languages. The languages that had the maximal number of tools translated to amongst the highly cited articles were Italian (six tools), Portuguese (four tools), German (three tools), and Japanese (three tools). The most common diagnoses and the PROMs used for them were back pain and cervical spine disorder (SF-12 and SF-36 (nine articles), RMDQ (eight articles), and ODI (five articles)), and idiopathic scoliosis (SRS-22) (14 articles)). The median (range) article citation number was 137 (78-675). The four most cited PROMs were SRS-22 (2,869), SF-12 and SF-36 (2,558), RMDQ (1,456), and ODI (852). Citation numbers were positively impacted by article age and participant number but not by tool type or clinical diagnosis. In conclusion, a wide range of PROMs was utilized in the 50 most cited publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The majority were disease-specific rather than generic and targeted particular spine pathology. Neurosurgical PROMs were under-represented amongst the most cited articles. Awareness of the PROMs used in high-impact studies may be helpful in tool selection in future research. PROMs are valuable in standardizing subjective outcomes. Their use in research and clinical settings in any validated language is highly encouraged.

Determination of Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Oswestry Disability Index Score in Patients Who Underwent Minimally Invasive Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: 2-Year Follow-up Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

We aim to determinate the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score in patients undergoing minimally invasive discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of prospectively collected, 2-year follow-up data was conducted. The anchor for determination of PASS was the European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scales question, and the Pearson correlation test was performed to evaluate its validity. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to determine the PASS thresholds for ODI and its discriminative ability assessment. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out for alternative definition of PASS, different follow-up periods, and different subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients (92.1%) completed the 2-year follow-up, 92.8% of whom considered their state to be acceptable. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) were all >0.8, indicating a high discriminative ability. The PASS threshold for the ODI was suggested to be 5 at 6 months (AUC: 0.80; sensitivity: 79.0%, specificity: 73.7%) and 2 years (AUC: 0.98; sensitivity: 90.3%, specificity: 100%) postoperatively. Despite some variations found in different body mass index and baseline ODI subgroups, sensitivity analysis showed that the above-mentioned threshold was robust.

CONCLUSIONS

An ODI of 5 was noted to be the PASS threshold for patients received minimally invasive discectomy for the treatment of LDH. This ODI threshold was robust, and therefore recommended as the ultimate goal of minimally invasive treatment for LDH, which can help to present results of clinical research at an individual level.

A cross-sectional study to validate an administrative back pain severity classification tool based on the graded chronic pain scale

Treatment of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) should be stratified for best medical and economic outcome. To improve the targeting of potential participants for exclusive therapy offers from payers, Freytag et al. developed a tool to classify back pain chronicity classes (CC) based on claim data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the model. Administrative claim data and self-reported patient information from 3,506 participants (2014-2021) in a private health insurance health management programme in Germany were used to validate the tool. Sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC) were calculated comparing the prediction with actual grades based on von Korff's graded chronic pain scale (GCPS). The secondary outcome was an updated view on direct health care costs (€) of patients with back pain (BP) grouped by GCPS. Results showed a fair correlation between predicted CC and actual GCPS grades. A total of 69.7% of all cases were correctly classified. Sensitivity and specificity rates of 54.6 and 76.4% underlined precision. Correlation between CC and GCPS with an MCC of 0.304 also indicated a fair relationship between prediction and observation. Cost data could be clearly grouped by GCPS: the higher the grade, the higher the costs and the use of health care. This was the first study to compare the predicted severity of BP using claim data with the actual severity of BP by GCPS. Based on the results, the usage of CC as a single tool to determine who receives CLBP treatment cannot be recommended. CC is a good tool to segment candidates for specific types of intervention in BP. However, it cannot replace a medical screening at the beginning of an intervention, as the rate of false negatives is too high. Trial registration The study was conducted using routinely collected data from an intervention, which was previously evaluated and registered retrospectively in the German Registry of Clinical Trials under DRKS00015463 (04/09/2018). Informed consent and the self-reported questionnaire have remained unchanged since the study and, therefore, are still valid according to the ethics proposal.

