The natural course of low back pain: a systematic critical literature review

Background

Most patients in the secondary care sector consulting for low back pain (LBP) seem to have a more or less constant course of pain during the ensuing year. Fewer patients with LBP in the primary care sector report continual pain over a one-year period. However, not much is known about the long-term course of LBP in the general population. A systematic critical literature review was undertaken in order to study the natural course of LBP over time in the general population.

Methods

A search of articles was performed in Pubmed, Cinahl and Psychinfo using the search terms ‘epidemiology’; ‘low back pain’ or ‘back pain’; ‘prospective study’ or ‘longitudinal study’; ‘follow-up’, ‘natural course’, ‘course’ or ‘natural history’; ‘general population’ or ‘working population’. Inclusion criteria were that one of the objectives was to study the course of (L)BP in the adult population, that the period of follow-up was at least 3 months, and that there were three points of observation or more. The review was undertaken by two independent reviewers using three checklists relating to description of studies, quality and outcomes. The course of LBP was established in relation to those who, at baseline, were reported not to have LBP or to have LBP. Would this course be stable, fluctuating, worsening, or improving over time? A synthesis of results in relation to common patterns was presented in a table and interpreted in a narrative form.

Results

Eight articles were included. Articles were different on time span, the number of surveys, and the definition of LBP. In six of the seven relevant studies, for those with no LBP at baseline, relatively substantial stable subgroups of people who continued to be LBP free were identified. In six of the seven relevant studies, definite stable subgroups of continued LBP were noted and improvement (becoming pain free) was never reported to be a common finding.

Conclusion

The status of LBP in individuals of the general population appears to be relatively stable over time, perhaps particularly so for those without LBP at baseline.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.

RESULTS

After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.

CONCLUSION

A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

METHODS

Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess posture, pain location, and cervical spine mobility in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: Part 4. A systematic review from the cervical assessment and diagnosis research evaluation (CADRE) collaboration

PURPOSE

To determine the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess posture, pain location, and cervical spine mobility in adults with grades I-IV neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases to update the systematic review of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Eligible reliability and validity studies were critically appraised using modified versions of the QAREL and QUADAS-2 instruments, respectively. Evidence from low risk of bias studies were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We screened 14302 articles, critically appraised 46 studies, and found 32 low risk of bias articles (14 reliability and 18 validity studies). We found preliminary evidence of: 1) reliability of visual inspection, aided with devices (CROM and digital caliper) to assess head posture; 2) reliability and validity of soft tissue palpation to locate tender/trigger points in muscles; 3) reliability and validity of joint motion palpation to assess stiffness and pain provocation in combination; and 4) range of motion tests using visual estimation (in cervical extension only) or devices (digital caliper, goniometer, inclinometer) to assess cervical mobility.

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to support the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess head posture, pain location and cervical mobility in adults with NAD grades I-III. More advanced validity studies are needed to inform the clinical utility of tests used to evaluate patients with NAD.

Reliability and validity of manual palpation for the assessment of patients with low back pain: a systematic and critical review

BACKGROUND

Static or motion manual palpation of the low back is commonly used to assess pain location and reproduction in low back pain (LBP) patients. The purpose of this study is to review the reliability and validity of manual palpation used for the assessment of LBP in adults.

METHOD

We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2019. We critically appraised internal validity of studies using QAREL and QUADAS-2 instruments. We stratified results using best-evidence synthesis. Validity studies were classified according to Sackett and Haynes.

RESULTS

We identified 2023 eligible articles, of which 14 were low risk of bias. Evidence suggests that reliability of soft tissue structures palpation is inconsistent, and reliability of bony structures and joint mobility palpation is poor. We found preliminary evidence that gluteal muscle palpation for tenderness may be valid in differentiating LBP patients with and without radiculopathy.

