Critical appraisal of clinical prediction rules that aim to optimize treatment selection for musculoskeletal conditions

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for categorising low back pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a common complex condition, where specific diagnoses are hard to identify. Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are known to improve clinical decision-making. A review of LBP diagnostic-CPRs by Haskins et al. (2015) identified six diagnostic-CPRs in derivation phases of development, with one tool ready for implementation. Recent progress on these tools is unknown. Therefore, this review aimed to investigate developments in LBP diagnostic-CPRs and evaluate their readiness for implementation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on five databases (Medline, Amed, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) combined with hand-searching and citation-tracking to identify eligible studies. Study and tool quality were appraised for risk of bias (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), methodological quality (checklist using accepted CPR methodological standards), and CPR tool appraisal (GRade and ASsess Predictive).

RESULTS

Of 5021 studies screened, 11 diagnostic-CPRs were identified. Of the six previously known, three have been externally validated but not yet undergone impact analysis. Five new tools have been identified since Haskin et al. (2015); all are still in derivation stages. The most validated diagnostic-CPRs include the Lumbar-Spinal-Stenosis-Self-Administered-Self-Reported-History-Questionnaire and Diagnosis-Support-Tool-to-Identify-Lumbar-Spinal-Stenosis, and the StEP-tool which differentiates radicular from axial-LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of LBP diagnostic CPRs found five new tools, all in the early stages of development. Three previously known tools have now been externally validated but should be used with caution until impact evaluation studies are undertaken. Future funding should focus on externally validating and assessing the impact of existing CPRs on clinical decision-making.

Anatomic characteristics of shoulder based on MRI accurately predict incomplete rotator cuff injuries in patients: relevance for predictive, preventive, and personalized healthcare strategies

Background and PPPM-related working hypothesis

In the diagnosis of incomplete rotator cuff injuries (IRCI), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound examination often have false-positive and false-negative results, while arthroscopy is expensive, invasive, and complex. From the strategy of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM), shoulder anatomical characteristics based on MRI have been demonstrated to accurately predict IRCI and their clinical applicability for personalized prediction of IRCI.

Aims

This study aimed to develop and validate a nomogram based on anatomical features of the shoulder on MRI to identify IRCI for PPPM healthcare strategies.

Methods

The medical information of 257 patients undergoing preoperative MRI examination was retrospectively reviewed and served as the primary cohort. Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and tendinopathy observed under arthroscopy were considered IRCI. Using logistic regression analyses and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), IRCI was identified among various preoperative factors containing shoulder MRI and clinical features. A nomogram was constructed and subjected to internal and external validations (80 patients).

Results

The following eight independent risk factors for IRCI were identified:AgeThe left injured sidesThe Goutallier classification of supraspinatus in oblique coronal positionThe Goutallier classification of supraspinatus in the axial positionAcromial thicknessAcromiohumeral distanceCoracohumeral distanceAbnormal acromioclavicular joint signalsThe nomogram accurately predicted IRCI in the development (C-index, 0.932 (95% CI, 0.891, 0.973)) and validation (C-index, 0.955 (95% CI, 0.918, 0.992)) cohorts. The calibration curve was consistent between the predicted IRCI probability and the actual IRCI ratio of the nomogram. The decision curve analysis and clinical impact curves demonstrated that the model had high clinical applicability.

Conclusions

Eight independent factors that accurately predicted IRCI were determined using MRI anatomical findings. These personalized factors can prevent unnecessary diagnostic interventions (e.g., arthroscopy) and can assist surgeons in implementing individualized clinical decisions in medical practice, thus addressing the goals of PPPM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13167-023-00333-5.

Cortical function and sensorimotor plasticity are prognostic factors associated with future low back pain after an acute episode: the Understanding persistent Pain Where it ResiDes prospective cohort study

ABSTRACT

Predicting the development of chronic low back pain (LBP) at the time of an acute episode remains challenging. The Understanding persistent Pain Where it ResiDes study aimed to identify neurobiological and psychological risk factors for chronic LBP. Individuals with acute LBP (N = 120) participated in a prospective cohort study with 6-month follow-up. Candidate predictors were selected from the neurobiological (eg, sensorimotor cortical excitability assessed by sensory and motor-evoked potentials and brain-derived neurotrophic factor genotype), psychological (eg, depression and anxiety), symptom-related (eg, LBP history), and demographic domains. Analyses involved multivariable linear regression models with pain intensity or disability degree as continuous variables. Secondary analyses involved a multivariable logistic model with the presence of LBP at 6 months (thresholding pain intensity and disability degree) as a dichotomous variable. Lower sensory cortex and corticomotor excitability, higher baseline pain intensity, higher depression, stress, and pain catastrophizing were the strongest predictors ( R2 = 0.47) of pain intensity at 6 months. Older age and higher pain catastrophizing were the strongest predictors ( R2 = 0.30) of disability at 6 months. When the LBP outcome was dichotomised, sensory cortex and corticomotor excitability, brain-derived neurotrophic factor genotype, depression and anxiety, LBP history and baseline pain intensity, discriminated between those who did and did not report LBP at 6 months (C-statistic 0.91). This study identifies novel risk factors for the development of future LBP. Neurobiological risk factors, when added to a multivariable linear regression model, explained a further 15% of the variance in the 6-month pain intensity.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Refinement and validation of a tool for stratifying patients with musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Patients with musculoskeletal pain in different body sites share common prognostic factors. Using prognosis to stratify and treatment match can be clinically and cost-effective. We aimed to refine and validate the Keele STarT MSK Tool for prognostic stratification of musculoskeletal pain patients.