Clinical Meaningfulness of Response to Tanezumab in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Analysis From a 56-Week, Randomized, Placebo- and Tramadol-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

A recent phase 3, randomized, placebo- and tramadol-controlled trial (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up) demonstrated efficacy of tanezumab 10 mg in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and a history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics. Here, we report on the clinical meaningfulness of treatment response in this study, focused on secondary measures of pain, interference with daily functions, overall disease status, and satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

Patients received placebo (up to week 16; n = 406), subcutaneously administered (SC) tanezumab 5 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), SC tanezumab 10 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), or orally administered tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day; n = 605) for 56 weeks. Patient's global assessment of low back pain (PGA-LBP), Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-sf), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and modified Patient-Reported Treatment Impact (mPRTI) were assessed at weeks 16 and 56.

RESULTS

At week 16, significant (p < 0.05) improvements over placebo were evident with tanezumab for the PGA-LBP (10 mg) and most BPI-sf (both doses), TSQM (both doses), and mPRTI (both doses) items assessed. Improvements over baseline persisted for the PGA-LBP and BPI-sf at week 56. However, the magnitude of improvements was modestly lower at week 56 relative to week 16. Tramadol did not improve PGA-LBP or BPI-sf scores versus placebo at week 16. Most differences between tanezumab and tramadol at week 56 did not reach the level of statistical significance for all endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

The totality of the evidence as captured by measures of pain, interference with daily function, patient overall assessment of disease status, and satisfaction with treatment demonstrates the clinically meaningful benefit of tanezumab for some patients with CLBP compared with placebo.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT02528253.

The effect of long-term opioid use on back-specific disability and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly utilized for the treatment of chronic pain. However, research regarding the long-term (≥12 months) outcomes of opioid therapy remains sparse.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the effects of long-term opioid therapy on measures of back-specific disability and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with chronic low back pain who reported consistent opioid use or abstinence for at least 12 months while enrolled in the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation Pain Research Registry were classified as long-term opioid users or nonusers, respectively. For comparison, intermediate-term and short-term opioid users and nonusers were also identified. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to compare back-specific disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) and health-related quality of life (29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) between opioid users and nonusers while controlling for pain intensity, depression, age, body mass index (BMI), and eight common comorbid conditions (herniated disc, sciatica, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and asthma). Statistically significant findings were assessed for clinical relevance.

RESULTS

There were 96 long-term opioid users and 204 long-term opioid nonusers. After controlling for potential confounders, long-term opioid use was a predictor of worse back-specific disability (adjusted mean difference=2.85, p<0.001), physical function (adjusted mean difference=-2.90, p=0.001), fatigue (adjusted mean difference=4.32, p=0.001), participation in social roles (adjusted mean difference=-4.10, p<0.001), and pain interference (adjusted mean difference=3.88, p<0.001) outcomes. Intermediate-term opioid use was a predictor of worse back-specific disability (adjusted mean difference=2.41, p<0.001), physical function (adjusted mean difference=-2.26, p=0.003), fatigue (adjusted mean difference=3.70, p=0.002), and sleep disturbance outcomes (adjusted mean difference=3.03, p=0.004), whereas short-term opioid use was a predictor of worse back-specific disability (adjusted mean difference=2.42, p<0.001) and physical function outcomes (adjusted mean difference=-1.90, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study are largely consistent with existing literature regarding the outcomes of long-term opioid therapy. Taken in conjunction with the well-established risks of opioid medications, these findings draw into question the utility of long-term opioid therapy for chronic low back pain.

Assessment of Low Back Pain: Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of the Brief Pain Inventory

IMPORTANCE

The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is one of the most widely used measures to assess pain and related impacts among patients with low back pain (LBP). However, its test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) have rarely been examined in patients with LBP, interfering with its utility.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the test-retest reliability and MDC of the BPI among patients with LBP.

DESIGN

Repeated assessments design with a 1-wk interval.

