Improving the Predictive Validity of the Dutch STarT Back Tool

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the predictive validity of the Dutch version of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) can be improved by (1) using other cut-off values, (2) changing the items, or (3) adding prognostic factors to the SBT.

DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study (PRINS study: Prevalence of Risk groups in Neck- and back pain patients according to the STarT back screening tool) in patients with low back or neck pain.

METHODS

The predictive validity was calculated with a relative risk ratio and a Spearman correlation. The new cut-off values were calculated with receiver operating characteristic curves. Replacing items of the SBT and adding new items were assessed with logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included; 51% were categorized as having low risk, 39% as moderate risk, and 11% as high risk. Changing the cut-off total score to ≤2 and the subscore to ≥5 led to an improvement of the Spearman correlation and RR. Adding the item "duration of the complaints" improved the RR for moderate risk (3.6) (95% CI = 1.6-7.9) and for high risk (9.0) (95% CI = 4.2-19.1) compared with low risk. The new Spearman correlation was improved to rs = 0.37.

CONCLUSION

The predictive validity was improved by adding the item "duration of the complaints" and changing the cut-off values.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Physical Therapy Assessment and Treatment in Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain

The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews.During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions.In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement "acting as usual."In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar.In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary.In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and only for a few weeks.

Can Primary Care for Back and/or Neck Pain in the Netherlands Benefit From Stratification for Risk Groups According to the STarT Back Tool Classification?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of patients' risk profile and clinicians' applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patients with NP received the low-risk treatment approach. The medium-risk treatment approach was offered the most (90.8%), and the high-risk approach was applied in only 3.1% of the patients. The specific agreement between the risk profile and received treatment for patients with NP was poor for low-risk and medium-risk patients (6.3% and 48.0%, respectively); agreement for high-risk patients could not be calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Dutch primary care for patients with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both does not correspond to the recommended stratified-care approach based on the SBT, as most patients receive medium-risk treatment. Most low-risk patients are overtreated, and most high-risk patients are undertreated. Although the stratified-care approach has not yet been validated in Dutch primary care, these results indicate there may be substantial room for improvement.

Patient Nonadherence to Guideline-Recommended Care in Acute Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To describe the magnitude of patient-reported nonadherence with guideline-recommended care for acute low back pain.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from participants enrolled in the Paracetamol for Acute Low Back Pain study trial, a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of paracetamol for acute low back pain.

SETTING

Primary care, general practitioner.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from participants with acute low back pain (N=1643).

INTERVENTIONS

Guideline-recommended care, including reassurance, simple analgesia, and the advice to stay active and avoid bed rest. Also, advice against additional treatments and referral for imaging.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of nonadherence with guideline-recommended care. Nonadherence was defined as (1) failure to consume the advised paracetamol dose, or (2) receipt of additional health care, tests, or medication during the trial treatment period (4wk). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with nonadherence.

RESULTS

In the first week of treatment, 39.7% of participants were classified as nonadherent. Over the 4-week treatment period, 70.0% were nonadherent, and 57.5% did not complete the advised paracetamol regimen. Higher perceived risk of persistent pain, lower level of disability, and not claiming workers' compensation were associated with nonadherence, with odds ratios ranging from .46 to 1.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guideline-recommended care for acute low back pain was poor. Most participants do not complete the advised paracetamol regimen. Higher perceived risk of persistence of complaints, lower baseline disability, and participants not claiming workers' compensation were independently associated with nonadherence.

Validity and Reproducibility of the STarT Back Tool (Dutch Version) in Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care Settings

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to translate and to investigate the reliability and validity of the STarT Back screening tool (SBT) in the primary care setting among patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

The SBT was formally translated into Dutch following a multistep approach for forward and backward translation. General practitioners and physical therapists included patients with LBP.

METHODS

Patients completed a baseline questionnaire and a follow-up at 3 days and 3 months. The construct validity was calculated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. The reproducibility was assessed using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using relative risk ratios for persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analyzed using floor and ceiling effects.