METHODS

Tool refinement and validity was tested in a prospective cohort study, and external validity examined in a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Study population comprised 2,414 adults visiting U.K. primary care with back, neck, knee, shoulder or multisite pain returning postal questionnaires (cohort: 1,890 [40% response]; trial: 524). Cohort baseline questionnaires included a draft tool plus refinement items. Trial baseline questionnaires included the Keele STarT MSK Tool. Physical health (SF-36 Physical Component Score [PCS]) and pain intensity were assessed at 2- and 6-month cohort follow-up; pain intensity was measured at 6-month trial follow-up.

RESULTS

The tool was refined by replacing (3), adding (3) and removing (2) items, resulting in a 10-item tool. Model fit (R² ) was 0.422 and 0.430 and discrimination (c statistic) 0.839 and 0.822 for predicting 6-month cohort PCS and pain (respectively). The tool classified 24.9% of cohort participants at low, 41.7% medium and 33.4% high risk, clearly discriminating between subgroups. The tool demonstrated model fit of 0.224 and discrimination 0.73 in trial participants. Multiple imputation confirmed robustness of findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The Keele STarT MSK Tool demonstrates good validity and acceptable predictive performance and clearly identifies groups of musculoskeletal pain patients with different characteristics and prognosis. Using prognostic information for stratification and treatment matching may be clinically/cost-effective.

SIGNIFICANCE

The paper presents the first musculoskeletal pain prognostic stratification tool specifically for use among all primary care patients with the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder or multisite pain). The Keele STarT MSK Tool identifies groups of musculoskeletal pain patients with clearly different characteristics and prognosis. Using this tool for stratification and treatment matching may be clinically and cost-effective.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Cross-Validation of a Screening Tool to Distinguish Between Fallers and Nonfallers in Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to cross-validate a previously developed knee osteoarthritis falls (KOAF) screening tool to distinguish between fallers and nonfallers among community-dwelling older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Three independent orthopedic clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Older outpatients with knee OA (N=86; 71 women, 15 men; mean age, 75.2±6.2y).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was to identify fallers and nonfallers among outpatients with OA based on their history of falls within the past year. We investigated factors including sex, age, body mass index, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, affected side (bilateral or unilateral knee OA), number of comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, pain, and activity as individual predictors of falls. Participants performed the one-leg standing test and the 5 times sit-to-stand test to determine motor function. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and post-test probability of the KOAF screening tool were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The results of the one-leg standing test and 5 times sit-to-stand test differed significantly between the 2 groups (P<.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.96; P<.001). The post-test probability of falls was 83.3% (positive likelihood ratio, 11.54) when the total score of KOAF screening tool was 2 points and 2.6% (negative likelihood ratio, 0.06) when the total score of KOAF screening tool was less than 1 point.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-validation results for the KOAF screening tool were better, confirming that the screening tool could distinguish between fallers and nonfallers with high accuracy. Our findings suggest that this simple screening tool could be readily used in clinical practice and could aid in clinical decision-making through providing choices for physical therapy evaluation and recommendations for physical therapy programs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Examination of a Subgroup of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Likely to Benefit More From Pilates-Based Exercises Compared to an Educational Booklet

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether 2 previously published classification approaches, the updated treatment-based classification system and a Pilates subgroup defined by a preliminary clinical prediction rule, could identify patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from Pilates exercises compared to an educational booklet.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-two patients received advice and were randomly allocated to a group that received an educational booklet with no additional treatment (n = 74) or a group that received Pilates-based exercise treatment (n = 148) 2 or 3 times a week. At baseline, using a treatment-based classification system, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive movement control) or a poor prognosis. Similarly, using the Pilates clinical prediction rule, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive) or a poor prognosis (negative). The analysis was conducted using linear regression models to analyze the interaction between subgroup characteristics and treatment effect size, with changes in pain and disability from baseline to 6 weeks after randomization as dependent variables.

RESULTS

None of the interaction terms for pain and disability were statistically significant. The treatment effect of Pilates versus an educational booklet was similar in all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The treatment-based classification system and the Pilates clinical prediction rule did not differentiate subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain who were more or less likely to benefit more from Pilates compared to an educational booklet. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(4):189-197. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8839.

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.

Predictors of clinical success with stabilization exercise are associated with lower levels of lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue in patients with low back pain

Purpose: Investigate the construct validity of prognostic factors purported to predict clinical success with stabilization exercise for low back pain by exploring their associations with lumbar multifidus composition.Methods: Patients with low back pain were recruited from a hospital imaging department. The presence of fivepredictors (age <40 years, positive prone instability test, aberrant trunk flexion movements, straight leg raise range of motion >91°, spinal hypermobility) were identified by standardized physical examination. Predictors were grouped by total positive findings and status on a clinical prediction rule. The proportion of lower lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue was measured with 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging. Univariate and multivariate associations were examined with linear regression and reported with standardized beta coefficients (β) and 95% confidence intervals.Results: Data from 62 patients (11 female) with mean (SD) age of 45.2 (11.8) years were included. Total number of predictors (β[95% CI] = -0.37[-0.61,-0.12]; R² = 0.12), positive prediction rule status (β[95% CI] = -0.57[-0.79,-0.35]; R² = 0.30), and age <40 years were associated with lower intramuscular adipose tissue (β[95% CI] = -0.55[-0.77,-0.33]; R² = 0.27). No other individual factors were associated with lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue.Conclusions: These findings support the construct validity of the grouped prognostic criteria. Future research should examine the clinical utility of these criteria. Implications for RehabilitationLow back pain is the single largest cause of disability worldwide and exercise therapy is recommended by international low back pain treatment guidelines.Lower levels of lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue were associated with predictors of clinical success with stabilization exercise.Higher proportions of lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue may help identify patients who require longer duration exercise training, or those who are unlikely to respond to stabilization exercise.