SETTING

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in a hospital in Taiwan.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-four patients with stable LBP conditions.

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The BPI has two subscales-Intensity and Interference-that assess pain intensity and pain interference, respectively. Their test-retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and MDCs were calculated.

RESULTS

The ICCs of the Intensity and Interference subscales were .62 and .76, respectively. The MDC values for the two subscales were 2.57 and 2.34, respectively. For the four Intensity items, the average-pain score had a higher ICC (.60) than scores on the other items (worst, least, and current pain, which had ICCs of about .40).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results suggest that although the BPI is a commonly used measure of pain intensity and pain interference among patients with LBP, caution should be exercised in interpreting the Intensity subscale score and its item scores. What This Article Adds: The BPI is widely used to assess pain and related impacts on daily occupation and functioning among patients with LBP. This study provides information regarding its test-retest reliability. Moreover, the MDC values provide clinicians and researchers with the thresholds for determining real improvement (beyond random measurement error).

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a single-arm, pragmatic, pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for U.S. veterans with chronic low back pain

Background

Over 25% of veterans seeking care at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities have chronic low back pain (LBP), with high rates of mental health comorbidities. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection to prepare for the subsequent randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for pain management of veterans with chronic low back pain. The secondary objectives were to estimate effect sizes and variability of the primary outcome and choose secondary outcomes for the full-scale trial.

Methods

This single-arm pilot trial enrolled 40 veterans with chronic LBP at one Veterans Health Administration facility for a 10-week course of pragmatic multimodal chiropractic care. Recruitment was by (1) provider referral, (2) invitational letter from the electronic health record pre-screening, and (3) standard direct recruitment. We administered patient-reported outcome assessments through an email link to REDCap, an electronic data capture platform, at baseline and 5 additional timepoints. Retention was tracked through adherence to the treatment plan and completion rates of outcome assessments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline characteristics and outcome variables.

Results

We screened 91 veterans over 6 months to enroll our goal of 40 participants. Seventy percent were recruited through provider referrals. Mean age (range) was 53 (22–79) years and 23% were female; 95% had mental health comorbidities. The mean number of chiropractic visits was 4.5 (1–7). Participants adhered to their treatment plan, with exception of 3 who attended only their first visit. All participants completed assessments at the in-person baseline visit and 80% at the week 10 final endpoint. We had no issues administering assessments via REDCap. We observed clinically important improvements on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [mean change (SD): 3.6 (6.1)] and on PROMIS® pain interference [mean change (SD): 3.6 (5.6)], which will be our primary and key secondary outcome, respectively, for the full-scale trial.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection for conducting a pragmatic clinical trial of chiropractic care in a Veterans Health Administration facility. Using the pilot data and lessons learned, we modified and refined a protocol for a full-scale, multisite, pragmatic, National Institutes of Health-funded randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for veterans with chronic LBP that began recruitment in February 2021.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01008-0.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability, and Psychophysical Validation of the Pain and Sleep Questionnaire Three-Item Index in Finnish

Reciprocal relationships between chronic musculoskeletal pain and various sleep disturbances are well established. The Pain and Sleep Questionnaire three-item index (PSQ-3) is a concise, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that directly evaluates how sleep is affected by chronic low back pain (CLBP). Translation and cross-cultural validation of The Pain and Sleep Questionnaire three-item index Finnish version (PSQ-3-FI) were conducted according to established guidelines. The validation sample was 229 subjects, including 42 pain-free controls and 187 subjects with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our aims were to evaluate internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminative validity and, furthermore, to study the relationships between dizziness, postural control on a force plate, and objective sleep quality metrics and total PSQ-3-FI score. The PSQ-3-FI demonstrated good internal consistency, excellent test-retest reliability, and small measurement error. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed acceptable fit indices to a one-factor model. Convergent validity indicated fair to good correlation with pain history and well-established pain-related PROMs. The PSQ-3-FI total score successfully distinguished between the groups with no pain, single-site pain, and multisite pain. A higher prevalence of dizziness, more impaired postural control, and a general trend towards poorer sleep quality were observed among subjects with higher PSQ-3-FI scores. Postural control instability was more evident in eyes-open tests. The Finnish PSQ-3 translation was successfully cross-culturally adapted and validated. The PSQ-3-FI appears to be a valid and reliable PROM for the Finnish-speaking CLBP population. More widespread implementation of PSQ-3 would lead to better understanding of the direct effects of pain on sleep.

