Primary care research priorities in low back pain: an update

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice.

METHODS

In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.

RESULTS

We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies.

CONCLUSION

An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research.

REGISTER

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

Treatment effect modifiers for individuals with acute low back pain: secondary analysis of the TARGET trial

ABSTRACT

Treatment effect modifiers identify patient characteristics associated with treatment responses. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to identify potential treatment effect modifiers for disability from the TARGET trial that compared usual care (control) with usual care + psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). The sample consisted of a STarT Back tool identified high-risk patients with acute low back pain that completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data at index visit and 6 months later (n = 1250). Candidate treatment effect modifiers were identified a priori and informed by the literature. Linear mixed models tested for treatment effect modification through tests of statistical interaction. All statistical interactions ( P ≤ 0.20) were stratified by modifier to inspect for specific effects ( P ≤ 0.05). Smoking was identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment * smoking interaction, P = 0.08). In participants who were smokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 5.5; 95% CI: 0.6-10.4; P = 0.03) compared with usual care. In participants who were nonsmokers, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 1.5; 95% CI: -1.4 to 4.4; P = 0.31) compared with usual care. Pain medication was also identified as a potential effect modifier (treatment × pain medication interaction, P = 0.10). In participants prescribed ≥3 pain medications, the effect of PIPT was (ODI = 7.1; 95% CI: -0.1 to 14.2; P = 0.05) compared with usual care. The PIPT effect for participants prescribed no pain medication was (ODI = 3.5; 95% CI: -0.4 to 7.4; P = 0.08) and for participants prescribed 1 to 2 pain medications was (ODI = 0.6; 95% CI: -2.5 to 3.7; P = 0.70) when compared with usual care. These findings may be used for generating hypotheses and planning future clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of tailored application of PIPT.

The cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Spanish version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Introduction

In chronic low back pain (CLBP), disturbed body image has been highlighted as a contributor to the condition and a potential target for treatment. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) allows its assessment. Following international guidelines for the cross-cultural translation of questionnaires, we aimed to translate the FreBAQ into Spanish (FreBAQ-S) and validate the new questionnaire in a sample of Spanish-speaking people with CLBP.

Methods

Two hundred and sixty-four adults with CLBP (91 males) and 128 healthy controls (34 males) completed an online form including the FreBAQ-S and questionnaires related to the pain experience. All participants were Spanish and no gender identities differing from biological sex were reported. A week later, 113 CLBP participants and 45 healthy controls (41 and 13 males, respectively), re-answered the FreBAQ-S to evaluate test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor and multigroup analysis assessed the scale consistency on the patient sample. Discriminant and convergent validity were explored by between-group differences and the relationship with clinical characteristics. Reliability relied on Cronbach's alpha estimates and test-retest (intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change).

Results and discussion

Confirmatory factor analysis showed a one-factor structure of the questionnaire, without supporting evidence for item deletion (CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.07; SRMRu = 0.064). Multigroup analyses do not support mean invariance between groups regarding health condition or sex. The FreBAQ-S demonstrated good discriminant and convergent validity, internal consistency (α = 0.82), and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78; SE = 3.41; MDC = 5.12). The FreBAQ-S is a valid and reliable tool to assess back awareness in clinical and non-clinical samples.

Distinction of non-specific low back pain patients with proprioceptive disorders from healthy individuals by linear discriminant analysis

The central nervous system (CNS) dynamically employs a sophisticated weighting strategy of sensory input, including vision, vestibular and proprioception signals, towards attaining optimal postural control during different conditions. Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) patients frequently demonstrate postural control deficiencies which are generally attributed to challenges in proprioceptive reweighting, where they often rely on an ankle strategy regardless of postural conditions. Such impairment could lead to potential loss of balance, increased risk of falling, and Low back pain recurrence. In this study, linear and non-linear indicators were extracted from center-of-pressure (COP) and trunk sagittal angle data based on 4 conditions of vibration positioning (vibration on the back, ankle, none or both), 2 surface conditions (foam or rigid), and 2 different groups (healthy and non-specific low back pain patients). Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was performed on linear and non-linear indicators to identify the best sensory condition towards accurate distinction of non-specific low back pain patients from healthy controls. Two indicators: Phase Plane Portrait _ML and Entropy _ML with foam surface condition and both ankle and back vibration on, were able to completely differentiate the non-specific low back pain groups. The proposed methodology can help clinicians quantitatively assess the sensory status of non-specific low back pain patients at the initial phase of diagnosis and throughout treatment. Although the results demonstrated the potential effectiveness of our approach in Low back pain patient distinction, a larger and more diverse population is required for comprehensive validation.

Unsupervised Machine Learning on Motion Capture Data Uncovers Movement Strategies in Low Back Pain

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability and opioid prescriptions worldwide, representing a significant medical and socioeconomic problem. Clinical heterogeneity of LBP limits accurate diagnosis and precise treatment planning, culminating in poor patient outcomes. A current priority of LBP research is the development of objective, multidimensional assessment tools that subgroup LBP patients based on neurobiological pain mechanisms, to facilitate matching patients with the optimal therapies. Using unsupervised machine learning on full body biomechanics, including kinematics, dynamics, and muscle forces, captured with a marker-less depth camera, this study identified a forward-leaning sit-to-stand strategy (STS) as a discriminating movement biomarker for LBP subjects. A forward-leaning STS strategy, as opposed to a vertical rise strategy seen in the control participants, is less efficient and results in increased spinal loads. Inefficient STS with the subsequent higher spinal loading may be a biomarker of poor motor control in LBP patients as well as a potential source of the ongoing symptomology.

Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland – Eine systematische Analyse von Publikationen der physioscience der letzten 10 Jahre

Hintergrund Forschungsprioritäten können dazu beitragen, Evidenz in den Bereichen zu entwickeln, die für Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen am wichtigsten sind. Forschungsprioritäten werden jedoch in der biomedizinischen Forschung nur unzureichend berücksichtigt.

Ziel Beschreibung der Berücksichtigung von Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland.

Methode Analyse von physiotherapeutischen Berichten aus Deutschland, die zwischen 2011 und 2020 in der Fachzeitschrift physioscience publiziert wurden. Für jeden eingeschlossenen Bericht wurde die primäre Forschungsfrage und/oder der Hauptgegenstandsbereich identifiziert und, falls möglich, einem spezifischen Gesundheitszustand zugeordnet. Danach wurde für jeden Bericht geprüft, ob eine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität (von der James Lind Alliance oder aus wissenschaftlichen Datenbanken) bzw. eine der Top 26 der physiotherapiespezifischen Forschungsprioritäten des britischen Berufsverbandes „The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP)“ aus 2018 adressiert wurde. Die Datenanalyse erfolgte deskriptiv.

Ergebnisse Es konnten 78 Berichte in die Analyse eingeschlossen werden. Die häufigsten Studientypen waren Übersichtsarbeiten (17/78, 22 %), Beobachtungsstudien (16/78, 21 %) und Umfragen (13/78, 17 %). Für die Analyse der gesundheitszustandsspezifischen Forschungsprioritäten konnten 51 Berichte berücksichtigt werden. In 51 % dieser Berichte (26/51) wurde eine der 10 wichtigsten Forschungsprioritäten des jeweiligen Themengebiets adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde keine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität berücksichtigt (13/51, 25 %) oder die Priorität gehörte nicht zu den Top Ten (12/51, 24 %).

Für die Analyse der physiotherapeutischen Forschungsprioritäten wurden alle 78 Berichte berücksichtigt. In 21 % dieser Berichte (16/78) wurde eine Top-Ten-Priorität adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde eine weniger wichtige Priorität adressiert (Listenplatz 11–26; 25/78, 32 %) oder das Forschungsthema des Berichts gehörte nicht zu den Top 26 (37/78, 47 %).