Unraveling the Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: Modeling an Approach

Synopsis Manual therapy interventions are popular among individual health care providers and their patients; however, systematic reviews do not strongly support their effectiveness. Small treatment effect sizes of manual therapy interventions may result from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to treatment. Mechanistic-based treatment approaches to manual therapy offer an intriguing alternative for identifying patients likely to respond to manual therapy. However, the current lack of knowledge of the mechanisms through which manual therapy interventions inhibit pain limits such an approach. The nature of manual therapy interventions further confounds such an approach, as the related mechanisms are likely a complex interaction of factors related to the patient, the provider, and the environment in which the intervention occurs. Therefore, a model to guide both study design and the interpretation of findings is necessary. We have previously proposed a model suggesting that the mechanical force from a manual therapy intervention results in systemic neurophysiological responses leading to pain inhibition. In this clinical commentary, we provide a narrative appraisal of the model and recommendations to advance the study of manual therapy mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(1):8-18. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7476.

Development of a risk stratification and prevention index for stratified care in chronic low back pain. Focus: yellow flags (MiSpEx network)

Introduction

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disability; early diagnosis and stratification of care remain challenges.

Objectives

This article describes the development of a screening tool for the 1-year prognosis of patients with high chronic LBP risk (risk stratification index) and for treatment allocation according to treatment-modifiable yellow flag indicators (risk prevention indices, RPI-S).

Methods

Screening tools were derived from a multicentre longitudinal study (n = 1071, age >18, intermittent LBP). The greatest prognostic predictors of 4 flag domains ("pain," "distress," "social-environment," "medical care-environment") were determined using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis. Internal validity and prognosis error were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curves for discrimination (area under the curve) and cutoff values were determined.

Results

The risk stratification index identified persons with increased risk of chronic LBP and accurately estimated expected pain intensity and disability on the Pain Grade Questionnaire (0-100 points) up to 1 year later with an average prognosis error of 15 points. In addition, 3-risk classes were discerned with an accuracy of area under the curve = 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.85). The RPI-S also distinguished persons with potentially modifiable prognostic indicators from 4 flag domains and stratified allocation to biopsychosocial treatments accordingly.

Conclusion

The screening tools, developed in compliance with the PROGRESS and TRIPOD statements, revealed good validation and prognostic strength. These tools improve on existing screening tools because of their utility for secondary preventions, incorporation of exercise effect modifiers, exact pain estimations, and personalized allocation to multimodal treatments.

Models of Care for addressing chronic musculoskeletal pain and health in children and adolescents

Chronic musculoskeletal pain among children and adolescents is common and can negatively affect quality of life. It also represents a high burden on the health system. Effective models of care for addressing the prevention and management of pediatric musculoskeletal pain are imperative. This chapter will address the following key questions: (1) Why are pediatric-specific models of pain care needed? (2) What is the burden of chronic musculoskeletal pain among children and adolescents? (3) What are the best practice approaches for early identification and prevention of chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents? (4) What are the recommended strategies for clinical management of chronic pain, including pharmacological, physical, psychological and complementary, and alternative approaches? (5) What are the most effective strategies for implementing models of pain care across different care settings? (6) What are the research priorities to improve models of care for children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain?

Health practitioners' perceptions of adopting clinical prediction rules in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study in Australia

OBJECTIVES

To investigate health practitioners' understanding and practice behaviours with regards to clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and explore their perceptions of adopting a new whiplash CPR.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using six semistructured focus groups.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapists (n=19), chiropractors (n=6) and osteopaths (n=3) were purposively sampled to include health practitioners who provide routine treatment to people with whiplash-associated disorders.

METHODS

Focus group discussions (n=6) were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Health practitioners' understanding and use of CPRs were mixed. Clinicians considered components relating to acceptability ('whether I agree with it') and implementation ('how I'll use it') when deciding on whether to adopt a new CPR. Acceptability was informed by four themes: knowledge and understanding, CPR type, congruence and weighted value. Consideration of matters that promote implementation occurred once a CPR was deemed to be acceptable. Three themes were identified as potentially enhancing whiplash CPR implementation: the presence of an external driver of adoption, flexibility in how the CPR could be administered and guidance regarding communication of CPR output to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Education on CPR purpose and fit with practice is needed to enhance the perceived acceptability of CPRs. Strategies that facilitate practitioner motivation, enable administrative flexibility and assist clinicians in communicating the results of the whiplash CPR could promote adoption of the whiplash CPR.

Examination of the Validity of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Shoulder Pain Likely to Benefit From Cervicothoracic Manipulation

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Background Prognostic variables identifying patients with shoulder pain who are likely to respond to cervicothoracic manipulation have been reported; however, they have yet to be validated. Objective To examine the validity of previously reported prognostic variables in predicting which patients with shoulder pain will respond to cervicothoracic manipulation. Methods Participants (n = 140) with a report of shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive either 2 sessions of range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercises (exercise group), or 2 sessions of cervicothoracic manipulation and range-of-motion exercises followed by 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (manipulative-therapy-plus-exercise group). Outcomes of disability (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) and pain (numeric pain-rating scale) were collected at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Time, treatment group, status of predictor variables, and 2-way and 3-way interactions were analyzed using linear mixed models with repeated measures. Results There were no significant 3-way interactions for either disability (P = .27) or pain scores (P = .70) for time, group, and predictor status for any of the predictor variables. Conclusion The results of the current study did not validate the previously identified prognostic variables; therefore, we cannot support using these in clinical practice. Further updating of the existing prediction rule may be warranted and could potentially result in new prognostic variables and improved generalizability. Limitations of the study were a mean duration of symptoms of greater than 2 years and a loss to follow-up of 19% at 6 months. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. Trial prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):252-260. Epub 3 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7100.