Comparison of patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures in lower back rehabilitation: introducing a new integrated performance measure (t2D)

Purpose

Patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures (PROMs, CROMs) are used in rehabilitation to evaluate and track the patient’s health status and recovery. However, controversy still exists regarding their relevance and validity when assessing a change in health status.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the changes in a CROM (Fingertip-To-Floor Test – FTF) and PROMs (ODI, HAQ-DI, NPRS, EQ5D) and the associations between these outcomes in 395 patients with lower back pain (57.2 ± 11.8 years, 49.1% female). We introduced a new way to measure and classify outcome performance using a distribution-based approach (t2D). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 21 days of inpatient rehabilitation.

Results

Overall, the rehabilitation (Cohens d = 0.94) resulted in a large effect size outcome. Medium effect sizes were observed for FTF (d = 0.70) and PROMs (d > 0.50). Best performance rating was observed for pain (NPRS). We found that 13.9% of patients exhibited a deterioration in the PROMs, but only 2.3%, in the FTF. The correlation between the PROMs and FTF were low to moderate, with the highest identified for HAQ-DI (rho = 0.30–0.36); no significant correlations could be shown for changes. High consistency levels were observed among the performance scores (t2D) in 68.9% of the patients.

Conclusions

Different and complementary assessment modalities of PROMs and CROMs can be used as valuable tools in the clinical setting. Results from both types of measurements and individual performance assessments in patients provide a valid basis for the meaningful interpretation of the patients’ health outcomes.

Trial registration. This clinical study was entered retrospectively on August 14, 2020 into the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, registration number: DRKS00022854).

Measurement Properties of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Revised Short McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in Pain-related Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically locate, critically appraise, and summarize clinical measurement research addressing the use of Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Revised Short McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in pain-related musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched 4 databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SCOPUS) and screened articles to identify those reporting the psychometric properties (eg, validity, reliability) and interpretability (eg, minimal clinically important difference) of BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 as evaluated in pain-related MSK conditions. Independently, 2 reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence with a structured quality appraisal tool and the updated COSMIN guidelines.

RESULTS

In all, 26 articles were included (BPI-SF, n=17; SF-MPQ-2, n=9). Both tools lack reporting on their cross-cultural validities and measurement error indices (eg, standard error of measurement). High-quality studies suggest the tools are internally consistent (α=0.83 to 0.96), and they associate modestly with similar outcomes (r=0.3 to 0.69). Strong evidence suggests the BPI-SF conforms to its 2-dimensional structure in MSK studies; the SF-MPQ-2 4-factor structure was not clearly established. Seven reports of high-to-moderate quality evidence were supportive of the BPI-SF known-group validity (n=2) and responsiveness (n=5). One report of high quality established the SF-MPQ-2 responsiveness.

DISCUSSION

Evidence of high-to-moderate quality supports the internal consistency, criterion-convergent validity, structural validity, and responsiveness of the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 and establishes their use as generic multidimensional pain outcomes in MSK populations. However, more studies of high quality are still needed on their retest reliability, known-group validity, cross-cultural validity, interpretability properties, and measurement error indices in different MSK populations.

Assessment of functioning and disability in patients with low back pain - the low back pain assessment tool. Part 1: development

PURPOSE

To present the process used to develop the low back pain (LBP) assessment tool including evaluation of the initial content validity of the tool.

METHODS

The development process comprised the elements: definition of construct and content, literature search, item generation, needs assessment, piloting, adaptations, design, and technical production. The LBP assessment tool was developed to assess the construct "functioning and disability" as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Involvement of patients and health professionals was essential.