Schlussfolgerung Die vorliegende Studie liefert erste Hinweise darauf, dass Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland nur unzureichend berücksichtigt werden. Ein erheblicher Teil der Forschung scheint somit an den Bedürfnissen von Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen vorbeizugehen. Die Berücksichtigung existierender Forschungsprioritäten und die Entwicklung nationaler Forschungsprioritäten für die Physiotherapie in Deutschland könnten dazu beitragen, den Nutzen der physiotherapeutischen Forschung für die öffentliche Gesundheit zu vergrößern.

Proprioceptive acuity is core for back awareness in chronic low back pain: Further analysis of the content validity of the Spanish version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Treatments aimed at increasing self-perception may improve chronic low back pain (CLBP) symptomatology and present novel management approaches. Consequently, it is important to have valid, complete, and reliable tools for its assessment, and to understand which variables influence altered back awareness. We aimed to evaluate the face/content validity of the Spanish version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ-S) among people with and without CLBP, and to explore additional variables suggested to be involved in back awareness. A total of 264 individuals with CLBP and 128 healthy controls (HC) answered an online survey, including the FreBAQ-S, and questions regarding the completeness, comprehensibility, time-to-complete adequacy, and time spent completing it. If participants declared a lack of completeness, they had to report which aspects would be incorporated into the questionnaire to explore additional back-awareness-related variables. A statistically significant difference in completeness emerged between groups (p < 0.01). The questionnaire was comprehensible for more than 85% of participants, regardless of the group (p = 0.45). CLBP participants spent significantly more time in completing the questionnaire than controls (p < 0.01), but no differences were found between groups regarding the time-to-complete adequacy (p = 0.49). Regarding the back-awareness-related variables, 77 suggestions from CLBP group and seven from the HC were received. Most of them were related to proprioceptive acuity such as posture, weight, or movement patterns, among others. The FreBAQ-S demonstrated adequate face/content validity, completeness, comprehensibility, and adequate time of response. The feedback provided will help improve currently available assessment tools.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany

Background

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) is highly recommended for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) treatment, but its economic benefit remains to be clearly demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of a 12-month MBR programme of behavioural change coaching and device-supported exercise on direct medical costs, sick leave and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 24 months.

Methods

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Germany from a private health insurance perspective using data from a multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel-group Zelen's randomisation and 24-month follow-up. After removing dissimilarities in characteristics between MBR and usual care (control) via propensity score matching, treatment effects were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach.

Results

Base-case analysis of the MBR (n=112) and usual care group (n=111) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8,296 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Compared to the controls, MBR reduced economically unaccounted sick leave due to back pain in the last six months by 17.5 days (p = 0.001) and had a positive effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (0.046, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis of participants with major impairment demonstrated that a dominant intervention was possible, as reflected by an ICER of - €7,302 per QALY. Savings were driven by a - €1,824 reduction in back pain-specific costs. Moreover, sick leave was 27 days (p = 0.006) less in the MBR group.

Conclusions

This first cost-effectiveness study with combined data from a private health insurer and a controlled trial in Germany demonstrated that long term MBR for the treatment of CLBP is cost-effective. Subgroups with major impairment from back pain benefitted more from the intervention than those with minor impairment. MBR significantly reduced sick leave in all participants. Hence, it is a profitable intervention from a societal point of view.

Trial registration

The trial of the evaluation study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under trial number DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).

Income as a Predictor of Self-Efficacy for Managing Pain and for Coping With Symptoms Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain self-efficacy (PSE) and coping self-efficacy (CSE) for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and to assess whether lower income may be associated with less PSE and CSE in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study using survey data collected between June 2016 and February 2017 from n = 1364 patients with CLBP from chiropractic clinics in the United States to measure the relationship between income and both types of self-efficacy. We created 4 multivariate models predicting PSE and CSE scores. We used both a parsimonious set of covariates (age, sex) and a full set (age, sex, education, neck pain comorbidity, catastrophizing, and insurance). We also calculated effect sizes (Cohen's d) for unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE score by income.

RESULTS

Lower income was associated with lower PSE and CSE scores across all 4 models. In the full models, the highest-income group had an average of 1 point (1-10 scale) higher PSE score and CSE score compared to the lowest income group. Effect sizes for the unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE scores between the highest and lowest income groups were 0.94 and 0.84, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that people with lower income perceive themselves as less able to manage their pain, and that this relationship exists even after taking into account factors like health insurance and educational attainment. There is a need to further investigate how practitioners and policymakers can best support low-income patients with chronic pain.

Education With Therapeutic Alliance Did Not Improve Symptoms in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Low Risk of Poor Prognosis Compared to Education Without Therapeutic Alliance: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of an education intervention with or without the addition of the therapeutic alliance to no education intervention in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP) and low risk of poor prognosis.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial. Randomization was performed using randomly generated numbers.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-two patients with nonspecific chronic LBP and low risk of poor prognosis from 2 university physical therapy services in Taubaté, Brazil were randomized into 3 groups: education plus therapeutic alliance, education only, and no education. Primary outcomes were pain (measured with the numeric pain-rating scale) and patient-specific disability (measured with the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), assessed 1 month after randomization. The patients, therapists, and assessors were not blinded due to the nature of the intervention and self-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients were recruited between November 2015 and February 2017. There was a loss of 17 (7.6%) follow-up assessments at 1 month, 28 (12.6%) at 6 months, and 31 (13.9%) at 12 months after randomization, and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. There were no significant differences in pain between groups. However, there was a significant improvement in patient-specific disability for the education-plus-therapeutic alliance and education-only groups compared to no education after 1 month (mean difference, -1.41; 95% confidence interval: -2.31, -0.51 and -0.95; 95% confidence interval: -1.85, -0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSION

An education intervention did not provide clinically relevant improvements in patient-specific disability and did not influence pain in patients with nonspecific chronic LBP and low risk of poor prognosis. Additionally, there was no difference between interventions with or without emphasis on the therapeutic alliance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(8):392-400. Epub 7 May 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9636.

Investigating the Mechanisms of Graded Sensorimotor Precision Training in Adults With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Causal Mediation Analysis of the RESOLVE Trial

Background

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem associated with an increasing burden on individuals, health care systems, and society. Common treatments for people with CLBP produce, on average, small short-term improvements in pain and function compared with minimal care. The RESOLVE trial randomly allocated 276 people with CLBP to a new complex treatment strategy, pain education integrated with graded sensorimotor precision training (RESOLVE), or a sham control. The RESOLVE treatment was developed within a theoretical framework to target possible treatment mechanisms associated with CLBP development and persistence.

Objective

This protocol describes the planned evaluation of these proposed treatment mechanisms. Improved understanding of the mechanisms underpinning the RESOLVE treatment may guide its refinement and implementation.

Methods

We will use causal mediation analysis to evaluate the proposed treatment mechanisms, including pain self-efficacy, back beliefs, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, back perception, tactile acuity, and movement coordination. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function at 18 weeks following allocation. Data were collected blind to allocation and hypotheses at baseline (mediators, outcomes, confounders), end of treatment (mediators), and at 18 weeks following allocation (outcomes). We will test the robustness of our findings by conducting planned sensitivity analyses.

Results

Ethical approval was granted by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC15357). A total of 276 participants have been recruited from primary care practices and the community in Sydney, Australia.