Non-specific low back pain

Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.

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

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) developed to identify sub-groups of people with neck pain for different prognoses (i.e. prognostic) or response to treatments (i.e. prescriptive) have been recommended as a research priority to improve health outcomes for these conditions. A systematic review was undertaken to identify prognostic and prescriptive CPRs relevant to the conservative management of adults with neck pain and to appraise stage of development, quality and readiness for clinical application. Six databases were systematically searched from inception until 4th July 2016. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, risk of bias (PEDro and QUIPS), methodological quality and stage of development. 9840 records were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Thirty-two studies reporting on 26 CPRs were included in this review. Methodological quality of included studies varied considerably. Most prognostic CPR development studies employed appropriate designs. However, many prescriptive CPR studies (n = 12/13) used single group designs and/or analysed controlled trials using methods that were inadequate for identifying treatment effect moderators. Most prognostic (n = 11/15) and all prescriptive (n = 11) CPRs have not progressed beyond the derivation stage of development. Four prognostic CPRs relating to acute whiplash (n = 3) or non-traumatic neck pain (n = 1) have undergone preliminary validation. No CPRs have undergone impact analysis. Most prognostic and prescriptive CPRs for neck pain are at the initial stage of development and therefore routine clinical use is not yet supported. Further validation and impact analyses of all CPRs are required before confident conclusions can be made regarding clinical utility.

Subgrouping Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Hope or Hype?

Clinicians and clinical researchers share a common goal of achieving better outcomes for patients with low back pain (LBP). For that, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews are the most reliable study designs to determine the effects of interventions. Subgroup analyses in these research designs have been used to examine treatment-effect modification across subgroups defined by patient characteristics. In this Viewpoint, the authors present supporting and opposing arguments for the subgrouping approach in nonspecific LBP, considering the progress made so far in the LBP field and the relevant literature in adjacent fields. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(2):44-48. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0602.

The Foot Orthoses versus Hip eXercises (FOHX) trial for patellofemoral pain: a protocol for a randomized clinical trial to determine if foot mobility is associated with better outcomes from foot orthoses

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is a prevalent, often recalcitrant and multifactorial knee pain condition. One method to optimize treatment outcome is to tailor treatments to the patient's presenting characteristics. Foot orthoses and hip exercises are two such treatments for PFP with proven efficacy yet target different ends of the lower limb with different proposed mechanisms of effect. These treatments have not been compared head-to-head, so there is a dearth of evidence for which to use clinically. Only foot orthoses have been explored for identifying patient characteristics that might predict a beneficial effect with either of these two treatments. Preliminary evidence suggests patients will do well with foot orthoses if they have a midfoot width in weight bearing that is ≥ 11 mm more than in non-weight bearing, but this has yet to be verified in a study that includes a comparator treatment and an adequate sample size. This trial will determine if: (i) hip exercises are more efficacious than foot orthoses, and (ii) greater midfoot width mobility will be associated with success with foot orthoses, when compared to hip exercises.

METHODS

Two hundred and twenty participants, aged 18-40 years, with a clinical diagnosis of PFP will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to receive foot orthoses or progressive resisted hip exercises, and stratified into two subgroups based on their presenting midfoot width mobility (high mobility defined as ≥11 mm). The primary outcome will be a 7-point Likert scale for global rating of change. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using regression models.

DISCUSSION

This trial is designed to compare the efficacy of foot orthoses versus hip exercise, as well as to determine if high midfoot width mobility is associated with better outcomes with foot orthoses when compared to hip exercises. Results of this trial will assist clinicians in optimising the management of those with PFP by testing whether a simple measure of midfoot width mobility can help to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from foot orthoses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000260628).

Clinical Prediction Rules That Don't Hold Up-Where to Go From Here?

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are created to help guide clinical decision making. To do this, they use the presence or absence of certain factors that have been shown to meaningfully predict a patient's prognosis, diagnosis, or response to treatment. While representing a seminal methodological step forward in individualized care, one of the main drawbacks of CPRs continues to be validation studies that do not support the initially derived CPR. This is particularly important because validation of CPRs in an independent patient population prior to clinical implementation is essential. Why is it quite common for existing CPRs to fall down at the validation stage? And what does this mean for research that aims to individualize treatment? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(7):502-505. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0606.

A systematic review reveals that the credibility of subgroup claims in low back pain trials was low

OBJECTIVES

To assess the credibility of subgroup claims in back pain randomized controlled trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A sample of reports of back pain trials from 2000 to 2015 that provided a subgroup claim were included (n=38). Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and credibility of subgroup claims as well as the strength of the author's claim. The credibility of subgroup claims was assessed using a 10-criteria tool, and strength of the subgroup claims was assessed based on seven criteria to categorize claims into a reasonably strong claim of a definitive subgroup effect or a more cautious claim of a possible effect.

RESULTS

A total of 91 claims of a subgroup effect were reported in the 38 included trials, of which 28 were considered strong claims of a definitive effect, and 63 were cautious claims of a possible effect. None of the subgroup claims met all 10 credibility criteria, and only 24% (22 claims) satisfied at least five criteria. The only criteria satisfied by more than 50% of the claims were if the subgroup variable was a characteristic measured at baseline, and whether the test of interaction was significant. All other criteria were satisfied by less than 30% of the claims. There was no association between the credibility of subgroup claims and the journal impact factor, risk of bias, sample size, or year of publication.

CONCLUSION

The credibility of subgroup claims in back pain trials is usually low, irrespective of the strength of the authors' claim.

Are Small Effects for Back Pain Interventions Really Surprising?