RESULTS

The elements were collapsed into five steps. In total, 18 patients and 12 health professionals contributed to the content and the design of the tool. The LBP assessment tool covered all ICF components shared among 63 ICF categories.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the process used to develop the LBP assessment tool, which is the first tool to address all ICF components and integrate biopsychosocial perspectives provided by patients and health professionals in the same tool. Initial evaluation of content validity showed adequate reflection of the construct "functioning and disability". Further work on the way will evaluate comprehensiveness, acceptability, and degree of implementation of the LBP assessment tool to strengthen its use for clinical practice.Implications for RehabilitationA biopsychosocial and patients-centred approach is a strong foundation for identifying the many relevant aspects related to low back pain (LBP).Responding to a lack of tools to support a biopsychosocial and patients-centred approach the LBP assessment tool was developed using a robust, multi-step process with involvement of patients and health professionals.The LBP assessment tool is a strong candidate for a user-friendly tool to facilitate use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in routine clinical practice.

Therapeutic Effectiveness of AxioBionics Wearable Therapy Pain Management System in Patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain

Chronic lower back pain is one of the most common medical conditions leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. This study retrospectively analyzed whether the AxioBionics Wearable Therapy Pain Management (WTPM) System, a customized and wearable electrical stimulation device, alleviated chronic lower back pain, and improved muscular function. This study assessed self-reported pain levels using the visual analog scale before and during the use of the AxioBionics WTPM System when performing normal activities such as sitting, standing, and walking (n = 69). Results showed that both at-rest and activity-related pain were significantly reduced during treatment with the AxioBionics WTPM System (% reduction in pain: 64% and 60%, respectively; P < .05). Thus, this study suggests that the AxioBionics WTPM System is efficacious in treating chronic lower back pain even when other therapies have failed to sufficiently decrease reported pain levels.

Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? (WELBack) trial predicting response to exercise treatments for patients with low back pain: a validation randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Exercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Participants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04283409.

Musculoskeletal applications of infrared thermography on back and neck syndromes: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Thermography is a noninvasive method to detect temperature changes on or near the surface of the body. Despite its utility has not yet been fully verified, it may be used as a complementary method to screening and/or monitoring treatment effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the role of infrared thermography as a helpful outcome measure tool in subjects with back and neck syndromes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted across the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), Web of Science and Scopus databases for studies that evaluated the role of infrared thermography as a helpful outcome measure tool in subjects with back and neck syndromes. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search strategy and selection criteria yielded 812 articles. From these, 268 duplicates were removed, and only 16 were in line with the aim of this review. Ultimately, only seven precisely fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the review. According to the articles reviewed, thermography seems to give an objective notion of change in inflammatory activity, which can corroborate the usefulness of treatment or the improvement/worsening of the patient's symptoms. The overall quality of research was uneven in the study design, endpoint measures, and sample characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of high-quality studies of the role of infrared thermography in patients with back and neck syndromes remains limited. More than a diagnostic tool, thermography can be an objective tool for monitoring the effectiveness of treatment by identifying deviations from a healthy state.

Measurement Properties of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and the Revised Short McGill Pain Questionnaire-Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in Pain-related Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review Protocol

Background

The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Revised Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are generic pain assessment tools used in research and practice for pain assessment in musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. A comprehensive review that systematically analyses their measurement properties in MSK conditions has not been performed. This review protocol describes the steps that will be taken to locate, critically appraise, compare and summarize clinical measurement research on the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in pain-related MSK conditions.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus will be searched for publications that examine the measurement properties of the Brief Pain Inventory and Revised Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Version-2. Two reviewers will independently screen citations (title, abstract and full text) and extract relevant data. The extensiveness, rigor, and quality of measurement property reports will be examined with a structured measurement studies appraisal tool, and with the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Findings will be descriptively summarized, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be performed.