Conclusions

The RESOLVE treatment constitutes a new paradigm for CLBP management with potentially wide-reaching implications. This mechanistic evaluation will provide evidence for the hypothesized treatment mechanisms and help explain why the treatment strategy did or did not have an effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results will help guide the treatment refinement and implementation.

Trial Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000610538; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619&isReview=true

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26053

Lack of Consensus Across Clinical Guidelines Regarding the Role of Psychosocial Factors Within Low Back Pain Care: A Systematic Review

It is widely accepted that psychosocial prognostic factors should be addressed by clinicians in their assessment and management of patient suffering from low back pain (LBP). On the other hand, an overview is missing how these factors are addressed in clinical LBP guidelines. Therefore, our objective was to summarize and compare recommendations regarding the assessment and management of psychosocial prognostic factors for LBP chronicity, as reported in clinical LBP guidelines. We performed a systematic search of clinical LBP guidelines (PROSPERO registration number 154730). This search consisted of a combination of previously published systematic review articles and a new systematic search in medical or guideline-related databases. From the included guidelines, we extracted recommendations regarding the assessment and management of LBP which addressed psychosocial prognostic factors (ie, psychological factors ["yellow flags"], perceptions about the relationship between work and health, ["blue flags"], system or contextual obstacles ["black flags") and psychiatric symptoms ["orange flags"]). In addition, we evaluated the level or quality of evidence of these recommendations. In total, we included 15 guidelines. Psychosocial prognostic factors were addressed in 13 of 15 guidelines regarding their assessment and in 14 of 15 guidelines regarding their management. Recommendations addressing psychosocial factors almost exclusively concerned "yellow" or "black flags," and varied widely across guidelines. The supporting evidence was generally of very low quality. We conclude that in general, clinical LBP guidelines do not provide clinicians with clear instructions about how to incorporate psychosocial factors in LBP care and should be optimized in this respect. More specifically, clinical guidelines vary widely in whether and how they address psychosocial factors, and recommendations regarding these factors generally require better evidence support. This emphasizes a need for a stronger evidence-base underlying the role of psychosocial risk factors within LBP care, and a need for uniformity in methodology and terminology across guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review summarized clinical guidelines on low back pain (LBP) on how they addressed the identification and management of psychosocial factors. This review revealed a large amount of variety across guidelines in whether and how psychosocial factors were addressed. Moreover, recommendations generally lacked details and were based on low quality evidence.

Prognostic factors for pain chronicity in low back pain: a systematic review

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Several prognostic factors are related to low back pain chronicity, and these should be taken into account when planning more comprehensive models in its prevention.

Low back pain is the leading cause for years lived in disability. Most people with acute low back pain improve rapidly, but 4% to 25% of patients become chronic. Since the previous systematic reviews on the subject, a large number of new studies have been conducted. The objective of this article was to review the evidence of the prognostic factors behind nonspecific chronic low back pain. A systematic literature search was performed without date limitation from the MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Medic databases. Specific inclusion criteria were used, and risk factors before the onset of chronic symptoms were searched. Study quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. One hundred eleven full articles were read for potential inclusion, and 25 articles met all the inclusion criteria. One study was rated as good quality, 19 studies were rated as fair quality, and 5 articles were rated as poor quality. Higher pain intensity, higher body weight, carrying heavy loads at work, difficult working positions, and depression were the most frequently observed risk factors for chronic low back pain. Maladaptive behavior strategies, general anxiety, functional limitation during the episode, smoking, and particularly physical work were also explicitly predictive of chronicity. According to this systematic review, several prognostic factors from the biomechanical, psychological and psychosocial point of view are significant for chronicity in low back pain.

Which Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Respond Favorably to Yoga, Physical Therapy, and a Self-care Book? Responder Analyses from a Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To identify baseline characteristics of adults with chronic low back pain (cLBP) that predict response (i.e., a clinically important improvement) and/or modify treatment effect across three nonpharmacologic interventions.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Academic safety net hospital and seven federally qualified community health centers.

SUBJECTS

Adults with cLBP (N = 299).

METHODS

We report patient characteristics that were predictors of response and/or modified treatment effect across three 12-week treatments: yoga, physical therapy [PT], and a self-care book. Using preselected characteristics, we used logistic regression to identify predictors of "response," defined as a ≥30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Then, using "response" as our outcome, we identified baseline characteristics that were treatment effect modifiers by testing for statistical interaction (P < 0.05) across two comparisons: 1) yoga-or-PT vs self-care and 2) yoga vs PT.

RESULTS

Overall, 39% (116/299) of participants were responders, with more responders in the yoga-or-PT group (42%) than the self-care (23%) group. There was no difference in proportion responding to yoga (48%) vs PT (37%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.88 - 2.6). Predictors of response included having more than a high school education, a higher income, employment, few depressive symptoms, lower perceived stress, few work-related fear avoidance beliefs, high pain self-efficacy, and being a nonsmoker. Effect modifiers included use of pain medication and fear avoidance beliefs related to physical activity (both P = 0.02 for interaction). When comparing yoga or PT with self-care, a greater proportion were responders among those using pain meds (OR = 5.3), which differed from those not taking pain meds (OR = 0.94) at baseline. We also found greater treatment response among those with lower (OR = 7.0), but not high (OR = 1.3), fear avoidance beliefs around physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed important subgroups for whom referral to yoga or PT may improve cLBP outcomes.

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.

Application and utility of a clinical framework for spinally referred neck-arm pain: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study protocol

BACKGROUND

The clinical presentation of neck-arm pain is heterogeneous with varying underlying pain types (nociceptive/neuropathic/mixed) and pain mechanisms (peripheral/central sensitization). A mechanism-based clinical framework for spinally referred pain has been proposed, which classifies into (1) somatic pain, (2) neural mechanosensitivity, (3) radicular pain, (4) radiculopathy and mixed pain presentations. This study aims to (i) investigate the application of the clinical framework in patients with neck-arm pain, (ii) determine their somatosensory, clinical and psychosocial profile and (iii) observe their clinical course over time.

METHOD

We describe a study protocol. Patients with unilateral neck-arm pain (n = 180) will undergo a clinical examination, after which they will be classified into subgroups according to the proposed clinical framework. Standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) measurements will be taken in their main pain area and contralateral side. Participants will have to complete questionnaires to assess function (Neck Disability Index), psychosocial factors (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Depression, anxiety and stress scale), neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, PainDETECT Questionnaire) and central sensitization features (Central Sensitization Inventory). Follow-ups at three, six and 12 months include the baseline questionnaires. The differences of QST data and questionnaire outcomes between and within groups will be analyzed using (M)AN(C)OVA and/or regression models. Repeated measurement analysis of variance or a linear mixed model will be used to calculate the differences between three, six, and 12 months outcomes. Multiple regression models will be used to analyze potential predictors for the clinical course.

CONCLUSION

The rationale for this study is to assess the usability and utility of the proposed clinical framework as well as to identify possible differing somatosensory and psychosocial phenotypes between the subgroups. This could increase our knowledge of the underlying pain mechanisms. The longitudinal analysis may help to assess possible predictors for pain persistency.

Does the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool Contribute to Effectiveness in Treatment and Cost and Loss of Follow-Up of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Patients with Low Back Pain?

