Do MRI findings identify patients with low back pain or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reveal a range of degenerative findings and anatomical abnormalities; however, the clinical importance of these remains uncertain and controversial. We aimed to investigate if the presence of MRI findings identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched. We included RCTs investigating MRI findings as treatment effect modifiers for patients with LBP or sciatica. We excluded studies with specific diseases as the cause of LBP. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Each MRI finding was examined for its individual capacity for effect modification. RESULTS: Eight published trials met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of trials was inconsistent. Substantial variability in MRI findings, treatments and outcomes across the eight trials prevented pooling of data. Patients with Modic type 1 when compared with patients with Modic type 2 had greater improvements in function when treated by Diprospan (steroid) injection, compared with saline. Patients with central disc herniation when compared with patients without central disc herniation had greater improvements in pain when treated by surgery, compared with rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual trials suggested that some MRI findings might be effect modifiers for specific interventions, none of these interactions were investigated in more than a single trial. High quality, adequately powered trials investigating MRI findings as effect modifiers are essential to determine the clinical importance of MRI findings in LBP and sciatica ( PROSPERO: CRD42013006571).

Are self-reported pain characteristics, classified using the PainDETECT questionnaire, predictive of outcome in people with low back pain and associated leg pain?

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate whether the PainDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ) classification was predictive of outcomes at 3 and 12 months follow-up in low back pain (LBP) patients with associated leg pain. Identification of clinically important subgroups and targeted treatment is believed to be important in LBP care. The PD-Q is designed to classify whether a person has neuropathic pain, based on their self-reported pain characteristics. However, it is unknown whether this classification is a prognostic factor or predicts treatment response. METHOD: One hundred forty-five participants were recruited in the secondary care. Inclusion criteria were 3 to 12 months of LBP and related leg pain. Baseline PDQ scores classified participants into 3 groups ("likely" to have neuropathic pain, "uncertain," and "unlikely") but did not affect treatment decisions. The outcome measures were LBP, leg pain, activity limitation, and self-reported general health. Scores were compared between those with "likely" neuropathic pain (neuropathic group) and "unlikely" (non-neuropathic group), using Mann-Whitney, Friedman, and χ tests. RESULTS: At baseline, the neuropathic group had worse scores on all outcome measures, and analgesic use, sick leave, and sense of coherence (P = 0.000 to 0.044). At 3 months and 12 months, both groups improved (P = 0.001 to 0.032). However, the groups remained different at each time point on all outcome measures (P = 0.000 to 0.033) except LBP (P = 0.054 to 0.214). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The PDQ classification was a prognostic factor but was not predictive of response to treatment that was not targeted to neuropathic pain. Further studies should investigate whether PD-Q groups are predictive of treatment response when targeted to neuropathic pain.

The diagnostic accuracy of brief screening questions for psychosocial risk factors of poor outcome from an episode of pain: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening questions for psychosocial risk factors predictive of poor outcome from an episode of pain. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched, content experts contacted, and reference and citation tracking performed. Studies were included that examined the diagnostic accuracy of 1-item screening or 2-item screening questions for depression, anxiety, fear-avoidance beliefs, social isolation, catastrophization, or somatization and were published in English. Studies were assessed for quality, and data extracted describing study characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening questions. RESULTS: Four cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria and all met 4 or more of our 6 method quality criteria. These studies examined the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening tools for depression (sensitivity = 50.5% to 82.1%, specificity = 71.0% to 90.6%, and overall accuracy = 74.6% to 80.6%) and anxiety (sensitivity 63.0% to 94.0%, specificity = 53.0% to 71.2%, and overall accuracy = 60.0% to 68.1%). No studies were identified that examined the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening questions for fear-avoidance beliefs, social isolation, catastrophization, and somatization. DISCUSSION: Data were only available on the accuracy of brief screening instruments for depression and anxiety, and there was variability in the results. Head-to-head studies are required to determine if this variability reflects differential question accuracy or population characteristics, and studies that determine the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening questions for other common psychosocial risk factors would be useful.

Primary care clinicians use variable methods to assess acute nonspecific low back pain and usually focus on impairments.