RESULTS

In total, 184 patients were included; 52.2% were categorized in the "low-risk" subgroup, 38.0% "medium-risk," and 9.8% "high-risk." For the construct validity we found, as expected, a moderate to high Pearson's correlation for questions 3 to 9 and a low correlation for questions 1 and 2 with their respective reference questionnaires. The reproducibility had a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.65 and the specific agreement of 82.4% for "low-risk," 53.3% for "medium-risk," and 33.3% for "high-risk." For the predictive validity for persisting disability we found a relative risk ratio for "medium-risk" of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-3.1) and 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4-4.9) for "high-risk" compared with "low-risk." For the content validity, we found that no floor and ceiling effects were present.

LIMITATIONS

There was a relatively small sample size for the retest reliability study. Patients were not compared between physical therapist and GP, as there were not enough patients in both groups. For practical reasons, the patients filled out the baseline questionnaire after receiving the first treatment/consultation; however, the questionnaire is intended to be filled in before the first consultation/treatment.

CONCLUSION

The SBT has been successfully translated into Dutch. The psychometric analysis showed acceptable results and, therefore, the SBT is a valid screening tool for patients with LBP in Dutch primary care.

Clinical and arteriographic characterization of patients with unstable angina without critical coronary arterial narrowing (from the TIMI-IIIA Trial)

Previous studies have reported that some patients presenting with unstable angina are found at coronary angiography to have no critical coronary stenosis. This study evaluated the clinical presentation and arteriographic findings in patients enrolled in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Ischemia (TIMI-IIIA) trial, which assessed the effect of tissue-type plasminogen activator added to conventional therapy on the coronary arteriographic findings in patients presenting with ischemic pain at rest. Three hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled in the TIMI-IIIA trial and underwent coronary arteriography within 12 hours of enrollment. Fifty-three patients (14%) had no luminal diameter stenosis of a major coronary artery of > or = 60% on the baseline arteriogram. Compared with patients with unstable angina with an identifiable culprit lesion, patients without critical coronary obstruction were more likely to be women and non-white and less likely to have ST-segment deviation on the presenting electrocardiogram. Arteriography in such patients revealed no visually detectable coronary stenosis in half of the group; the remaining patients had noncritical coronary narrowing (i.e., < 60% luminal diameter stenosis) without morphologic features (ulceration or thrombus) suggestive of unstable or active coronary plaque. Nearly one third of the patients without critical coronary stenosis had impaired angiographic filling, suggesting a possible pathophysiologic role for coronary microvascular dysfunction. These patients with unstable angina and no critical coronary obstruction had an excellent short-term prognosis; 2% died or had myocardial infarction compared with 18% of patients with critical obstruction.

A new bioabsorbable intravascular stent: in vitro assessment of hemodynamic and morphometric characteristics

Currently available intracoronary stents are permanent and their placement may be complicated by thrombosis and restenosis. We have developed a new bioresorbable stent constructed of type I collagen. This stent has a compliant tubular structure that is self expanding and carries a net negative surface charge to increase hemocompatibility. In vitro histologic and morphometric examination was performed by deploying the stent in six pressure fixed explanted porcine arteries. Morphometry revealed a close relationship between the stent external diameter 2.9 +/- 0.4 mm) and the arterial lumen diameter (3.0 +/- 0.4 mm). A relative reduction in arterial lumen diameter secondary to stent placement of 17% to 26% was observed. Folding of the stent wall was noted in those preparations where the stent external diameter was larger than the arterial lumen diameter. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing was used as a mock arterial segment for flow studies. Flow at baseline and following stent placement was determined at perfusion pressures of 10, 50, and 80 mmHg. A modest reduction in flow following stent placement of between 2% and 6% was observed. Thus, type I collagen may be used to construct a self expanding tubular stent. Morphometric and hemodynamic evaluation reveals a modest impact on arterial lumen dimensions and flow.