There is reasonably strong evidence that some physical therapy interventions are effective (compared to minimal or no intervention) for patients with low back pain (LBP); however, the effect sizes are typically small. Many clinicians argue that this evidence is at odds with their daily clinical experience. There are several reasons that likely contribute to small effects in clinical trials of LBP and other musculoskeletal conditions. In this Viewpoint, the authors look at which of these reasons are beyond our control as clinicians and simply need to be acknowledged and understood, and which may provide insights into improving the design of future clinical trials of LBP and ultimately delivering better care to our patients. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(5):317-319. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0604.

Prediction of pain outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of dose-response of spinal manipulation for the care of chronic low back pain

Background

No previous studies have created and validated prediction models for outcomes in patients receiving spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain (cLBP). We therefore conducted a secondary analysis alongside a dose-response, randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation.

Methods

We investigated dose, pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health, psychosocial measures, and objective exam findings as potential predictors of pain outcomes utilizing 400 participants from a randomized controlled trial. Participants received 18 sessions of treatment over 6-weeks and were followed for a year. Spinal manipulation was performed by a chiropractor at 0, 6, 12, or 18 visits (dose), with a light-massage control at all remaining visits. Pain intensity was evaluated with the modified von Korff pain scale (0–100). Predictor variables evaluated came from several domains: condition-specific pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health status, psychosocial, and objective physical measures. Three-quarters of cases (training-set) were used to develop 4 longitudinal models with forward selection to predict individual “responders” (≥50 % improvement from baseline) and future pain intensity using either pretreatment characteristics or post-treatment variables collected shortly after completion of care. The internal validity of the predictor models were then evaluated on the remaining 25 % of cases (test-set) using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), R², and root mean squared error (RMSE).

Results

The pretreatment responder model performed no better than chance in identifying participants who became responders (AUC = 0.479). Similarly, the pretreatment pain intensity model predicted future pain intensity poorly with low proportion of variance explained (R² = .065). The post-treatment predictor models performed better with AUC = 0.665 for the responder model and R² = 0.261 for the future pain model. Post-treatment pain alone actually predicted future pain better than the full post-treatment predictor model (R² = 0.350). The prediction errors (RMSE) were large (19.4 and 17.5 for the pre- and post-treatment predictor models, respectively).

Conclusions

Internal validation of prediction models showed that participant characteristics preceding the start of care were poor predictors of at least 50 % improvement and the individual’s future pain intensity. Pain collected shortly after completion of 6 weeks of study intervention predicted future pain the best.

Baseline Examination Factors Associated With Clinical Improvement After Dry Needling in Individuals With Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental.

OBJECTIVES

To explore for associations between demographic, patient history, and physical examination variables and short-term improvement in self-reported disability following dry needling therapy performed on individuals with low back pain (LBP).

BACKGROUND

Dry needling is an intervention used with increasing frequency in patients with LBP; however, the characteristics of patients who are most likely to respond are not known.

METHODS

Seventy-two volunteers with mechanical LBP participated in the study. Potential prognostic factors were collected from baseline questionnaires, patient history, and physical examination tests. Treatment consisted of dry needling to the lumbar multifidus muscles bilaterally, administered during a single treatment session. Improvement was based on percent change on the Oswestry Disability Index at 1 week. The univariate and multivariate associations between 33 potential prognostic factors and improved disability were assessed with correlation coefficients and multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

Increased LBP with the multifidus lift test (rpb = 0.31, P = .01) or during passive hip flexion performed with the patient supine (rpb = 0.23, P = .06), as well as positive beliefs about acupuncture/dry needling (rho = 0.22, P = .07), demonstrated univariate associations with Oswestry Disability Index improvement. Aggravation of LBP with standing (rpb = -0.27, P = .03), presence of leg pain (rpb = -0.29, P = .02), and any perception of hypermobility in the lumbar spine (rpb = -0.21, P = .09) were associated with less improvement. The multivariate model identified 2 predictors of improved disability with dry needling: pain with the multifidus lift test and no aggravation with standing (R(2) = 0.16, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Increased LBP with the multifidus lift test was the strongest predictor of improved disability after dry needling, suggesting that the finding of pain during muscle contraction should be studied in future dry needling studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b.

Predicting a clinically important outcome in patients with low back pain following McKenzie therapy or spinal manipulation: a stratified analysis in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Reports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to identify characteristics of patients with a changeable lumbar condition, i.e. presenting with centralization or peripheralization, that were likely to benefit the most from either the McKenzie method or spinal manipulation.

METHODS

350 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to either the McKenzie method or manipulation. The possible effect modifiers were age, severity of leg pain, pain-distribution, nerve root involvement, duration of symptoms, and centralization of symptoms. The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting success at two months follow-up. The values of the dichotomized predictors were tested according to the prespecified analysis plan.

RESULTS

No predictors were found to produce a statistically significant interaction effect. The McKenzie method was superior to manipulation across all subgroups, thus the probability of success was consistently in favor of this treatment independent of predictor observed. When the two strongest predictors, nerve root involvement and peripheralization, were combined, the chance of success was relative risk 10.5 (95% CI 0.71-155.43) for the McKenzie method and 1.23 (95% CI 1.03-1.46) for manipulation (P = 0.11 for interaction effect).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any baseline variables which were statistically significant effect modifiers in predicting different response to either McKenzie treatment or spinal manipulation when compared to each other. However, we did identify nerve root involvement and peripheralization to produce differences in response to McKenzie treatment compared to manipulation that appear to be clinically important. These findings need testing in larger studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00939107.

Validation and impact analysis of prognostic clinical prediction rules for low back pain is needed: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify prognostic forms of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) related to the nonsurgical management of adults with low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate their current stage of development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review using a sensitive search strategy across seven databases with hand searching and citation tracking.

