Re: "Interrater reliability of a new classification scheme for patients with neural low back-related leg pain" Schafer A et al. J Man Manip Ther 2009;17:109-116

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The role of classification of chronic low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

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