CONCLUSION

Reliability of manual palpation tests in the assessment of LBP patients varies greatly. This is problematic because these tests are commonly used by manual therapists and clinicians. Little is known about the validity of these tests; therefore, their clinical utility is uncertain. High quality validity studies are needed to inform the clinical use of manual palpation tests.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway.

METHODS

Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.

METHODS

World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Evidence-based classification of low back pain in the general population: one-year data collected with SMS Track

BACKGROUND

It was previously assumed that low back pain (LBP) is a disorder that can be classified as acute, subacute and chronic. Lately, the opinion seems to have veered towards a concept of it being a more recurrent or cyclic condition. Interestingly, a recent review of the literature indicated that LBP in the general population is a rather stable condition, characterized as either being present or absent. However, only one of the reviewed studies had used frequent data collection, which would be necessary when studying detailed course patterns over time. It was the purpose of this study to see, if it was possible to identify whether LBP, when present, is rather episodic or chronic/persistent. Further, we wanted to see if it was possible to describe any specific course profiles of LBP in the general population.

METHODS

In all, 293 49/50-yr old Danes, who previously participated in a population-based study on LBP were invited to respond to 26 fortnightly text-messages over one year, each time asking them the number of days they had been bothered by LBP in the past two weeks. The course patterns for these individuals were identified through manual analysis, by observing the interplay between non-episodes and episodes of LBP. A non-episode of LBP was defined as a period of at least one month without LBP as proposed by de Vet et al. A fortnight with at least one day of pain was defined as a pain fortnight (FN). At least one pain FN surrounded by a non-episode on each side was defined as an episode of LBP. After some preliminary observations of the spread of data, episodes were further classified as brief (consisting of only one pain FN) or longer (if there were at least 2 pain FNs in a row). An episode of at least 6 pain FNs in a row (i.e. 3 months) was defined as a long-lasting episode.

RESULTS

In all, 261 study subjects were included in the analyses, for which 7 distinct LBP subsets could be identified. These could be grouped into three major clusters; those mainly without LBP (35%), those with episodic LBP (30%) and those with persistent LBP (35%). There was a positive association between number of episodes and their duration.

CONCLUSION

In this study population, consisting of 50-yr old persons from the general population, LBP, when present, could be classified as either 'episodic' or 'mainly persistent'. About one third was mainly LBP-free throughout the year of study. More information is needed in relation to their relative proportions in various populations and the clinical relevance of these subgroups.

Reliability and validity of self-reported questionnaires to measure pain and disability in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: part 3-a systematic review from the CADRE Collaboration

PURPOSE

To determine the reliability and validity of self-reported questionnaires to measure pain and disability in adults with grades I-IV neck pain and its associated disorders (NAD).

METHODS

We updated the systematic review of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders and systematically searched databases from 2005 to 2017. Independent reviewers screened and critically appraised studies using standardized tools. Evidence from low-risk-of-bias studies was synthesized according to best evidence synthesis principles. Validity studies were ranked according to the Sackett and Haynes classification.

RESULTS

We screened 2823 articles, and 26 were eligible for critical appraisal; 18 were low risk of bias. Preliminary evidence suggests that the Neck Disability Index (original and short versions), Whiplash Disability Questionnaire, Neck Pain Driving Index, and ProFitMap-Neck may be valid and reliable to measure disability in patients with NAD. We found preliminary evidence for the validity and reliability of pain measurements including the Body Pain Diagram, Visual Analogue Scale, the Numeric Rating Scale and the Pain-DETECT Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The evidence supporting the validity and reliability of instruments used to measure pain and disability is preliminary. Further validity studies are needed to confirm the clinical utility of self-reported questionnaires to assess pain and disability in patients with NAD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess the anatomical integrity of the cervical spine in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: Part 1-A systematic review from the Cervical Assessment and Diagnosis Research Evaluation (CADRE) Collaboration

OBJECTIVE

To determine the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess the anatomical integrity of the cervical spine in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders.