RESULTS

A total of 10,005 records were screened for eligibility with 35 studies included in the review. The included studies report on the development of 30 prognostic LBP CPRs. Most of the identified CPRs are in their initial phase of development. Three CPRs were found to have undergone validation--the Cassandra rule for predicting long-term significant functional limitations and the five-item and two-item Flynn manipulation CPRs for predicting a favorable functional prognosis in patients being treated with lumbopelvic manipulation. No studies were identified that investigated whether the implementation of a CPR resulted in beneficial patient outcomes or improved resource efficiencies.

CONCLUSION

Most of the identified prognostic CPRs for LBP are in the initial phase of development and are consequently not recommended for direct application in clinical practice at this time. The body of evidence provides emergent confidence in the limited predictive performance of the Cassandra rule and the five-item Flynn manipulation CPR in comparable clinical settings and patient populations.

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for specific subtypes of low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for low back pain (LBP) and to assess their readiness for clinical application.

BACKGROUND

Significant research has been invested into the development of CPRs that may assist in the meaningful subgrouping of patients with LBP. To date, very little is known about diagnostic forms of CPRs for LBP, which relate to the present status or classification of an individual, and whether they have been developed sufficiently to enable their application in clinical practice.

METHODS

A sensitive electronic search strategy using 7 databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion using a 2-stage selection process. The quality appraisal of included studies was conducted by 2 independent raters using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and checklists composed of accepted methodological standards for the development of CPRs.

RESULTS

Of 10 014 studies screened for eligibility, the search identified that 13 diagnostic CPRs for LBP have been derived. Among those, 1 tool for identifying lumbar spinal stenosis and 2 tools for identifying inflammatory back pain have undergone validation. No impact analysis studies were identified.

CONCLUSION

Most diagnostic CPRs for LBP are in their initial development phase and cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice at this time. Validation and impact analysis of the diagnostic CPRs identified in this review are warranted, particularly for those tools that meet an identified unmet need of clinicians who manage patients with LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 2a-.

Predicting response to motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with low back pain: preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current treatments for low back pain have small effects. A research priority is to identify patient characteristics associated with larger effects for specific interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify simple clinical characteristics of patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from either motor control exercises or graded activity.

DESIGN

This study was a secondary analysis of the results of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-two patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled in the trial, which was conducted in Australian physical therapy clinics. The treatment consisted of 12 initial exercise sessions over an 8-week period and booster sessions at 4 and 10 months following randomization. The putative effect modifiers (psychosocial features, physical activity level, walking tolerance, and self-reported signs of clinical instability) were measured at baseline. Measures of pain and function (both measured on a 0-10 scale) were taken at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months by a blinded assessor.

RESULTS

Self-reported clinical instability was a statistically significant and clinically important modifier of treatment response for 12-month function (interaction: 2.72; 95% confidence interval=1.39 to 4.06). Participants with high scores on the clinical instability questionnaire (≥9) did 0.76 points better with motor control exercises, whereas those who had low scores (<9) did 1.93 points better with graded activity. Most other effect modifiers investigated did not appear to be useful in identifying preferential response to exercise type.

LIMITATIONS

The psychometric properties of the instability questionnaire have not been fully tested.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple 15-item questionnaire of features considered indicative of clinical instability can identify patients who respond best to either motor control exercises or graded activity.

The relationship of lumbar multifidus muscle morphology to previous, current, and future low back pain: a 9-year population-based prospective cohort study

STUDY DESIGN

Population based prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

We explored the cross-sectional relationships between lumbar multifidus (LM) intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) infiltration and low back pain (LBP) at 3 successive time points and investigated the role of IMAT in predicting the occurrence of LBP after 5 and 9 years.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although LBP is a major source of disease burden, the biological determinants of LBP are poorly understood.

METHODS

Participants were 40-year-old adults randomly sampled from a Danish population and followed up at 45 and 49 years of age. At each time point, participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging and reported ever having had LBP, LBP in the previous year, nontrivial LBP in the previous year, or a history of pain radiating into the legs. Pixel intensity and frequencies from T1-weighted magnetic resonance images identified the greatest proportion of LM IMAT at the L4 and L5 spinal levels. IMAT infiltration was categorized as normal/mild, moderate, or severe based on tertile divisions. Associations were explored with crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) from logistic regression models. Model covariates included sex, body mass index, and occupational and leisure time physical activity.

RESULTS

A total of 401 participants were enrolled, with 331 (83%) and 286 (71%) participants followed up at 5 and 9 years, respectively. The cross-sectional analyses demonstrated that at the age of 40 years, participants with severe IMAT infiltration demonstrated increased odds of ever experiencing LBP (aOR [95% confidence interval, 95% CI] = 3.16 [1.45-6.89]), nontrivial LBP (aOR [95% CI] = 2.82 [1.36-5.81]), LBP in the past year (aOR [95% CI] = 1.95 [1.07-3.53]), and leg pain (aOR [95% CI] = 2.08 [1.19-3.62]). There were no consistent cross-sectional associations between LBP/leg pain and LM IMAT at 45 or 49 years of age and LM IMAT did not predict future LBP or leg pain.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between LM IMAT and LBP/leg pain is inconsistent and may be modified by age.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain: protocol of an inter-examiner reliability study among manual therapists

BACKGROUND

Manual spinal joint mobilisations and manipulations are widely used treatments in patients with neck and low-back pain. Inter-examiner reliability of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the cervical and lumbar spine, perceived as important for indicating these interventions, is poor within a univariable approach. The diagnostic process as a whole in daily practice in manual therapy has a multivariable character, however, in which the use and interpretation of passive intervertebral motion assessment depend on earlier results from the diagnostic process. To date, the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of a multivariable diagnostic decision-making process in patients with neck or low-back pain is unknown.