Background: Mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) and the stratified approach using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) are examples of stratified low back pain (LBP) management. We investigated whether the medium–high risk in SBST can contribute to the time and sessions until discharge from MDT (Question 1) and to the loss of follow-up before identifying a promising management strategy (Question 2). Methods: A retrospective chart study was conducted. Multiple regression modeling was constructed using 10 independent variables, including whether the SBST was medium–high risk or not for Question 1, and the 9/10 independent variables for Question 2. Results: The data of 89 participants for Question 1 and 166 participants for Question 2 were analyzed. SBST was not a primary contributing factor for Question 1 (R² = 0.17–0.19). The model for Question 2 included SBST as a primary contributing factor and the shortest distance from the patient address to the hospital as a secondary contributing factor (93.4% correct classification). Conclusion: SBST status was not a primary contributing factor for time and sessions until discharge from MDT, but was a critical factor for the loss of MDT follow-up before identifying a promising management strategy.

The OPTIMIZE study: protocol of a pragmatic sequential multiple assessment randomized trial of nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic, nonspecific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a prevalent condition that causes a substantial health burden. Despite intensive and expensive clinical efforts, its prevalence is growing. Nonpharmacologic treatments are effective at improving pain-related outcomes; however, treatment effect sizes are often modest. Physical therapy (PT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have the most consistent evidence of effectiveness. Growing evidence also supports mindfulness-based approaches. Discussions with providers and patients highlight the importance of discussing and trying options to find the treatment that works for them and determining what to do when initial treatment is not successful. Herein, we present the protocol for a study that will evaluate evidence-based, protocol-driven treatments using PT, CBT, or mindfulness to examine comparative effectiveness and optimal sequencing for patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

The Optimized Multidisciplinary Treatment Programs for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain (OPTIMIZE) Study will be a multisite, comparative effectiveness trial using a sequential multiple assessment randomized trial design enrolling 945 individuals with chronic low back pain. The co-primary outcomes will be disability (measured using the Oswestry Disability Index) and pain intensity (measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale). After baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to PT or CBT. At week 10, participants who have not experienced at least 50% improvement in disability will be randomized to cross-over phase-1 treatments (e.g., PT to CBT) or to Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). Treatment will consist of 8 weekly sessions. Long-term outcome assessments will be performed at weeks 26 and 52.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study may inform referring providers and patients about the most effective nonoperative treatment and/or sequence of nonoperative treatments to treat chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered on March 1, 2019, with Clinicaltrials.gov under the registration number NCT03859713 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03859713).

Comparing three approaches for involving patients in research prioritization: a qualitative study of participant experiences

BACKGROUND

By participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities.

METHODS

Respondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65 years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience.

RESULTS

The crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews.

CONCLUSION

Common methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NICHSR, HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.

"Selling" chronic pain: physiotherapists' lived experiences of communicating the diagnosis of chronic nonspecific lower back pain to their patients

Introduction: Chronic nonspecific lower back pain (CNSLBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition which can be a source of significant distress and disability for patients. Approaches to managing CNSLBP have been explored in healthcare literature, as has the importance of communication in physiotherapy practice. However, no previous studies have explored clinicians' experiences of communicating their understanding of this diagnosis to their patients.Methods: A qualitative research design, using hermeneutic phenomenological methodology, was employed. Five participants were purposively recruited for the research and data collected via semi-structured interviews. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) methods were used to analyze the data. Emergent, super-ordinate and master themes were developed to help convey the qualitative significant meanings of the lived-through experiences.Findings: Three master themes were identified, with each comprising two sub-themes. These were: 1) Patient-centeredness (1a. Understanding the patient; and 1b. emotional awareness and adaptability); 2) Getting patients "on board" (2a. the "selling" process; and 2b. paternalism and the clinician's perspective); and 3) Dealing with conflict and uncertainty (3a. fear of interpersonal conflict; and 3b. personal doubts and uncertainty).Conclusions: Personal conflicts were identified between clinicians' descriptions of their wishes to "sell" their own perspectives to patients while simultaneously wanting to demonstrate a patient-focused approach and avoid the interpersonal conflicts which arose from clashes with patients' beliefs. Building a good initial rapport, showing empathy and adapting approaches in response to perceptions of patients' reactions were perceived as strategies to help mitigate the risks of failed communication, but this was something for which participants felt unprepared by their prior training.

The New Agenda for Neck Pain Research: A Modified Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Though a large amount of research on neck pain has been conducted, no coordinated agenda has identified and addressed high-priority research questions.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and rank the neck pain research priorities of neck pain researchers.

METHODS

A total of 400 experts in the field of neck pain were invited to participate in this modified Delphi study. The study was conducted in 3 rounds. The first round aimed to identify the most important relevant questions that neck pain researchers should address. These questions were then categorized and ranked during the second and third rounds.

RESULTS

A total of 117 experts agreed to participate (29% response rate). A total of 15 neck pain research priorities were identified. The top 5 research priorities were to (1) establish effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of available treatments for neck pain, (2) translate research evidence into clinical settings, (3) identify the effectiveness of education and self-care in prevention and treatment of neck pain, (4) identify causal factors in the development of neck pain, and (5) define the natural course and prognostic factors in people with neck pain.

CONCLUSION

A new research-priority agenda was developed through a consensus process from a group of neck pain researchers. This agenda can be used as a guide for researchers and funding agencies to ensure that future research addresses the most important research questions in this area. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(9):666-674. Epub 10 Jul 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8704.

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.

Chronic low back pain is highly individualised: patterns of classification across three unidimensional subgrouping analyses

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a complex disorder where central and peripheral nociceptive processes are influenced by factors from multiple dimensions associated with CLBP (e.g. movement, pain sensitivity, psychological). To date, outcomes for treatments matched to unidimensional subgroups (e.g. psychologically-based) have been poor. Therefore, unidimensional subgrouping may not reflect the complexity of CLBP presentations at an individual level. The aim of this study was therefore to explore patterns of classification at an individual level across the three previously-published, data-driven, within-dimension subgrouping studies.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, multidimensional data was collected in 294 people with CLBP. Statistical derivation of subgroups within each of three clinically-important dimensions (pain sensitivity, psychological profile, pain responses following repeated spinal bending) was briefly reviewed. Patterns of classification membership were subsequently tabulated across the three dimensions.

RESULTS

Of 27 possible patterns across these dimensions, 26 were represented across the cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This result highlights that while unidimensional subgrouping has been thought useful to guide treatment, it is unlikely to capture the full complexity of CLBP. The amount of complexity important for best patient outcomes is currently untested.

IMPLICATIONS

For clinicians this study highlights the high variability of presentations of people with CLBP at the level of the individual. For example, clinician's should not assume that those with high levels of pain sensitivity will also have high psychological distress and have pain summation following repeated spinal bending. A more flexible, multidimensional, clinically-reasoned approach to profile patient complexity may be required to inform individualised, patient-centred care. Such individualised care might improve treatment efficacy. This study also has implications for researchers; highlighting the inadequacy of unidimensional subgrouping processes and methodological difficulties in deriving subgroups across multidimensional data.

Neuroplasticity of Sensorimotor Control in Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is an important medical and socioeconomic problem. Impaired sensorimotor control has been suggested to be a likely mechanism underlying development and/or maintenance of pain. Although early work focused on the structural and functional abnormalities within the musculoskeletal system, in the past 20 years there has been an increasing realization that patients with LBP might also have extensive neuroplastic changes within the central nervous system. These include changes related to both the structure (eg, gray matter changes) and function (eg, organization of the sensory and motor cortices) of the nervous system as related to processing of pain and nociception and to motor and somatosensory systems. Moreover, clinical interventions increasingly aim to drive neuroplasticity with treatments to improve pain and sensorimotor function. This commentary provides a contemporary overview of neuroplasticity of the pain/nociceptive and sensorimotor systems in LBP. This paper addresses (1) defining neuroplasticity in relation to control of the spine and LBP, (2) structural and functional nervous system changes as they relate to nonspecific LBP and sensorimotor function, and (3) related clinical implications. Individuals with recurrent and persistent LBP differ from those without LBP in several markers of the nervous system's function and structure. Neuroplastic changes may be addressed by top-down cognitive-based interventions and bottom-up physical interventions. An integrated clinical approach that combines contemporary pain neuroscience education, cognition-targeted sensorimotor control, and physical or function-based treatments may lead to better outcomes in patients with recurrent and persistent LBP. This approach will need to consider variation among individuals, as no single finding/mechanism is present in all individuals, and no single treatment that targets neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor system is likely to be effective for all patients with LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):402-414. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8489.