METHODS

We updated the systematic review of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. We also searched the literature to identify studies on the reliability and validity of Doppler velocimetry for the evaluation of cervical arteries. Two independent reviewers screened and critically appraised studies. We conducted a best evidence synthesis of low risk of bias studies and ranked the phases of investigations using the classification proposed by Sackett and Haynes.

RESULTS

We screened 9022 articles and critically appraised 8 studies; all 8 studies had low risk of bias (three reliability and five validity Phase II-III studies). Preliminary evidence suggests that the extension-rotation test may be reliable and has adequate validity to rule out pain arising from facet joints. The evidence suggests variable reliability and preliminary validity for the evaluation of cervical radiculopathy including neurological examination (manual motor testing, dermatomal sensory testing, deep tendon reflexes, and pathological reflex testing), Spurling's and the upper limb neurodynamic tests. No evidence was found for doppler velocimetry.

CONCLUSIONS

Little evidence exists to support the use of clinical tests to evaluate the anatomical integrity of the cervical spine in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders. We found preliminary evidence to support the use of the extension-rotation test, neurological examination, Spurling's and the upper limb neurodynamic tests.

Absence of low back pain in the general population followed fortnightly over one year with automated text messages

Background

Over one year, the majority of patients with low back pain (LBP) from the secondary care sector could not report a single week without LBP and few could report a non-episode, defined as at least one month without LBP. Presumably, non-episodes would be more common in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of this definition of ´”non-episodes”, by studying their presence over one year in the general population. Specifically, we wanted to: 1) determine the prevalence of non-episodes, 2) identify the proportion of study participants who could be classified as being in a non-episode at the end of the observation period, and 3) estimate the proportion of participants classified as having at least two separate non-episodes.

Methods

Danes, aged 49/50, who previously participated in a population-based study on LBP received fortnightly automated text (SMS) messages over one year. Each time, participants reported the number of days with LBP in the preceding fortnight. Fortnights with 0 days of LBP were defined as ‘zero-fortnights’ and two such fortnights in a row (one month) were defined as a ‘non-episode’. Estimates are reported as percentages with their 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-three people were invited to participate. Of these, 16 declined participation and 16 were excluded because they failed to return their text message at least 20 of the 26 times, leaving 261 in the current analyses. Of these, 11% (2-22) never reported a zero-fortnight. In all, 83% (78-88) had at least one non-episode throughout the study period and the proportion of participants classified as being in a non-episode at the end of the study was 59% (53-65). The percentage of individuals with at least two non-episodes was 52% (46-58).

Conclusions

It is possible to differentiate people from the general population as having or not having episodes of LBP using the definition of absence of LBP over one month as the measure. Non-episodes were far more common in the general population than in the secondary care sector, suggesting it to be a potentially useful definition in research.

Determinants of clinical practice guidelines' utilization for the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review

CONTEXT

Many clinical practice guidelines have been developed for the management of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). However, there is a gap between evidence-based knowledge and clinical practice, and reasons are poorly understood. Understanding why healthcare providers use clinical practice guidelines is essential to improve their implementation, dissemination, and adherence.

AIM

To identify determinants of clinical practice guidelines' utilization by health care providers involved in the assessment and management of MSDs.

METHOD

A scoping review of the literature was conducted. Three databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Article identification, study design, methodological quality, type of healthcare providers, MSDs, barriers and facilitators associated with guidelines' utilization were extracted from selected articles.

RESULTS

8671 citations were retrieved, and 43 articles were selected. 51% of studies were from Europe, and most were quantitative studies (64%) following a cross-sectional design (88%). Almost 80% of articles dealt with low back pain guidelines, and the most studied healthcare providers were general practitioners or physiotherapists. Five main barriers to guideline utilization were expressed by providers: 1) disagreement between recommendations and patient expectations; 2) guidelines not specific to individual patients; 3) unfamiliarity with "non-specific" term, or with the bio psychosocial model of MSDs; 4) time consuming; and 5) heterogeneity in guideline methods. Four main facilitators to guideline utilization were cited: 1) clinician's interest in evidence-based practice; 2) perception from clinicians that the guideline will improve triage, diagnosis and management; 3) time efficiency; and 4) standardized language.