This study investigated the assessment of acute (<12 weeks duration) nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) by primary care clinicians. The aims were to determine the methods used, whether methods differ across professional disciplines, and the extent to which clinicians assess across domains of health. Survey data were gathered from 651 primary care clinicians from six professional disciplines (Physiotherapy, Manipulative Physiotherapy, Chiropractic, Osteopathy, General Medicine, and Musculoskeletal Medicine). Descriptive statistics (proportions and frequency of use distributions) were used to describe assessment technique use, Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine between-discipline differences in the use of each assessment technique, and Bonferroni-adjusted inferential confidence intervals were constructed to allow visual comparison of the use of assessment techniques from five health domains. The results indicate that the methods used by different professional disciplines to assess NSLBP vary considerably, as 44 out of 48 assessment techniques showed significantly different utilisation rates across professions. Furthermore, assessment across domains of health in this condition was variable, as clinicians commonly assess physical impairments and pain and less commonly assess activity limitation and psychosocial function (100% of clinicians very frequently or often assess physical impairment, 99% [95%CI 98-100%] assess pain, 21% [95%CI 15-27%] assess activity limitation, and 7% [95%CI 3-11%] assess psychosocial function). Adoption of greater standardisation of assessment by clinicians may require demonstration of the capacity of this standardisation to improve patient outcomes.

Searching for a conceptual framework for nonspecific low back pain.

Diverse views exist regarding the underlying nature of nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). This study aimed to (i) develop a conceptual framework of NSLBP based on the expressed beliefs of those who treat and/or research NSLBP and (ii) determine whether these beliefs are discretely clustered and whether they are associated with participant characteristics. Surveys were completed by participants (n=162) of the 2006 Amsterdam International Low Back Pain Forum and a low back pain meeting (n=488) in Melbourne. Respondents reported beliefs regarding the nature of NSLBP. Probabilistic data-mining was used to detect 'clusters of belief' and between group differences were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests. Overall, there was an 84% response rate. Diverse beliefs were reported but multiple 'clusters of belief' to explain this diversity were not apparent. Whether predominantly engaged in clinical or research activity, people expressed similar beliefs, except that clinicians placed greater value on measures of physical impairment. There were conflicting views within the clinical and research community regarding the underlying nature of NSLBP. Within the constructs sampled, no unifying framework could explain the diversity of current beliefs. This is likely to reflect pervasive uncertainty about the etiology, and therefore best practice assessment, of NSLBP.

IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT): cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting. AIM: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.

Can we predict poor recovery from recent-onset nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review.

This systematic review of prospective cohort studies investigated the evidence for prognostic factors for poor recovery in recent-onset nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). Medline, Cinahl, Embase, PsychINFO, and AMED databases were searched and citation tracking was performed. Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria. Bivariate and multivariable prognostic factor/outcome associations were extracted. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and method quality assessment. Where data were available, odds ratios for bivariate associations were calculated and meta-analysis was performed on comparable prognostic factor/outcome associations. Despite the number of studies that have investigated these prognostic factors, uncertainty remains regarding which factors are associated with particular outcomes, the strength of those associations and the extent of confounding between prognostic factors. This uncertainty is the result of the disparate methods that have been used in these investigations, incomplete and contradictory findings, and an inverse relationship between study quality and the reported strength of these associations. The clinical implication is that the formation of clinically useful predictive models remains dependent on further high-quality research. The research implications are that subsequent studies can use the findings of this review to inform prognostic factor selection, and that prognostic studies would ideally be designed to enhance the capacity for findings to be pooled with those of other studies.

The epidemiology of low back pain in primary care.

This descriptive review provides a summary of the prevalence, activity limitation (disability), care-seeking, natural history and clinical course, treatment outcome, and costs of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. LBP is a common problem affecting both genders and most ages, for which about one in four adults seeks care in a six-month period. It results in considerable direct and indirect costs, and these costs are financial, workforce and social. Care-seeking behaviour varies depending on cultural factors, the intensity of the pain, the extent of activity limitation and the presence of co-morbidity. Care-seeking for LBP is a significant proportion of caseload for some primary-contact disciplines. Most recent-onset LBP episodes settle but only about one in three resolves completely over a 12-month period. About three in five will recur in an on-going relapsing pattern and about one in 10 do not resolve at all. The cases that do not resolve at all form a persistent LBP group that consume the bulk of LBP compensable care resources and for whom positive outcomes are possible but not frequent or substantial.