Evidence base and future research directions in the management of low back pain

Establishing Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi Version) in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Undergoing Multimodal Physical Therapy

Increasing emphasis is placed on physical functional measures to examine treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP). The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi version) (QBPDS-H) has never been evaluated for responsiveness. The objectives of this study were to (1) examine the internal and external responsiveness of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Hindi version) (QBPDS-H) and (2) find out the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) in the functional ability of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) undergoing multimodal physical therapy treatment. In this prospective cohort study, QBPDS-H responses were recorded at the baseline and after eight weeks from 156 CLBP patients undergoing multimodal physiotherapy treatment. To differentiate between the clinically unimproved (n = 65, age: 44.16 ± 11.8 years) and clinically improved (n = 91, age: 43.28 ± 10.7 years) scores of patients from the initial assessment to the last follow-up, the Hindi version of the Patient's Global Impression of Change (H-PGIC) scale was utilized. Internal responsiveness was large (E.S. (pooled S.D.) (n = 91): 0.98 (95% CI = 1.14-0.85) and Standardized Response Mean (S.R.M.) (n = 91): 2.57 (95% CI = 3.05-2.17)). In addition, the correlation coefficient and receiver operative characteristics (R.O.C.) curve were used to assess the QBPDS-H external responsiveness. MCID and MDC were detected by the R.O.C. curve and standard error of measurements (S.E.M.), respectively. The H-PGIC scale showed moderate responsiveness (ρ = 0.514 and area under the curve (A.U.C.) = 0.658; 95% CI, 0.596-0.874), while the MDC achieved 13.68 points, and the MCID was found have 6 points (A.U.C. = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.88, sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 61%). This study shows that QBPDS-H has moderate levels of responsiveness in CLBP patients receiving multimodal physical therapy treatment, so it can be used to measure the changes in disability scores. MCID and MDC changes were also reported with QBPDS-H.

Rehabilitation management of low back pain - it's time to pull it all together!

In the past, rehabilitation research initiatives for low back pain (LBP) have targeted outcome enhancement through personalized treatment approaches, namely through classification systems (CS). Although the use of CS has enhanced outcomes, common management practices have not changed, the prevalence of LBP is still high, and only selected patients meet the CS profile, namely those with a nociceptive context. Similarly, although practice guidelines propose some level of organization and occasionally a timeline of care provision, each mainly provides best practice for isolated treatment approaches. Moreover, there is no theoretical framework that has been proposed that guides the rehabilitation management process of mechanical LBP. In this commentary, we propose a model constituted of five domains (nociceptive drivers, nervous system dysfunction drivers, comorbidities drivers, cognitive–emotional drivers, and contextual drivers) grounded as mechanisms driving pain and/or disability in LBP. Each domain is linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, where once a patient is deemed suitable for rehabilitation, the clinician assesses elements of each domain in order to identify where the relative treatment efforts should be focused. This theoretical model is designed to provide a more comprehensive management overview, by appreciating the relative contribution of each domain driving pain and disability. Considering that the multiple domains driving pain and disability, and their interaction, requires a model that is comprehensive enough to identify and address each related issue, we consider that the proposed model has several positive implications for rehabilitation of this painful and highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder.

PREVALENCE OF SELF-REPORTED SPINAL PAIN IN BRAZIL: RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH

ABSTRACT Objective: To identify the prevalence and distribution of cases of self-reported spinal disorders by persons who are 18 years or older living in Brazil according to sociodemographic variables. Methods: We used the Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde (PNS, national health research), developed by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in partnership with the Ministry of Health. The data obtained from the website of IBGE System of Automatic Recovery - SIDRA were analyzed using the SPSS Statistics software version 20.0, IBM. Results: In Brazil 19% of the adult population report chronic spinal pain, 15.26% (± 4.56) men and 20.08% (+/- 4.11) women. After the age of 60, the prevalence is higher. Regarding skin color 18.26% (± 3.53) are white, 17.27% (± 6.65) are black and 17.93% (± 4.05) are brown, with no statistical difference. As for education, 23.55% (±5.70) had low or absent schooling (p < 0.001). The southern region of Brazil has the highest percentage (23.3%) of adults with chronic problems in the spine, and the state with the highest percentage is Paraná, with 26%. Conclusions: The results showed that there is a relationship between spinal pain and sociodemographic characteristics, pointing to the southern region as the most affected by spinal disorders when compared to other regions of the country.

Comparison of the Swedish STarT Back Screening Tool and the Short Form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in patients with acute or subacute back and neck pain

BACKGROUND

Patients with back and neck pain are often seen in primary care and it is important to provide them with tailored interventions based on risk stratification/triage. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is a widely used screening questionnaire which has not yet been validated for a population with back and/or neck pain with short duration. Our aim was to compare the concurrent validity of the SBT and the short form of the ÖMPSQ including psychometric properties and clinical utility in a primary care setting.

METHODS

Patients who applied for physiotherapy by direct access (January 2013 to January 2014) at 35 primary care centers in south Sweden, with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain, aged 18-67 years, who were not currently on sick leave or had been on sick leave less than 60 days were asked to complete the SBT and ÖMPSQ-short questionnaire (n = 329). We used the Spearman's rank correlations to study correlations, cross tabulation and Cohen's kappa to analyze agreement of patient classification. Clinical utility was described as clinician scoring miscalculations and misclassifications of total and/or subscale scores.

RESULTS

Completed SBT (9-items) and ÖMPSQ-short (10-items) data were available for 315/329 patients respectively. The statistical correlation for SBT and ÖMPSQ-short total scores was moderately strong (0.62, p < 0.01). In subgroup analyses, the correlations were 0.69 (p < 0.01) for males and 0.57 (p < 0.01) for females. The correlations were lower among older age groups, especially females over 50 years (0.21, p = 0.11). Classification to high or low risk for long-term pain and disability had moderate agreement (κ = 0.42). Observed classification agreement was 70.2%. The SBT had fewer miscalculations (13/315) than the ÖMPSQ-short (54/315).

CONCLUSIONS

The correlation between the SBT and the ÖMPSQ-short scores were moderately strong for individuals with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain. SBT seemed to be clinically feasible to use in clinical practice. We therefore suggest that SBT can be used for individuals with both BP and/or NP in primary care settings but it is important to be aware of that SBT's agreement with the ÖMPSQ-short was poor among females aged over 50 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02609750 Registered: November 18, 2015.