CONCLUSION

Identifying modifiable determinants is the first step in developing implementation strategies to improve guideline utilization in clinical practice.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.

RESULTS

Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Stability of low back pain reporting over 8 years in a general population aged 40/41 years at base-line: data from three consecutive cross-sectional surveys

Background

A recent review on the natural course of low back pain (LBP) in the general population indicated that the LBP reporting pattern is fairly constant over time. Furthermore, the LBP status at baseline (yes/no) seems to be predictive of the future course. When fluctuations occur, they seem most common between the nearest categories. However, in the majority of articles, non-responders were not taken into account in the analyses or interpretation of data, meaning that estimates may have been biased. Further, all reviewed studies included study participants of many different age groups. Data from three cross-sectional surveys over 8 years of the same cohort made it possible to answer the following questions: 1) Would the prevalence estimates of LBP be stable over time? 2) How would results change when taking into account non-responders? 3) Is the LBP reporting over the three survey periods stable at an individual level, taking into account also the non-responding group?

Methods

Data from three subsequent cross-sectional surveys of a study sample were available and questions about LBP were asked at baseline and also 4 and 8 years later. Study participants were 40/41 years at base-line and initially randomly selected from the general Danish population. Data were analyzed with STATA/IC 12, and presented with percentages and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The majority of participants reported to have had LBP in the preceding year but not having taken sick leave in relation to this pain. LBP was stable or relatively stable for the study participants as they progressed through their fifth decade. This was true on a population basis and also on an individual level. When non-responders were taken into account the results did not change.

Conclusions

This study confirmed the results from our recent review; both presence and absence of LBP seem to be predictive for the future course. The percentage of non-responders in this type of study may not be as important as previously thought in relation to the presence/absence of LBP.

Effectiveness of preventive and treatment interventions for primary headaches in the workplace: A systematic review of the literature

Aim The purpose of this systematic literature review is to assess the benefits of workplace-based occupational therapies and interventions, including acute and preventive medication, on headache intensity and frequency, related disability as well as work-related outcomes. Methods A search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, CINAHL and Embase using terms related to headache, workplace and occupational health. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool was used on individual studies to assess internal validity and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was applied to studies by clinical outcome and used to rate quality of evidence. Results Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review. None of them were classified as low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. This systematic review found preliminary low-quality evidence suggesting that exercise and acupuncture can reduce workers' headache pain intensity, frequency and related disability. Conclusion Although this systematic review provided preliminary low evidence in favour of work-based intervention, studies with more rigorous designs and methodologies are needed to provide further evidence of the effectiveness of workplace-based headache management strategies.

Effectiveness of Multimodal Rehabilitation Interventions for Management of Cervical Radiculopathy in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (Optima) Collaboration

OBJECTIVE

To update the systematic review from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration and to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal rehabilitation interventions for the management of adults with cervical radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.

METHODS

Eligible studies (from January 2013 to June 2020) were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and Risk of Bias 2.0 criteria. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were deemed acceptable and 1 RCT was considered low quality. In adults with recent-onset cervical radiculopathy, multimodal rehabilitation was associated with a trivial and nonclinically important reduction in neck pain compared with mechanical cervical traction; no differences in disability were reported (1 study, 360 participants, low certainty of the evidence). In adults with cervical radiculopathy of any duration, (i) multimodal rehabilitation may be more effective than prescribed physical activity and brief cognitive-behavioural approach; specifically, a small reduction in arm pain and in function was found (1 study, 144 participants, low certainty of the evidence); (ii) no difference in pain reduction was found between multimodal rehabilitation interventions compared with an epidural steroid injection (1 study, 169 participants, low certainty of the evidence); and (iii) compared with surgery combined with neck exercises, multimodal rehabilitation interventions lead to similar arm pain reduction and improvement in function (1 study, 68 participants, low certainty of the evidence).