Association Between Sensorimotor Impairments and Functional Brain Changes in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Critical Review

Low back pain (LBP) coincides with sensorimotor impairments, for example, reduced lumbosacral tactile and proprioceptive acuity and postural control deficits. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that sensorimotor impairments in LBP may be associated with brain changes. However, no consensus exists regarding the relationship between functional brain changes and sensorimotor behavior in LBP. Therefore, this review critically discusses the available functional magnetic resonance imaging studies on brain activation related to nonnociceptive somatosensory stimulation and motor performance in individuals with LBP. Four electronic databases were searched, yielding nine relevant studies. Patients with LBP showed reduced sensorimotor-related brain activation and a reorganized lumbar spine representation in higher-order (multi)sensory processing and motor regions, including primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, supplementary motor area, and superior temporal gyrus. These results may support behavioral findings of sensorimotor impairments in LBP. In addition, patients with LBP displayed widespread increased sensorimotor-evoked brain activation in regions often associated with abnormal pain processing. Overactivation in these regions could indicate an overresponsiveness to sensory inputs that signal potential harm to the spine, thereby inducing overgeneralized protective responses. Hence, functional brain changes could contribute to the development and recurrence of LBP. However, future studies investigating the causality between sensorimotor-related brain function and LBP are imperative.

STarT Back Tool risk stratification is associated with changes in movement profile and sensory discrimination in low back pain: A study of 290 patients

BACKGROUND

Investigation of movement and sensory profiles across STarT Back risk subgroups.

METHODS

A chronic low back pain cohort (n = 290) were classified as low, medium or high risk using the STarT Back Tool, and completed a repeated spinal bending task and quantitative sensory testing. Pain summation, time taken and the number of protective behaviours with repeated bending were measured. Sensory tests included two-point discrimination, temporal summation, pressure/thermal pain thresholds and conditioned pain modulation. Subgroups were profiled against movement and sensory variables.

RESULTS

The high-risk subgroup demonstrated greater pain summation following repeated forward bending (p < 0.001). The medium-risk subgroup demonstrated greater pain summation following repeated backward bending (p = 0.032). Medium- and high-risk subgroups demonstrated greater forward/backward bend time compared to the low-risk subgroup (p = 0.001, p = 0.005, respectively). Medium- and high-risk subgroups demonstrated a higher number of protective behaviours per forward bend compared to the low-risk subgroup (p = 0.008). For sensory variables, only two-point discrimination differed between subgroups, with medium- and high-risk subgroups demonstrating higher thresholds (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed altered movement characteristics and sensory discrimination across SBT risk subgroups in people with CLBP. Membership of the high SBT risk subgroup was associated with greater pain and disability levels, greater pain summation following repeated bending, slower bending times, a greater number of protective behaviours during forward bending, and a higher TPD threshold. Treatment outcomes for higher risk SBT subgroups may be enhanced by interventions specifically targeting movement and sensory alterations.

SIGNIFICANCE

In 290 people with chronic low back pain movement profile and two-point discrimination threshold differed across risk subgroups defined by the STarT Back Tool. Conversely, pain sensitivity did not differ across these subgroups. These findings may add further guidance for targeted care in these subgroups.

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions

OBJECTIVE

Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SETTING AND POPULATION

Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017059250.

Does Duration of Pain at Baseline Influence Clinical Outcomes of Low Back Pain Patients Managed on an Evidence-based Pathway?

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between the duration of pain at baseline and the clinical outcomes of patients with low back pain (LBP) enrolled on the North East of England Regional Back Pain and Radicular Pain Pathway (NERBPP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The NERBPP is a clinical pathway based upon National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (2009) for LBP of <1-year duration. Recent changes to NICE guidelines (2016) advocate the same management for all LBP patients regardless of pain duration.

METHODS

Patients with LBP referred onto the NERBPP by their General Practitioner between May 2015 and January 2017 were included. Data from 667 patients, who provided pre- and post data for pain (Numerical rating scale), function (Oswestry Disability Index), quality-of-life (EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire), anxiety (the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener), and depression (the Patient Health Questionnaire), were analyzed using a series of covariate-adjusted models. Patients were categorized into four groups based upon baseline pain duration: <3 months, ≥3 to <6 months, ≥6 months to <12 months, ≥12 months.

RESULTS

Each group showed improved outcomes greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each measure as defined in NICE guidelines (2016). There was a trend toward better outcomes for those with shorter pain durations. The magnitude of the differences between the groups, in most instances, was below the MCID. For example, mean improvement in function for those with baseline pain duration <3 months was 20 points and 12 points for those of pain duration ≥12 months, both above the MCID of ≥10.

CONCLUSION

Patients with different durations of LBP at baseline improved on the NERBPP, supporting the recent modification to NICE guidelines. However, those with shorter durations of pain may have superior outcomes in the short term, suggesting added benefit in getting patients onto the pathway in the early stages of LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND

Movement dysfunctions have been associated with persistent low back pain (LBP) but optimal treatment remains unclear. One possibility is that subgroups of persistent LBP patients have differing movement characteristics and therefore different responses to interventions. This study examined if there were patterns of flexion-related lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters that might define subgroups of movement.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 126 people without any history of significant LBP and 140 people with persistent LBP (n = 266). Wireless motion and surface EMG sensors collected lumbo-pelvic data on flexion parameters (range of motion (ROM) of trunk, lumbar, and pelvis), speed, sequence coordination and timing, and EMG extensor muscle activity in forward bending (flexion relaxation)), and sitting parameters (relative position, pelvic tilt range and tilt ratio). Latent class analysis was used to identify patterns in these parameters.

RESULTS

Four subgroups with high probabilities of membership were found (mean 94.9%, SD10.1%). Subgroup 1 (n = 133 people, 26% LBP) had the greatest range of trunk flexion, fastest movement, full flexion relaxation, and synchronous lumbar versus pelvic movement. Subgroup 2 (n = 73, 71% LBP) had the greatest lumbar ROM, less flexion relaxation, and a 0.9 s lag of pelvic movement. Subgroup 3 (n = 41, 83% LBP) had the smallest lumbar ROM, a 0.6 s delay of lumbar movement (compared to pelvic movement), and less flexion relaxation than subgroup 2. Subgroup 4 (n = 19 people, 100% LBP) had the least flexion relaxation, slowest movement, greatest delay of pelvic movement and the smallest pelvic ROM. These patterns could be described as standard (subgroup 1), lumbar dominant (subgroup 2), pelvic dominant (subgroup 3) and guarded (subgroup 4). Significant post-hoc differences were seen between subgroups for most lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters. There was greater direction-specific pain and activity limitation scores for subgroup 4 compared to other groups, and a greater percentage of people with leg pain in subgroups 2 and 4.

CONCLUSION

Four subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics were revealed with an unequal distribution among people with and without a history of persistent LBP. Such subgroups may have implications for which patients are likely to respond to movement-based interventions.