Discussion

This review will summarize and compare the current level of evidence on the measurement properties of the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in a spectrum of musculoskeletal conditions. We expect clinicians/researchers dealing with MSK conditions to have synthesized evidence that informs their decision making and preferences. In addition, the review hopes to identify gaps and determine priorities for future research with or on the BPI-SF and SF-MPQ-2 in MSK conditions.

Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Rehabilitation Settings: A Systematic Review of Facilitators and Barriers Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines the facilitators and barriers to the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in outpatient rehabilitation settings and provides strategies to improve care to maximize patient outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Eleven databases were systematically searched from November 2018 to May 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently assessed articles based on the following inclusion criteria: English text, evaluate barriers and facilitators, include PROMs, and occur in an outpatient rehabilitation setting (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech language pathology, or athletic training). Of the 10,164 articles initially screened, 15 articles were included in this study.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted from the selected articles by 2 independent reviewers and put into an extraction template and into the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) was conducted on each study to assess study design, risk of bias, and reporting quality of the eligible studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ten studies were identified as high quality, according to the AXIS. Based on the CFIR model, the top barriers identified focused on clinician training and time in the implementation process, lack of recognized value and knowledge at the individual level, lack of access and support in the inner setting, and inability of patients to complete PROMs in the intervention process. Facilitators were identified as education in the implementation process, support and availability of PROMs in the inner setting, and recognized value at the individual level.

CONCLUSIONS

More barriers than facilitators have been identified, which is consistent with PROM underuse. Clinicians and administrators should find opportunities to overcome the barriers identified and leverage the facilitators to improve routine PROM use and maximize patient outcomes.

Compensatory spinopelvic motions with and without a handheld task following a perturbation in standing between subjects with and without chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

A handheld task-related compensation strategy could be used to avoid injuries in subjects with chronic low back pain (LBP). Those who suffer with LBP demonstrate reduced spinopelvic motion; however, there is a lack of understanding on dynamic mobility with a handheld task.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are there differences in three-dimensional spinopelvic motions following a treadmill-induced perturbation in subjects with LBP while considering a handheld task?

METHODS

Twenty-five subjects (11 female and 14 male) with LBP and 38 control subjects (15 female and 23 male) participated in the study. Each group was introduced to walking perturbations (0.86 m/sec, velocity in 0.1 sec) with and without a handheld tray in a standing position. The induced trip allowed subjects to recover by walking forward for a 5 second duration while the spinopelvic angles were measured during the trip and the subsequent recovery period.

RESULTS

There was no significant group difference in the three-dimensional (3D) spinopelvic motions while holding or not holding a tray. However, the groups demonstrated a significant interaction on tray usage with 3D motions in the spinopelvic regions (F = 13.46, p = 0.001). The sagittal plane motion was significantly minimized with a handheld task for both the lumbar spine and pelvis in the LBP group.

SIGNIFICANCE

The LBP group demonstrated minimized lumbar and pelvic motions in the sagittal plane, which underpins their concern to reduce motion while holding a tray. The significant interaction between groups on tray usage for spinopelvic compensation represents a strategy for avoiding injuries. Further studies are required to determine strategies to enhance lumbopelvic integration with handheld tasks in individuals with LBP.

Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales

PURPOSE

To study the various pain assessment tools based on their psychometric properties and ease of use.

METHODS

Published articles on psychometric properties of pain tools were accessed and data collected for low back pain (LBP)-specific tools, generic tools, neuropathic LBP tools, tools for cognitively impaired patients, and tools for acute LBP.

RESULTS

Among the LBP-specific tools, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have good construct validity and reliability, and responsiveness over short intervals. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) gauges only disability and sleep. Among the generic tools, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) show good responsiveness, but BPI is the only tool validated for LBP. Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and Short Form-MPQ-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are both reliable tools for neuropathic LBP. For cognitively impaired patients, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Abbey Pain Scale (APS), and Doloplus-2 are all reliable tools, but PAINAD has good construct validity. For acute pain, Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) is reliable and responsive, but presently, unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 are the tools most preferred.