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that some multimodal rehabilitation care may provide small and trivial reduction in neck pain or improvement in function to patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Assessing attitudes of patient-centred care among students in international chiropractic educational programs: a cross-sectional survey

Background

Patient-centred care is internationally recognized as a foundation of quality patient care. Attitudes of students towards patient-centred care have been assessed in various health professions. However, little is known how chiropractic students' attitudes towards patient-centred care compare to those of other health professions or whether they vary internationally, and between academic programs.

Objective

To assess the association of select variables on student attitude towards patient-centred care among select chiropractic programs worldwide.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) to assess students' patient-centred attitudes towards the doctor-patient relationship. Eighteen items were scored on a 1 to 6 Likert scale; higher scores indicating more patient-centredness. All students from seven chiropractic educational programs worldwide were invited to complete an online survey. Results were analyzed descriptively and inferentially for overall, sharing and caring subscales. General linear regression models were used to assess the association of various factors with PPOS scores.

Results

There were 1858 respondents (48.9% response rate). Student average age was 24.7 (range = 17-58) years and 56.2% were female. The average overall PPOS score was 4.18 (SD = 0.48) and average sharing and caring subscale scores were 3.89 (SD = 0.64) and 4.48 (SD = 0.52), respectively. There were small but significant differences in all PPOS scores by gender, age, and program. Year/semester of study within a program typically was not associated with scores, neither was history of previous chiropractic care nor having family members who are health professionals.

Conclusion

This is the first international study assessing students' attitudes of patient-centred care in chiropractic educational programs. We found small but significantly different PPOS scores between chiropractic programs worldwide that did not change across year/semester of study. Scores tended to be lower than those reported among medical students. Observed differences may be related to curricular content, extent of patient exposure and/or regional cultural realities.

Prevalence of pain-free weeks in chiropractic subjects with low back pain - a longitudinal study using data gathered with text messages

INTRODUCTION

The use of automated text messages has made it possible to identify different courses of low back pain (LBP), and it has been observed that pain often fluctuates and that absolute recovery is rather rare. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of pain-free weeks and pain-free periods in subjects with non-specific LBP treated by chiropractors, and to compare subjects from two different countries in these aspects.

METHODS

Data were obtained from two practice-based multicentre prospective outcome studies, one Danish and one Swedish, involving subjects being treated by chiropractors for non-specific LBP. Over 18 weeks, subjects answered a weekly automated text message question on the number of days in the past week that they had experienced bothersome LBP, i.e. a number between 0 and 7. The number of weeks in a row without any LBP at all ("zero weeks") as well as the maximum number of zero weeks in a row was determined for each individual. Comparisons were made between the two study samples. Estimates are presented as percentages with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In the Danish and the Swedish populations respectively, 93/110 (85%) and 233/262 (89%) of the subjects were eligible for analysis. In both groups, zero weeks were rather rare and were most commonly (in 40% of the zero weeks) reported as a single isolated week. The prevalence of pain free periods, i.e. reporting a maximum of 0, 1 or 2, or 3-6 zero weeks in a row, were similar in the two populations (20-31%). Smaller percentages were reported for ≥ 7 zero weeks in a row. There were no significant differences between the two study groups.

CONCLUSION

It was uncommon that chiropractic subjects treated for non-specific LBP experienced an entire week without any LBP at all over 18 weeks. When this occurred, it was most commonly reported for brief periods only. Hence, recovery in the sense that patients become absolutely pain free is rare, even in a primary care population.

Do number of days with low back pain and patterns of episodes of pain have similar outcomes in a biopsychosocial prediction model?

PURPOSES

We used two different methods to classify low back pain (LBP) in the general population (1) to assess the overlapping of individuals within the different subgroups in those two classifications, (2) to explore if the associations between LBP and some selected bio-psychosocial factors are similar, regardless which of the two classifications is used.