Low back pain: a call for action

Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of years lost to disability and its burden is growing alongside the increasing and ageing population.¹ Because these population shifts are more rapid in low-income and middle-income countries, where adequate resources to address the problem might not exist, the effects will probably be more extreme in these regions. Most low back pain is unrelated to specific identifiable spinal abnormalities, and our Viewpoint, the third paper in this Lancet Series,^2,3 is a call for action on this global problem of low back pain.

Novel approach to characterising individuals with low back-related leg pain: cluster identification with latent class analysis and 12-month follow-up

Traditionally, low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is diagnosed clinically as referred leg pain or sciatica (nerve root involvement). However, within the spectrum of LBLP, we hypothesised that there may be other unrecognised patient subgroups. This study aimed to identify clusters of patients with LBLP using latent class analysis and describe their clinical course. The study population was 609 LBLP primary care consulters. Variables from clinical assessment were included in the latent class analysis. Characteristics of the statistically identified clusters were compared, and their clinical course over 1 year was described. A 5 cluster solution was optimal. Cluster 1 (n = 104) had mild leg pain severity and was considered to represent a referred leg pain group with no clinical signs, suggesting nerve root involvement (sciatica). Cluster 2 (n = 122), cluster 3 (n = 188), and cluster 4 (n = 69) had mild, moderate, and severe pain and disability, respectively, and response to clinical assessment items suggested categories of mild, moderate, and severe sciatica. Cluster 5 (n = 126) had high pain and disability, longer pain duration, and more comorbidities and was difficult to map to a clinical diagnosis. Most improvement for pain and disability was seen in the first 4 months for all clusters. At 12 months, the proportion of patients reporting recovery ranged from 27% for cluster 5 to 45% for cluster 2 (mild sciatica). This is the first study that empirically shows the variability in profile and clinical course of patients with LBLP including sciatica. More homogenous groups were identified, which could be considered in future clinical and research settings.

Different doses of Pilates-based exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-utility of the addition of different doses of Pilates to an advice for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) from a societal perspective.

Design

Randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

Setting

Physiotherapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil.

Participants

296 patients with NSCLBP.

Interventions

All patients received advice and were randomly allocated to four groups (n=74 per group): booklet group (BG), Pilates once a week (Pilates group 1, PG1), Pilates twice a week (Pilates group 2, PG2) and Pilates three times a week (Pilates group 3, PG3).

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes were pain and disability at 6-week follow-up.

Results

Compared with the BG, all Pilates groups showed significant improvements in pain (PG1, mean difference (MD)=−1.2, 95% CI −2.2 to −0.3; PG2, MD=−2.3, 95% CI −3.2 to −1.4; PG3, MD=−2.1, 95% CI −3.0 to −1.1) and disability (PG1, MD=−1.9, 95% CI −3.6 to −0.1; PG2, MD=−4.7, 95% CI −6.4 to −3.0; PG3, MD=−3.3, 95% CI −5.0 to −1.6). Among the different doses, PG2 showed significant improvements in comparison with PG1 for pain (MD=−1.1, 95% CI −2.0 to −0.1) and disability (MD=−2.8, 95% CI −4.5 to −1.1). The cost-utility analysis showed that PG3 had a 0.78 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions

Adding two sessions of Pilates exercises to advice provided better outcomes in pain and disability than advice alone for patients with NSCLBP; non-specific elements such as greater attention or expectation might be part of this effect. The cost-utility analysis showed that Pilates three times a week was the preferred option.

Trial registration number

NCT02241538, Completed.

Chronic pain patients can be classified into four groups: Clustering-based discriminant analysis of psychometric data from 4665 patients referred to a multidisciplinary pain centre (a SQRP study)

OBJECTIVE

To subgroup chronic pain patients using psychometric data and regress the variables most responsible for subgroup discrimination.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, registry-based study.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Chronic pain patients assessed at a multidisciplinary pain centre between 2008 and 2015.

METHODS

Data from the Swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation (SQRP) were retrieved and analysed by principal component analysis, hierarchical clustering analysis, and partial least squares-discriminant analysis.

RESULTS

Four subgroups were identified. Group 1 was characterized by low "psychological strain", the best relative situation concerning pain characteristics (intensity and spreading), the lowest frequency of fibromyalgia, as well as by a slightly older age. Group 2 was characterized by high "psychological strain" and by the most negative situation with respect to pain characteristics (intensity and spreading). Group 3 was characterized by high "social distress", the longest pain durations, and a statistically higher frequency of females. The frequency of three neuropathic pain conditions was generally lower in this group. Group 4 was characterized by high psychological strain, low "social distress", and high pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of these four clusters of chronic pain patients could be useful for the development of personalized rehabilitation programs. For example, the identification of a subgroup characterized mainly by high perceived "social distress" raises the question of how to best design interventions for such patients. Differentiating between clinically important subgroups and comparing how these subgroups respond to interventions is arguably an important area for further research.

Movement System Impairment-Based Classification Treatment Versus General Exercises for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP) includes different forms of exercises, that to date have resulted in only small to moderate treatment effects. To enhance the treatment effects, different classification systems have been developed to classify people with LBP into more homogeneous subgroups leading to specific treatments for each subgroup.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment (MSI) model with a treatment consisting of symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises in people with chronic LBP.

Design

The study was a 2-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

Setting

The study setting was a university physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

Patients

A total of 148 participants with chronic LBP participated in the study.

Interventions

Participants were randomly allocated to an 8-week treatment of either treatment based on the MSI-based classification system or symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises.

Measurements

Measures of pain intensity, disability, and global impression of recovery were obtained by a blinded assessor at baseline and at follow-up appointments at 2, 4, and 6 months after randomization.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences for the primary outcomes of pain intensity at 2 months (mean difference = 0.05, 95% CI = –0.90 to 0.80) and disability at 2 months (mean difference = 0.00, 95% CI = –1.55 to 1.56). There also were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for any of the secondary outcome measures.

Limitations

Participants and physical therapists were not masked.

Conclusions

People with chronic LBP had similar improvements in pain, disability, and global impression of recovery with treatment consisting of symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises and treatment based on the MSI model.

Research priorities of the Canadian chiropractic profession: a consensus study using a modified Delphi technique

Background

Research funds are limited and a healthcare profession that supports research activity should establish research priority areas. The study objective was to identify research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession, and for stakeholders in the chiropractic profession to rank these in order of importance.

Methods

We conducted a modified Delphi consensus study between August 2015 and May 2017 to determine the views of Canadian chiropractic organisations (e.g. Canadian Chiropractic Association; provincial associations) and stakeholder groups (e.g. chiropractic educational institutions; researchers). Participants completed three online Delphi survey rounds. In Round 1, participants suggested research areas within four broad research themes: 1) Basic science; 2) Clinical; 3) Health services; and 4) Population health. In Round 2, researchers created sub-themes by categorising the areas suggested in Round 1, and participants judged the importance of the research sub-themes. We defined consensus as at least 70% of participants agreeing that a research area was "essential" or "very important". In Round 3, results from Round 2 were presented to the participants to re-evaluate the importance of sub-themes. Finally, participants completed an online pairwise ranking activity to determine the rank order of the list of important research sub-themes.

Results

Fifty-seven participants, of 85 people invited, completed Round 1 (response rate 67%). Fifty-six participants completed Round 2, 55 completed Round 3, and 53 completed the ranking activity. After three Delphi rounds and the pairwise ranking activity was completed, the ranked list of research sub-themes considered important were: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services; 4) Effects of chiropractic care; 5) Safety/side effects of chiropractic care; 6) Chiropractic care for older adults; 7) Neurophysiological mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy; 8) General mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy.