CONCLUSION

Based on psychometric properties and ease of use, the best tools for LBP seem to be RMDQ/ODI (among LBP-specific tools), BPI (among generic tools), SF-MPQ-2/NPS (for neuropathic LBP), PAINAD (for cognitively impaired patients), and unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 (for acute pain). Overall, BPI seems to be a tool that can be relied upon the most. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Structural and socio-cultural barriers to accessing mental healthcare among Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland

Background: Due to their experiences of major stressful life events, including post-displacement stressors, refugees and asylum seekers are vulnerable to developing mental health problems. Yet, despite the availability of specialized mental health services in Western European host countries, refugees and asylum seekers display low mental healthcare utilization. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore structural and socio-cultural barriers to accessing mental healthcare among Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland. Method: In this qualitative study, key-informant (KI) interviews with Syrian refugees and asylum seekers, Swiss healthcare providers and other stakeholders (e.g. refugee coordinators or leaders) were conducted in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Participants were recruited using snowball sampling. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, and then analysed using thematic analysis, combining deductive and inductive coding. Results: Findings show that Syrian refugees and asylum seekers face multiple structural and socio-cultural barriers, with socio-cultural barriers being perceived as more pronounced. Syrian key informants, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders identified language, gatekeeper-associated problems, lack of resources, lack of awareness, fear of stigma and a mismatch between the local health system and perceived needs of Syrian refugees and asylum seekers as key barriers to accessing care. Conclusions: The results show that for Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland several barriers exist. This is in line with previous findings. A possible solution for the current situation might be to increase the agility of the service system in general and to improve the willingness to embrace innovative paths, rather than adapting mental healthcare services regarding single barriers and needs of a new target population.

Adaptation of the Multidimensional Pain Evaluation Scale: A Cross-Cultural Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Instruments to measure pain must be cross-culturally adapted through rigorous processes, so they can provide equivalence of measure regardless of the context in which they are applied. The study aim was to perform a cross-cultural adaptation of Multidimensional Pain Evaluation Scale (MPES) for use in the United States.

METHODS

Cross-cultural adaptation study entailed translation, back translation, and review by a committee, face and content validity and pilot testing with 90 participants with acute or chronic pain from United States. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated.

RESULTS

Some items of MPES was changed to maintain the highest level of similarity between the original scales in Portuguese and adapted to English.

CONCLUSION

The Cronbach's alpha was high showed this scale has internal consistency and reliability.

The effectiveness of traditional Thai massage versus massage with herbal compress among elderly patients with low back pain: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of including an herbal compress in a traditional Thai massage regimen for the care of low back pain in the elderly.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a randomised controlled trial. The sample consisted of 140 patients suffering from non-specific chronic low back pain, who were randomly assigned to either the TTM (n = 70) or TMH (n = 70) group. The primary outcome was pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale), and the secondary outcomes were disability, back performance and quality of life. The outcome measurements were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks and 15 weeks.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the primary and secondary outcomes between the two study groups (p-value > 0.05). Although improvement was observed for both groups in pain intensity, disability, quality of life, and back performance.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no additional benefit of including an herbal compress in a regimen of Thai massage for the care of low back pain in the elderly.

The association between pain intensity and disability in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, treated with spinal cord stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Pain researchers demonstrated that pain intensity is not the most reliable measure of the success of chronic-pain treatment. Several research groups have proposed "core outcome domains", such as measurements of disability, to assess the effect of an intervention in pain patients. Up till now, studies investigating the relation between pain intensity and disability in patients treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are lacking. Therefore, the current objective is to examine which pain-reporting strategy, routinely used in pain research, associates best with the degree of disability in these patients.

METHODS

Eighty-one failed back surgery syndrome patients (37 males and 44 females, mean age 54.6 years), treated with high-dose spinal cord stimulation (HD-SCS) are recruited. Pain intensity was scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) for leg and back pain, while disability was assessed with the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The association between both variables was investigated with Spearman's correlation and Cramér's V.