METHOD

During 1 year, 49- or 50-year-old people from the Danish general population were sent fortnightly automated text messages (SMS-Track) asking them if they had any LBP in the past fortnight. Responses for the whole year were then classified into two different ways: (1) In relation to the number of days with LBP in the preceding year (0, 1-30, and >30), (2) In relation to the frequency and duration of episodes of LBP (more or less never pain, episodic, and more or less constant pain). Some bio-psychosocial factors, collected with a questionnaire at baseline 9 years earlier, were entered into regression models to investigate their associations with the subgroups of the two classifications of LBP and the results compared.

RESULTS

The percentage of agreement between categories of the two classification systems was above 68 % (Kappa 0.7). Despite the large overlap of persons in the two classification groups, the patterns of associations with the two types of LBP definitions were different in the two classification groups. However, none of the estimates were significantly different when the variables were compared across the two classifications.

CONCLUSION

Different classification systems of LBP are capable of bringing forth different findings. This may help explain the lack of consistency between studies on risk factors of LBP.

Classification of myo-connective tissue injuries for severity grading and return to play prediction: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature search to identify currently used classifications of acute non-contact muscle injuries in sporting adults.

DESIGNS

Scoping review.

METHODS

A systematic literature search from January 1, 2010 to April 19, 2022 of Medline and SPORTDiscus yielded 13,426 articles that were screened for eligibility. Findings from included studies were qualitatively synthesized. Classifications and their grading, as well as outcomes and definitions were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-four classifications were identified from the 37 included studies, most of which had low evidence study designs. Majority (57 %) of classifications were published after 2009 and were mostly developed for hamstring or other lower limb injuries. The six most cited classifications accounted for 70 % of the reports (BAMIC, modified Peetrons, Munich, Cohen, Chan and MLG-R). Outcome reporting was sparse, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Still, significant relationships between grading and time to return to play were reported for the BAMIC, modified Peetrons, Munich and Cohen classifications. Other classifications either had a very low number of reported associations, reported no associations, reported inconclusive associations, or did not report an assessment of the association. Other outcomes were poorly investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no agreed-upon use of muscle classification, and no consensus on definitions and terminology. As a result, reported outcomes and their relationship to severity grading are inconsistent across studies. There is a need to improve the generalizability and applicability of existing classifications and to refine their prognostic value. High-level evidence studies are needed to resolve these inconsistencies.

Conservative interventions and clinical outcome measures used in the perioperative rehabilitation of breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Mastectomy is the first-line treatment approach for more than 90% of breast cancer patients. The numerous physical impairments associated with this surgical procedure negatively impact the patient's quality of life. To date, rehabilitation resources available for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy within the institutions affiliated to the Centre intégré universitaire de soins de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec (CIUSSS-MCQ) are lacking and do not always seem to reflect the particularities of breast cancer care pathways. The purpose of this review was to identify and describe the conservative interventions and the clinical outcome measures used in the perioperative physical rehabilitation of women with breast cancer who are awaiting or have undergone mastectomy. We also aimed to report on the barriers and facilitators to study participation and completion.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2021, and we updated the search on July 11, 2022. We included peer-reviewed English and French literature with quantitative designs, describing conservative interventions and clinical outcome measures used within rehabilitation programs designed for women who were awaiting or had undergone mastectomy. Paired reviewers independently reviewed all citations and articles using a two-phase screening process and independently extracted the data.

RESULTS

Of the 6080 articles identified, 57 met the inclusion criteria. Most interventions were multimodal, which combined exercise with patient education, manual therapy, and/or lymphatic drainage. The most frequently used objective measures of physical function were shoulder range of motion, muscle strength, and signs of lymphedema. In contrast, the primary patient-reported outcome measures were quality of life, shoulder function, and pain. Undergoing another breast surgery, death, and cancer recurrence were the most reported barriers to study completion.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review reports on the heterogeneity and wide range of conservative interventions and clinical outcome measures used in the physical rehabilitation of breast cancer patients who had undergone or were scheduled to undergo mastectomy. Tailoring interventions to breast cancer patients' needs and promoting outpatient rehabilitation interventions appear to be better suited to the particularities of breast cancer care pathways. Further research is needed to better identify barriers and facilitators to study participation and completion.

