What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: A scoping review was conducted with the objective to identify and map the available evidence from long-term studies on chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), to examine how these studies are conducted, and to address potential knowledge gaps. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to march 2021, not restricted by date or language. Experimental and observational study types were included. Inclusion criteria were: participants between 18 and 65 years old with non-specific sub-acute or chronic LBP, minimum average follow-up of > 2 years, and studies had to report at least one of the following outcome measures: disability, quality of life, work participation, or health care utilization. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically. RESULTS: Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies examined invasive treatments (72%), conservative (21%), or a comparison of both (7%). No natural cohorts were included. Methodological quality was weak (16% of studies), moderate (63%), or strong (21%) and generally improved after 2010. Disability (92%) and pain (86%) outcomes were most commonly reported, followed by work (25%), quality of life (15%), and health care utilization (4%). Most studies reported significant improvement at long-term follow-up (median 51 months, range 26 months-18 years). Only 10 (11%) studies took more than one measurement > 2 year after baseline. CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent non-specific LBP seem to experience improvement in pain, disability and quality of life years after seeking treatment. However, it remains unclear what factors might have influenced these improvements, and whether they are treatment-related. Studies varied greatly in design, patient population, and methods of data collection. There is still little insight into the long-term natural course of LBP. Additionally, few studies perform repeated measurements during long-term follow-up or report on patient-centered outcomes other than pain or disability.

Validation of the work ability index-single item and the pain disability index-work item in patients with chronic low back pain.

PURPOSE: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study was conducted to analyse construct validity, responsiveness, and Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCIC) in the Work Ability Score (WAS) and Pain Disability Index Work item (PDI-W) in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP). METHOD: Construct validity was assessed by testing predefined hypotheses. Responsiveness and MCIC were measured with an anchor-based method. The area under the receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) and the optimal cut-off point were calculated. Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) was calculated to determine measurement error. RESULTS: In total, 1502 patients (age 18-65 years) with CLBP were included. For validity of the WAS and PDI-W, respectively, seven and six out of 10 hypotheses were not rejected. The WAS (n = 355) was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.70. MCIC was 1.5 point, SDCindividual 4.9, and SDCgroup 0.3. MCICs were 4.5, 1.5, and - 0.5 points for, respectively, low, middle, and high scoring baseline groups. The PDI-W (n = 297) was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.80. MCIC was - 2.5 points, SDCindividual 5.2, and SDCgroup 0.3. MCICs were - 0.5, - 2.5, and - 4.5 points for, respectively, low, middle, and high scoring baseline groups. CONCLUSION: Construct validity of the WAS and PDI-W was insufficient in this patient sample. The WAS and PDI-W are responsive to change. On average, improvements of 1.5 point (WAS) and - 2.5 points (PDI-W) were interpreted as clinically important. However, MCICs are also baseline dependent. Due to a risk of measurement error, at the individual level change scores should be interpreted with caution.