RESULTS

Significant correlations (p < 0.001) are found between the absolute and relative differences of the ODI and NRS. Significant associations were found between reported cut-offs in literature (≤3, ≤5, and 50% pain relief) and the degree of disability. Finally, a significant association (p < 0.001) was found between the minimal clinical important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we showed that the degree of disability was strongly associated with the pain intensity as measured using different methods. The standard method for reporting pain intensity reduction (50%) seems to associate the strongest with the degree of disability. However, a low degree of disability does not always reflect a low pain intensity.Implications for rehabilitationThe degree of disability reveals a good association with the reporting methods of pain intensity from the literature.The Oswestry disability index could serve as a valid tool to measure the effect of spinal cord stimulation on pain.Disability measures offer a better insight in the clinical profile of chronic pain patients than a pain intensity score.

Comparing functioning in spinal cord injury and in chronic spinal pain with two ICF-based instruments: WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the two briefest validated ICF-based (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) tools can detect differences between different spinal conditions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University hospital rehabilitation clinic.

SUBJECTS

A total of 84 patients with spinal cord injury and 81 with chronic spinal pain.

MAIN MEASURES

Disability evaluated using self-reported and proxy 12-item WHODAS 2.0 ((World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule), and physician-rated WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health.

FINDINGS

The two measures used showed severe disability in both patient populations, those with spinal cord injury (mean age 47.5 years, SD 13.2) and those with chronic spinal pain (mean age 47.2 years, SD 9.5), WHODAS patient sum being 18.4 (SD 9.6) versus 22.0 (SD 9.0), P < 0.05, and the WHO generic data set 15.6 (SD 4.4) versus 14.2 (SD 3.7), P < 0.01, respectively. Correlations between patient and proxy ratings and between the two disability scales were mostly strong. Severe restrictions were found in the working ability of both the populations, in mobility of patients with spinal cord injury and in pain function of patients with chronic spinal pain. In this tertiary clinic patient population, patients with spinal pain perceived more problems in emotional and cognitive functions, and in participation than patients with spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Both scales were able to find differences between two patient populations with severe disability.

Lessons from Outside and Within: Exploring Advancements in Methodology for Naturopathic Medicine Clinical Research

INTRODUCTION

Naturopathy is a mixture of both traditional and complementary medicine. It incorporates a broad set of health care practices that may or may not be traditional to that country or conventional medicine and are not fully integrated into the dominant health care system. Research required to evaluate or substantiate naturopathic medicine may not fall under the testing of randomized clinical trials, which opens up discussions on what is the best practice for research in naturopathic medicine.

DISCUSSION

Not only do advances in health research methodology offer important opportunities to progress naturopathic research, there are also areas where the unique characteristics of naturopathic philosophy and practice can impact other areas of health research. Some of the new advances in health research methodology involve whole-system research, pragmatic trials, template for intervention description and replication protocols for complex interventions, patient-centered care models, and the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool for designing pragmatic trials. Discussion and critique of these health-related methodologies shows that these research methods are more suited for the philosophy and treatment options that naturopathy is based on.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of naturopathic research methodologies, and translation and dissemination of research will require a substantial paradigm shift in which naturopathic practitioners adopt a greater level of responsibility for developing an evidence base for naturopathic medicine.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2-The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I)

We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (-0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 1-the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain - Symptoms (PAL-S)

We describe the mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Qualitative methods (concept elicitation and cognitive interviews) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts and quantitative methods (classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory) were used to evaluate item- and scale-level performance of the measure using an iterative approach. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and interview-based assessment of paper-to-electronic mode equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of patients with self-reported cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and a physician-diagnosed cohort of patients with cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the measure. The PAL-S contained 14 items describing symptoms (overall pain, sharp, prickling, sensitive, tender, radiating, shocking, shooting, burning, squeezing, muscle spasms, throbbing, aching, and stiffness). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.91]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with total score and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (Pearson correlation -0.79), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (0.73), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0.67), and MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.65). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Respondent interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-S has demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in cLBP clinical trials.