Do chiropractic interns use clinical practice guidelines when managing patients with neck pain in France? A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

In France, we lack knowledge about factors influencing chiropractors' use of French guideline for managing neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). In particular, we know little about how chiropractic interns use clinical practice guidelines during their training.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a cross-sectional study of chiropractic interns to determine their utilization and conformity with clinical practice guidelines when managing patients with NAD in France.

METHOD

We developed a web-based questionnaire which included 3 sections: (1) clinical vignettes; (2) determinants of practice and (3) socio-demographic and current practice information. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase included 2 groups: chiropractors and students (interns). Ten chiropractors reviewed and made recommendations on content (especially clinical vignettes), readability, and flow of the survey. Fifteen interns were invited to pretest the proposed recruitment strategy and determine time needed to survey completion, assess completeness of data collection, and evaluate its readability and flow in students. Due to the low participation of students during the first phase, 20 additional interns were invited to participate and pilot the revised recruitment strategy during the second phase. A group of 20 interns were invited to participate and pilot the revised recruitment strategy during the second phase. Qualitative feedbacks about the recruitment strategy, the content of the questionnaire and the survey process were collected by phone to improve all these steps if necessary.

RESULTS

We collected data from November 2020 to February 2021. In phase 1, 70% of chiropractors (7/10) reviewed the survey and one intern responded (7% participation rate). A revised recruitment strategy was designed and 70% of interns agreed to participate in phase 2. Time to complete the questionnaire was on average 48 m:22 s. Interns evaluated survey content as relevant, comprehensive, covering the range of 4 grades of NAD, and adapted to an intern sample. Five main modifications were recommended by (1) Adjusting survey support; (2) Enhancing communication strategy; (3) Considering interns' comments about the length of the questionnaire; (4) Modifying 2 determinants not adapted to a French context; (5) Adding a proposal when determinants deal with multidisciplinary management.

CONCLUSION

Conducting a web-based cross-sectional study of chiropractic interns to assess their utilization and conformity to clinical practice guideline is feasible.

Pre-rehabilitation scores of functioning measured using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in persons with nonspecific low back pain: a scoping review

Knowledge of the pre-rehabilitation generic status of functioning in individuals with low back pain is necessary to understand the clinical utility of rehabilitation care. We conducted a scoping review to describe the pre-rehabilitation functioning status of persons with nonspecific low back pain using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS)-36 or WHODAS-12. We searched multiple databases from 2010 to 2021 for studies reporting pre-rehabilitation scores using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and we descriptively summarized results by the duration of low back pain (acute/subacute <3 months; chronic ≥3 months), and the WHODAS version. Of 1770 citations screened, eight citations were relevant. Five studies were conducted in Europe, two in America, and one in the African Region (mostly high-income countries). In persons with acute low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 pre-rehabilitation summary score (complex scoring) was 22.8/100 (SD = 15.4) (one study). In persons with chronic low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 summary score (complex scoring) ranged from 22.8/100 (SD = 5.7) to 41.5/100 (SD = 13.8) (two studies). For WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain, the mean summary score was 11.4/48 (SD = 8.7) or 14.4/48 (SD = 9.4) using simple scoring (two studies), and 25.8/100 (SD = 2.2) using complex scoring (one study). No floor or ceiling effects were observed in WHODAS-36 summary scores for chronic low back pain. Our scoping review comprehensively summarizes available studies reporting pre-rehabilitation levels of functioning using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Persons with low back pain seeking rehabilitation have moderate limitations in functioning, and limitations level tends to be worse with chronic low back pain.