Trajectories of Disability and Low Back Pain Impact: 2-year Follow-up of the Groningen Spine Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify treatment response trajectories in patients with low back pain (LBP) during and after multidisciplinary care in a tertiary spine center, and to examine baseline patient characteristics that can distinguish trajectories. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment response is often heterogeneous between patients with LBP. Knowledge on key characteristics that are associated with courses of disability could identify patients at risk for less favorable outcome. This knowledge will help improve shared decision-making. METHODS: Adult patients with LBP completed questionnaires on disability (Pain Disability Index) and LBP impact (Impact Stratification of the National Institutes of Health minimal dataset) at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months' follow-up. Latent class analyses were applied to identify trajectories of disability and LBP impact. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical patient characteristics were compared between trajectory subgroups. RESULTS: Follow-up was available for 996 patients on disability and 707 patients on LBP impact. Six trajectories were identified for both outcome measures. Three disability trajectories remained stable at distinct levels of severity (68% of patients) and three trajectories showed patterns of recovery (32%). For LBP impact there was one stable trajectory (17%), two slightly improving (59%), two recovering (15%), and one with a pattern of recovery and relapse (15%). Significant differences between trajectories were observed for almost all baseline patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: On average, patients show moderate improvements in disability and LBP impact 2 years after visiting a multidisciplinary tertiary spine center. However, latent class analyses revealed that most patients belong to subgroups experiencing stable levels of disability and LBP impact. Differences in baseline patient characteristics were mostly associated with baseline levels of functioning, instead of (un)favorable outcome during follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Personal and Societal Impact of Low Back Pain: The Groningen Spine Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to study the personal and societal impact of low back pain (LBP) in patients admitted to a multidisciplinary spine center. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The socioeconomic burden of LBP is very high. A minority of patients visit secondary or tertiary care because of severe and long-lasting complaints. This subgroup may account for a major part of disability and costs, yet could potentially gain most from treatment. Currently, little is known about the personal and societal burden in patients with chronic complex LBP visiting secondary/tertiary care. METHODS: Baseline data were acquired through patient-reported questionnaires and health insurance claims. Primary outcomes were LBP impact (Impact Stratification, range 8-50), functioning (Pain Disability Index, PDI; 0-70), quality of life (EuroQol-5D, EQ5D; -0.33 to 1.00), work ability (Work Ability Score, WAS; 0-10), work participation, productivity costs (Productivity Cost Questionnaire), and healthcare costs 1 year before baseline. Healthcare costs were compared with matched primary and secondary care LBP samples. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied. RESULTS: In total, 1502 patients (age 46.3 ±â€Š12.8 years, 57% female) were included. Impact Stratification was 35.2 ±â€Š7.5 with severe impact (≥35) for 58% of patients. PDI was 38.2 ±â€Š14.1, EQ5D 0.39 (interquartile range, IQR: 0.17-0.72); WAS 4.0 (IQR: 1.0-6.0) and 17% were permanently work-disabled. Mean total health care costs (&OV0556;4875, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4309-5498) were higher compared to the matched primary care sample (n = 4995) (&OV0556;2365, 95% CI: 2219-2526, P < 0.001), and similar to the matched secondary care sample (n = 4993) (&OV0556;4379, 95% CI: 4180-4590). Productivity loss was estimated at &OV0556;4315 per patient (95% CI: 3898-4688) during 6 months. CONCLUSION: In patients seeking multidisciplinary spine care, the personal and societal impact of LBP is very high. Specifically, quality of life and work ability are poor and health care costs are twice as high compared to patients seeking primary LBP care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The NIH Minimal Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain: Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Change.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) minimal dataset for chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The NIH minimal dataset is a 40-item questionnaire developed to increase use of standardized definitions and measures for CLBP. Longitudinal validity of the total minimal dataset and the subscale Impact Stratification are unknown. METHODS: Total outcome scores on the NIH minimal dataset, Dutch Language Version, were calculated ranging from 0 to 100 points with higher scores representing worse functioning. Responsiveness and MCIC were determined with an anchor-based method, calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) and by determining the optimal cut-off point. Smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated as a parameter of measurement error. RESULTS: In total 223 patients with CLBP were included. Mean total score on the NIH minimal dataset was 44 ±â€Š14 points at baseline. The total outcome score was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.84. MCIC was 14 points with a sensitivity of 72% and specificity 82%, and SDC was 23 points. Mean total score on Impact Stratification (scale 8-50) was 34.4 ±â€Š7.4 points at baseline, with an AUC of 0.91, an MCIC of 7.5 with a sensitivity 96% of and specificity of 78%, and an SDC of 14 points. CONCLUSION: The longitudinal validity of the NIH minimal dataset is adequate. An improvement of 14 points in total outcome score and 7.5 points in Impact Stratification can be interpreted as clinically important in individual patients. However, MCIC depends on baseline values and the method that is chosen to determine the optimal cut-off point. Furthermore, measurement error is larger than the MCIC. This means that individual change scores should be interpreted with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Measurement Properties of the NIH-Minimal Dataset Dutch Language Version in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Validation study with cross-sectional and longitudinal measurements. OBJECTIVE: To translate the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)-minimal dataset for clinical research on chronic low back pain into the Dutch language and to test its validity and reliability among people with chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The NIH developed a minimal dataset to encourage more complete and consistent reporting of clinical research and to be able to compare studies across countries in patients with low back pain. In the Netherlands, the NIH-minimal dataset has not been translated before and measurement properties are unknown. METHODS: Cross-cultural validity was tested by a formal forward-backward translation. Structural validity was tested with exploratory factor analyses (comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis index, and root mean square error of approximation). Hypothesis testing was performed to compare subscales of the NIH dataset with the Pain Disability Index and the EurQol-5D (Pearson correlation coefficients). Internal consistency was tested with Cronbach α and test-retest reliability at 2 weeks was calculated in a subsample of patients with Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and weighted Kappa (κω). RESULTS: In total, 452 patients were included of which 52 were included for the test-retest study. VALIDITY: factor analysis for structural validity pointed into the direction of a seven-factor model (Cronbach α = 0.78). Factors and total score of the NIH-minimal dataset showed fair to good correlations with Pain Disability Index (r = 0.43-0.70) and EuroQol-5D (r = -0.41 to -0.64). Reliability: test-retest reliability per item showed substantial agreement (κω=0.65). Test-retest reliability per factor was moderate to good (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.71). CONCLUSION: The Dutch language version measurement properties of the NIH-minimal were satisfactory. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Effectiveness and feasibility of early physical rehabilitation programs for geriatric hospitalized patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Old adults admitted to the hospital are at severe risk of functional loss during hospitalization. Early in-hospital physical rehabilitation programs appear to prevent functional loss in geriatric patients. The first aim of this review was to investigate the effect of early physical rehabilitation programs on physical functioning among geriatric patients acutely admitted to the hospital. The second aim was to evaluate the feasibility of early physical rehabilitation programs. METHODS: Two searches, one for physical functioning and one for feasibility, were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Additional studies were identified through reference and citation tracking. To be included articles had to report on in-hospital early physical rehabilitation of patients aged 65 years and older with an outcome measure of physical functioning. Studies were excluded when the treatment was performed on specialized units other than geriatric units. Randomized controlled trials were included to examine the effect of early physical rehabilitation on physical functioning, length of stay and discharge destination. To investigate feasibility also non randomized controlled trials were added. RESULTS: Fifteen articles, reporting on 13 studies, described the effect on physical functioning. The early physical rehabilitation programs were classified in multidisciplinary programs with an exercise component and usual care with an exercise component. Multidisciplinary programs focussed more on facilitating discharge home and independent ADL, whereas exercise programs aimed at improving functional outcomes. At time of discharge patients who had participated in a multidisciplinary program or exercise program improved more on physical functional tests and were less likely to be discharged to a nursing home compared to patients receiving only usual care. In addition, multidisciplinary programs reduced the length of hospital stay significantly. Follow-up interventions improved physical functioning after discharge. The feasibility search yielded four articles. The feasibility results showed that early physical rehabilitation for acutely hospitalized old adults was safe. Adherence rates differed between studies and the recruitment of patients was sometimes challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Early physical rehabilitation care for acutely hospitalized old adults leads to functional benefits and can be safely executed. Further research is needed to specifically quantify the physical component in early physical rehabilitation programs.