Conclusions

This project identified research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession. The top three priority areas were all in the area of health services research: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services.

The development of the Dutch version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Disturbed body perception may play a role in the aetiology of chronic low back pain (LBP). The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) is currently the only self-report questionnaire to assess back-specific body perception in individuals with LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the FreBAQ into Dutch.

DESIGN

Psychometric study.

METHODS

A Dutch version of the FreBAQ was generated through forward-backward translation, and was completed by 73 patients with LBP and 73 controls to assess discriminant validity. Structural validity was assessed by principal component analysis. Internal consistency was assessed by the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationship with clinical measures (Numerical Rating Scale pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia). Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subgroup (n = 48 with LBP and 48 controls) using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC 95%) RESULTS: The Dutch FreBAQ showed one component with eigenvalue >2. Cronbach's alpha values were respectively 0.82 and 0.73 for the LBP and control group. ICC values were respectively 0.69 and 0.70 for the LBP and control group. In the LBP group, the SEM was 3.9 and the MDC (95%) was 10.8. The LBP group (ODI 22 ± 21%) scored significantly higher on the Dutch FreBAQ than the control group (ODI 0%) (11 ± 7 vs. 3 ± 9, p < 0.001). Within the LBP group, higher Dutch FreBAQ scores correlated significantly with higher ODI scores (rho = 0.30, p = 0.010), although not with pain (rho = 0.10, p = 0.419) or kinesiophobia (r = 0.14, p = 0.226).

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch version of the FreBAQ can be considered as unidimensional and showed adequate internal consistency, sufficient test-retest reliability and adequate discriminant and construct validity in individuals with and without LBP. It can improve our understanding on back-specific perception in the Dutch-speaking population with LBP.

Who Benefits Most From Individualized Physiotherapy or Advice for Low Back Disorders? A Preplanned Effect Modifier Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A preplanned effect modifier analysis of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics associated with larger or smaller treatment effects in people with low back disorders undergoing either individualized physical therapy or guideline-based advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Identifying subgroups of people who attain a larger or smaller benefit from particular treatments has been identified as a high research priority for low back disorders.

METHODS

The trial involved 300 participants with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 wk, ≤6 mo duration), who satisfied criteria to be classified into five subgroups (with 228 participants classified into three subgroups relating to disc-related disorders, and 64 classified into the zygapophyseal joint dysfunction subgroup). Participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline based advice (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial, and neurophysiological factors (n = 156). Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models determined the interaction between treatment group and potential effect modifiers (defined a priori) for the primary outcomes of back pain, leg pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) and activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) over a 52-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants with higher levels of back pain, higher Örebro scores (indicative of higher risk of persistent pain) or longer duration of symptoms derived the largest benefits from individualized physical therapy relative to advice. Poorer coping also predicted larger benefits from individualized physical therapy in the univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that people with low back disorders could be preferentially targeted for individualized physical therapy rather than advice if they have higher back pain levels, longer duration of symptoms, or higher Örebro scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Neuropathic Pain in Low Back-Related Leg Pain Patients: What Is the Evidence of Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prognosis in Primary Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

This systematic review synthesizes literature describing prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) patients with neuropathic pain in primary care and/or similar settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and used by independent reviewers to screen citations for eligibility. The initial search yielded 24,948 citations; after screening 12 studies were included. Neuropathic pain was identified using case ascertainment tools (n = 5), clinical history with examination (n = 4), and using LBLP samples assumed neuropathic (n = 3). Neuropathic pain prevalence varied from 19% to 80%. There was consistent evidence for higher back-related disability (n = 3), poorer health-related quality of life (n = 2), and some evidence for more severe depression (n = 2), anxiety (n = 3), and pain intensity (n = 4) in patients with neuropathic pain. Results were less consistent when cases were identified through clinical history with examination than those identified using case ascertainment tools. Prognosis (n = 1) of LBLP patients with neuropathic pain was worse compared with those without, in all outcomes (leg pain intensity, leg and back-related disability, self-reported general health) except back pain intensity. No studies described prognostic factors. This systematic review highlights the evidence gap in neuropathic pain in LBLP in primary care, especially with respect to prognosis.

PERSPECTIVE

Patients with LBLP may have neuropathic pain. This systematic review emphasizes the paucity of evidence describing the characteristics and prognosis of neuropathic pain in this patient population. Future research investigating prognosis of these patients with neuropathic pain is likely to contribute to better understanding and management.

The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Crowdsourcing in Research Prioritization for Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Surveys

Background

The involvement of patients in research better aligns evidence generation to the gaps that patients themselves face when making decisions about health care. However, obtaining patients’ perspectives is challenging. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has gained popularity over the past decade as a crowdsourcing platform to reach large numbers of individuals to perform tasks for a small reward for the respondent, at small cost to the investigator. The appropriateness of such crowdsourcing methods in medical research has yet to be clarified.

Objective

The goals of this study were to (1) understand how those on MTurk who screen positive for back pain prioritize research topics compared with those who screen negative for back pain, and (2) determine the qualitative differences in open-ended comments between groups.

Methods

We conducted cross-sectional surveys on MTurk to assess participants’ back pain and allow them to prioritize research topics. We paid respondents US $0.10 to complete the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to categorize participants as those “with back pain” and those “without back pain,” then offered both those with (RMDQ score ≥7) and those without back pain (RMDQ <7) an opportunity to rank their top 5 (of 18) research topics for an additional US $0.75. We compared demographic information and research priorities between the 2 groups and performed qualitative analyses on free-text commentary that participants provided.

Results

We conducted 2 screening waves. We first screened 2189 individuals for back pain over 33 days and invited 480 (21.93%) who screened positive to complete the prioritization, of whom 350 (72.9% of eligible) did. We later screened 664 individuals over 7 days and invited 474 (71.4%) without back pain to complete the prioritization, of whom 397 (83.7% of eligible) did. Those with back pain who prioritized were comparable with those without in terms of age, education, marital status, and employment. The group with back pain had a higher proportion of women (234, 67.2% vs 229, 57.8%, P=.02). The groups’ rank lists of research priorities were highly correlated: Spearman correlation coefficient was .88 when considering topics ranked in the top 5. The 2 groups agreed on 4 of the top 5 and 9 of the top 10 research priorities.

Conclusions

Crowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk support efforts to efficiently reach large groups of individuals to obtain input on research activities. In the context of back pain, a prevalent and easily understood condition, the rank list of those with back pain was highly correlated with that of those without back pain. However, subtle differences in the content and quality of free-text comments suggest supplemental efforts may be needed to augment the reach of crowdsourcing in obtaining perspectives from patients, especially from specific populations.

Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER): Study Protocol to Compare Qualitative Research Methods and Advance Patient Engagement in Research

Background

Involving patients as partners in research is a defining characteristic of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). While patients’ experiential knowledge of a health condition or treatment may yield research priorities not reflected by researchers and policy makers, the methods for identifying and effectively collaborating with patients are still evolving. Patient registries and crowdsourcing may offer ease of access and convenience to both researchers and patients. Surveys and focus groups, including online modalities, have been described for prioritizing research topics. However, little is known about how these different methods compare in producing consistent priorities and similar perceptions of engagement quality among participants.

Objective

The aims of this study are (1) to compare how different engagement methods used to elicit patient priorities for research perform as measured by rankings for priorities generated and participant satisfaction; and (2) to determine characteristics of individuals choosing to participate in research prioritization activities.