METHODS

This study will be conducted as a repeated-measures design in which 14 pairs of manual therapists independently examine a consecutive series of a planned total of 165 patients with neck or low-back pain presenting in primary care physiotherapy. Primary outcome measure is therapists' decision about whether or not manual spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations, or both, are indicated in each patient, alone or as part of a multimodal treatment. Therapists will largely be free to conduct the full diagnostic process based on their formulated examination objectives. For each pair of therapists, 2×2 tables will be constructed and reliability for the dichotomous decision will be expressed using Cohen's kappa. In addition, observed agreement, prevalence of positive decisions, prevalence index, bias index, and specific agreement in positive and negative decisions will be calculated. Univariable logistic regression analysis of concordant decisions will be performed to explore which demographic, professional, or clinical factors contributed to reliability.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide an estimate of the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain based on a multivariable diagnostic reasoning and decision-making process, as opposed to reliability of individual tests. As such, it is proposed as an initial step toward the development of an alternative approach to current classification systems and prediction rules for identifying those patients with spinal disorders that may show a better response to manual therapy which can be incorporated in randomised clinical trials. Potential methodological limitations of this study are discussed.

Morphology versus function: the relationship between lumbar multifidus intramuscular adipose tissue and muscle function among patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To explore the bivariate and multivariate relations between fatty degeneration of the lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM) and LMM function among patients with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional clinical study.

SETTING

Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with LBP (N=70) referred for lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

LMM morphology and function were measured at the L4/L5 and L5/S1 spinal levels bilaterally. Quantitative measures of LMM intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) were derived from T1-weighted magnetic resonance images. Function was assessed with ultrasound imaging by measuring change in LMM thickness during a submaximal contraction task. The study participants self-reported their level of LBP-related disability (Modified Oswestry Index), pain intensity (numerical pain rating scale), and physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire). Bivariate and multivariate relations between LMM morphology and function were explored with correlational and hierarchical linear regression analyses, respectively. Additionally, we explored for possible covariates with potential to modify the relation between LMM IMAT and function.

RESULTS

There were 70 participants (12 women) enrolled in the study (mean age, 45.4±11.9y). A high level of physical activity was reported by 45.5% of participates. Age, sex, and physical activity level demonstrated variable relations with LMM IMAT and LMM function. There were no significant bivariate or multivariate relations between LMM IMAT and LMM function.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed higher levels of physical activity and LMM function and less LMM IMAT than previous studies involving patients with LBP. There was no relation between LMM morphology and function in this cohort of patients with LBP. Issues specific to LMM measurement and recommendations for future research are discussed.

A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain who are likely to experience short-term success following lumbar stabilization exercises: a randomized controlled validation study

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the validity of a previously suggested clinical prediction rule (CPR) for identifying patients most likely to experience short-term success following lumbar stabilization exercise (LSE). Background Although LSE is commonly used by physical therapists in the management of low back pain, it does not seem to be more effective than other interventions. A 4-item CPR for identifying patients most likely to benefit from LSE has been previously suggested but has yet to be validated.

METHODS

One hundred five patients with low back pain underwent a baseline examination to determine their status on the CPR (positive or negative). Patients were stratified by CPR status and then randomized to receive an LSE program or an intervention consisting of manual therapy (MT) and range-of-motion/flexibility exercises. Both interventions included 11 treatment sessions delivered over 8 weeks. Low back pain-related disability was measured by the modified version of the Oswestry Disability Index at baseline and upon completion of treatment.

RESULTS

The statistical significance for the 2-way interaction between treatment group and CPR status for the level of disability at the end of the intervention was P = .17. However, among patients receiving LSE, those with a positive CPR status experienced less disability by the end of treatment compared with those with a negative CPR status (P = .02). Also, among patients with a positive CPR status, those receiving LSE experienced less disability by the end of treatment compared with those receiving MT (P = .03). In addition, there were main effects for treatment and CPR status. Patients receiving LSE experienced less disability by the end of treatment compared to patients receiving MT (P = .05), and patients with a positive CPR status experienced less disability by the end of treatment compared to patients with a negative CPR status, regardless of the treatment received (P = .04). When a modified version of the CPR (mCPR) containing only the presence of aberrant movement and a positive prone instability test was used, a significant interaction with treatment was found for final disability (P = .02). Of the patients who received LSE, those with a positive mCPR status experienced less disability by the end of treatment compared to those with a negative mCPR status (P = .02), and among patients with a positive mCPR status, those who received LSE experienced less disability by the end of treatment compared to those who received MT (P = .005).

CONCLUSION

The previously suggested CPR for identifying patients likely to benefit from LSE could not be validated in this study. However, due to its relatively low level of power, this study could not invalidate the CPR, either. A modified version of the CPR that contains only 2 items may possess a better predictive validity to identify those most likely to succeed with an LSE program. Because this modified version was established through post hoc testing, an additional study is recommended to prospectively test its predictive validity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b-.

Short-term usual chiropractic care for spinal pain: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

Establish the short-term effectiveness of chiropractic therapy for spinal pain compared with a sham intervention and explore the predictors of chiropractic treatment satisfaction.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Chiropractic treatment is widely used for spinal pain. However, a lack of sound evidence precludes conclusions about the effectiveness of chiropractic for spinal pain.