Methods

Participants in the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) patient registry, established to evaluate the natural history of back pain among individuals 65 years and older, and participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdsourcing platform, to provide input on priorities for research via a questionnaire, are invited. For BOLD participants, we subsequently randomize interested respondents to 1 of 3 interactive prioritization activities to further develop priorities: a Delphi panel, an online crowd voting activity, or an in-person facilitated prioritization activity using nominal group technique (NGT). Participants involved in each activity complete a survey to evaluate the quality of the experience and a subset of these participants discuss their experience further in an interview. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize the rankings produced by each method and compare the top 5 rated topics resulting from each prioritization activity. We use rank-ordered logistic regression models to identify associations of the ranked priority topics with baseline patient characteristics. We analyze responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach wherein we tabulate responses to Likert-scale questions and use content analysis to enumerate themes emerging from interviews for the 3 activities.

Results

In Phase I, we invite approximately 3000 BOLD participants and 500 Amazon MTurk workers to complete a research topic prioritization survey. Based on these results, we include additional topics into a subsequent prioritization survey. In Phase II, we invite BOLD participants to join 1 of 3 activities: 90 participants for Delphi panel, 100 participants for crowd voting, and 60 participants for focus groups. Of the Phase II participants, 30 will be interviewed to evaluate the activities.

Conclusions

This study informs decisions about how to conduct outreach to patient registry participants for providing input on research priorities, how individuals 65 years and older wish to participate in engagement activities, and how different research prioritization methods compare in terms of rankings generated and participant satisfaction.

Decision support tools in low back pain

Information from individual classification systems or clinical prediction rules that aim to facilitate stratified care in low back pain is important but often not comprehensive enough to be used to support clinical decision-making. The development and implementation of a clinically useful decision support tool (DST) that considering all key features is a challenging enterprise, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Key features are inclusion of all relevant treatment options, patient characteristics, and benefits and harms and presentation as an accessible and easy to use toolkit. To be of clinical value, a DST should (1) be based on large numbers of high-quality data, allowing robust estimation of benefits and harms; (2) be presented using visually attractive and easy-to-use software; (3) be externally validated with a clinical beneficial impact established; and (4) include a procedure for regular updating and monitoring. As an illustration, we describe the development; presentation; and plans for further validation, implementation, and updating of the Nijmegen Decision Tool for Chronic Low Back Pain (NDT-CLBP).

Measurement Properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese Version of the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-cultural adaptation and analysis of measurement properties.

OBJECTIVE

To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test its measurement properties in Brazilian patients with low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The selection of subgroup of patients that respond better to specific interventions is the top research priority in the field of back pain. The LSIQ is a tool able to stratify patients with low back pain who responds better to motor control exercises. There is no Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LSIQ available.

METHODS

The original version of the LSIQ was translated and cross-culturally adapted. We collected data from 100 patients with low back pain. In addition to LSIQ, we also collected information about physical activity levels (measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short version), disability (measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (measured by the Pain numerical Rating Scale), kinesiophobia (measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), and depression (measured by the Beck Depression Inventory). The measurement properties tested were internal consistency, reproducibility (reliability and agreement), construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects.

RESULTS

The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LSIQ showed good measurement properties with a Cronbach alpha of 0.79, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.75, a standard error of measurement of 1.65 points, and a minimal detectable change of 3.54 points. We did not detect ceiling and floor effects. The construct validity analysis was observed a moderate correlation between the LSIQ and Pain Numerical Rating Scale r = 0.46, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire r = 0.66, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia r = 0.49, and Beck Depression Inventory r = 0.44.

CONCLUSION

The Brazilian-Portuguese version of LIQ has adequate measurement properties and can be used in clinical practice and research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA.

Causal mechanisms in the clinical course and treatment of back pain

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in studying causal mechanisms in the development and treatment of back pain. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of our current understanding of causal mechanisms in the field. In the first section, we introduce key concepts and terminology. In the second section, we provide a brief synopsis of systematic reviews of mechanism studies relevant to the clinical course and treatment of back pain. In the third section, we reflect on the findings of our review to explain how understanding causal mechanisms can inform clinical practice and the implementation of best practice. In the final sections, we introduce contemporary methodological advances, highlight the key assumptions of these methods, and discuss future directions to advance the quality of mechanism-related studies in the back pain field.

Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry

PURPOSE

A cornerstone of patient-centered outcome research is direct patient involvement throughout the research process. Identifying and prioritizing research topics is a critical but often overlooked point for involvement, as it guides what research questions are asked. We assess the feasibility of involving individuals with low back pain in identifying and prioritizing research topics using two approaches: an existing patient registry and an online crowdsourcing platform. We compare and contrast the diversity of participants recruited, their responses, and resources involved.

METHODS

Eligible participants completed a survey ranking their five highest priority topics from an existing list and supplying additional topics not previously identified. We analyzed their responses using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

The patient registry yielded older (mean age 72.4), mostly White (70%), and well-educated (95% high school diploma or higher) participants; crowdsourcing yielded younger (mean age 36.6 years), mostly White (82%), and well-educated (98% high school diploma or higher) participants. The two approaches resulted in similar research priorities by frequency. Both provided open-ended responses that were useful, in that they illuminate additional and nuanced research topics. Overall, both approaches suggest a preference towards topics related to diagnosis and treatment over other topics.

CONCLUSION

Using a patient registry and crowdsourcing are both feasible recruitment approaches for engagement. Researchers should consider their approach, community, and resources when choosing their recruitment approach, as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are likely most appropriate to supplement or to complement in-person and ongoing engagement strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Invasive and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Low Back Pain: a Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem, having a substantial effect on peoples' quality of life and placing a significant economic burden on healthcare systems and, more broadly, societies. Many interventions to alleviate LBP are available but their cost effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, document and appraise studies reporting on the cost effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological treatment options for LBP.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), 'similar article' searches and reference list scanning. Study selection was carried out by three assessors, independently. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist. Data were extracted using customized extraction forms.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were identified. Study interventions were categorised as: (1) combined physical exercise and psychological therapy, (2) physical exercise therapy only, (3) information and education, and (4) manual therapy. Interventions assessed within each category varied in terms of their components and delivery. In general, combined physical and psychological treatments, information and education interventions, and manual therapies appeared to be cost effective when compared with the study-specific comparators. There is inconsistent evidence around the cost effectiveness of physical exercise programmes as a whole, with yoga, but not group exercise, being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified evidence suggests that combined physical and psychological treatments, medical yoga, information and education programmes, spinal manipulation and acupuncture are likely to be cost-effective options for LBP.

Outcomes of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The impact of physical therapy on the outcomes of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) stratified by the STart Back Screening Tool (SBST) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute LBP who were stratified as medium or high risk.

DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

SETTING

Patients were recruited between March 2011 and November 2013 from primary care clinics in Salt Lake City, Utah.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred eighty-one participants with acute LBP who were stratified as medium risk (n = 120) or high risk (n = 61) by the SBST were included. They were aged 18 through 60 years, with duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no symptoms below the knee, no treatment for LBP in the past 6 months, and an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 20% or greater.

INTERVENTION

After participants received education on how to manage their LBP, they were randomized to receive usual care (n = 97) by their primary care provider or early intervention (n = 84) by a physical therapist.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary (3-month ODI score) outcome measure was obtained at baseline and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

No differences were detected in the effect of intervention between participants stratified as medium or high risk. For the high-risk subgroup, there was a significant difference between the early intervention and usual care groups for the 3-month ODI (mean difference = -5.87 [95% CI = -11.24, -0.50]) favoring early intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The primary study was not designed to examine the SBST.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with acute LBP stratified as high risk seem likely to respond well to one session of education. They may experience additional benefit by 3 months from evidence-based physical therapy treatments. These effects disappear at 1 year.