METHODS

Participants were adults experiencing spinal pain, randomized to receive 2 treatments of chiropractic or sham therapy. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Primary outcomes at 2 weeks were pain intensity (0-10 scale) and function (0-40 Functional Rating Index). Secondary outcomes were global change, minimum acceptable outcome, and treatment satisfaction. Treatment effects were estimated with linear mixed models for the primary outcomes. We used logistic regression to identify differences in the secondary outcomes and explore for predictors of treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty three participants (chiropractic, n = 92; sham, n = 91) were recruited and included in the analyses. Participants receiving chiropractic therapy reported greater improvements in pain (mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5 [0.1-0.9]), physical function (mean difference [95% CI] = 2.1 [0.3-4.0]), and were more likely to experience global improvement (48% vs. 24%, P = 0.01) and treatment satisfaction (78% vs. 56%, P < 0.01). There was no between-group difference in achieving a minimally acceptable outcome (34% sham vs. 29% chiropractic, P = 0.42). Awareness of treatment assignment and achieving minimally important improvement in pain intensity were associated with chiropractic treatment satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Short-term chiropractic treatment was superior to sham; however, treatment effects were not clinically important. Awareness of treatment assignment and clinically important reductions in pain were associated with chiropractic treatment satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background

With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation.

Methods

Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation.

Results

A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement.

Conclusions

A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.

Stratified models of care

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

Do various baseline characteristics of transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus predict clinical outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

Although individual reports suggest that baseline morphometry or activity of transversus abdominis or lumbar multifidus predict clinical outcome of low back pain (LBP), a related systematic review is unavailable. Therefore, this review summarized evidence regarding the predictive value of these muscular characteristics. Candidate publications were identified from 6 electronic medical databases. After review, 5 cohort studies were included. Although this review intended to encompass studies using different muscle assessment methods, all included studies coincidentally used ultrasound imaging. No research investigated the relation between static morphometry and clinical outcomes. Evidence synthesis showed limited evidence supporting poor baseline transversus abdominis contraction thickness ratio as a treatment effect modifier favoring motor control exercise. Limited evidence supported that high baseline transversus abdominis lateral slide was associated with higher pain intensity after various exercise interventions at 1-year follow-up. However, there was limited evidence for the absence of relation between the contraction thickness ratio of transversus abdominis or anticipatory onset of lateral abdominal muscles at baseline and the short- or long-term LBP intensity after exercise interventions. There was conflicting evidence for a relation between baseline percent thickness change of lumbar multifidus during contraction and the clinical outcomes of patients after various conservative treatments. Given study heterogeneity, the small number of included studies and the inability of conventional greyscale B-mode ultrasound imaging to measure muscle activity, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale prospective studies that use appropriate technology (ie, electromyography to assess muscle activity) should be conducted to investigate the predictive value of morphometry or activity of these muscles with respect to LBP-related outcomes measures.

Interpretation of subgroup effects in published trials

With the rapidly expanding number of studies reporting on treatment subgroups come new challenges in analyzing and interpreting this sometimes complex area of the literature. This article discusses 3 important issues regarding the analysis and interpretation of existing trials or systematic reviews that report on treatment effect modifiers (subgroups) for specific physical therapy interventions. The key messages are: (1) point estimates of treatment modifier effect size (interaction effect) and their confidence intervals can be calculated using group-level data when individual patient-level data are not available; (2) interaction effects do not define the total effect size of the intervention in the subgroup but rather how much more effective it is in the subgroup than in those not in the subgroup; (3) recommendations regarding the use of an intervention in a subgroup need to consider the size and direction of the main effect and the interaction effect; and (4) rather than simply judging whether a treatment modifier effect is clinically important based only on the interaction effect size, a better criterion is to determine whether the combined effect of the interaction effect and main effect makes the difference between an overall effect that is clinically important and one that is not clinically important.

Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with back pain who meet a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation

Recently a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for lumbar regional spinal thrust manipulation (STM) has shown predictive success in patients with back pain who met specific selection criteria. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of STM and mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients who are positive for the STM CPR. Following initial examination, 31 participants were randomized to the STM group (n = 16) and to the MDT group (n = 15). Two weeks following initial examination, four participants chose to cross over from the STM group to the MDT group. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire work subscale (FABQw), and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were administered initially, and at 2-weeks and 4 week follow-up (discharge). Data were analyzed to determine changes in ODI and NPRS scores from initial examination through one month. Of the 31 participants, one patient who met only three of five selection criteria and four others who chose to switch groups were removed from the analysis. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in ODI and NPRS scores from baseline to final visit but there was no significant difference in scores between groups at 4 weeks. In this sample of patients, the selection criteria for this CPR were not exclusive for lumbopelvic STM. Mechanical diagnosis and therapy was an equally viable choice for these patients.

Primary care research priorities in low back pain: an update

STUDY DESIGN

Survey report.

OBJECTIVE

To reassess an existing list of research priorities in primary care low back pain (LBP) and to develop a new research agenda.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Primary care LBP researchers developed an agenda of research priorities in 1997 at an international conference. In 2009, a survey was conducted to re-evaluate the 1997 research priorities and to develop a new research agenda.

METHODS

Two-phase, Internet-based survey of participants in one of the LBP primary care research fora. The first phase collected information on importance, feasibility, and progress for the 1997 priorities; during this phase, the respondents were also asked to list the 5 most important current primary care-relevant LBP research questions. The second phase ranked these current research priorities.

RESULTS

A total of 179 persons responded to the first phase, representing 30% of those surveyed. Rankings of the 1997 priorities were somewhat similar compared with 2009, although research on beliefs and expectations and improving the quality of LBP research became more important, and research on guidelines and psychosocial interventions became less important. Organizing more effective primary care for LBP, implementing best practices, and translating research to practice were ranked higher compared with 1997. Most priorities were also ranked as relatively feasible. The new agenda was similar, and included subgroup-based treatment and studies on causes and mechanisms of LBP as new top priorities.

CONCLUSION

Changes in research priorities seem to reflect recent advances, new opportunities, and limitations in our ability to improve care.