Prognosis and course of work-participation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a 12-month follow-up cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical course of, and prognostic factors for, work-participation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: A total of 1,608 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain received a multidisciplinary therapy and were evaluated at baseline and 2-, 5- and 12-month follow-ups. Recovery was defined as absolute recovery if the patient worked 90% of his contract hours at follow-up. Potential factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients reported a mean increase in work-participation from 38% at baseline to 82% after 12 months. Prognostic factors for ≥ 90% work-participation at 5 months were being married (odds ratio (OR) 1.72 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.12-2.65)), male (OR 1.99 (95% CI 1.24-3.20)), a higher score on disability (OR 1.00 (95% CI 0.997-1.02)) and physical component scale (Short-Form 36 (SF-36)) (OR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.07)), previous rehabilitation (OR 1.85 (95% CI 1.14-2.98)), not receiving sickness benefits (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.24-1.10)) and more work-participation (OR 4.86 (95% CI 2.35-10.04)). More work-participation (OR 5.22 (95% CI 3.47-7.85)) and male sex (OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.25-2.55)) were also prognostic factors at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: At 12 months 52% of patients reported ≥ 90% work-participation. The strongest prognostic factor was more work-participation at baseline for the recovery of chronic non-specific low back pain.

Effect of routine diagnostic imaging for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The increasing use of diagnostic imaging has led to high expenditures, unnecessary invasive procedures and/or false-positive diagnoses, without certainty that the patients actually benefit from these imaging procedures. This review explores whether diagnostic imaging leads to better patient-reported outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal disorders. METHOD: Databases were searched from inception to September 2013, together with scrutiny of selected bibliographies. Trials were eligible when: 1) a diagnostic imaging procedure was compared with any control group not getting or not receiving the results of imaging; 2) the population included individuals suffering from musculoskeletal disorders, and 3) if patient-reported outcomes were available. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Secondary outcome measures were satisfaction and quality of life. Subgroup analysis was done for different musculoskeletal complaints and high technological medical imaging (MRI/CT). RESULTS: Eleven trials were eligible. The effects of diagnostic imaging were only evaluated in patients with low back pain (n=7) and knee complaints (n=4). Overall, there was a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of diagnostic imaging on all outcomes compared with controls. A significant but clinically irrelevant effect was found in favor of no (routine) imaging in low back pain patients in terms of pain severity at short [SMD 0.17 (0.04-0.31)] and long-term follow-up [SMD 0.13 (0.02-0.24)], and for overall improvement [RR 1.15 (1.03-1.28)]. Subgroup analysis did not significantly change these results. CONCLUSION: These results strengthen the available evidence that routine referral to diagnostic imaging by general practitioners for patients with knee and low back pain yields little to no benefit.

Prognostic factors and course for successful clinical outcome quality of life and patients' perceived effect after a cognitive behavior therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain: A 12-months prospective study.

This study investigates the clinical course of and prognostic factors for quality of life (Short Form 36 items Health survey (SF-36)) and global perceived effect (GPE) in patients treated for chronic non-specific low back pain at 5 and 12-months follow-up. Data from a prospective cohort (n = 1760) of a rehabilitation center were used, where patients followed a 2-months cognitive behavior treatment. The outcome 'improvement in quality of life (SF-36)' was defined as a 10% increase in score on the SF-36 at follow-up compared with baseline. On the GPE scale, patients who indicated to be 'much improved' were coded as 'clinically improved'. Multivariable logistic regression analysis included 23 baseline characteristics. At 5-months follow-up, scores on the SF-36 Mental Component Scale (SF-36; MCS) and the Physical Component Scale (SF-36; PCS) had increased from 46.6 (SD 10.3) to 50.4 (SD 9.8) and from 31.9 (SD 7.1) to 46.6 (SD 10.3), respectively. At 5-months follow-up, 53.0% of the patients reported clinical improvement (GPE) which increased to 60.3% at 12-months follow-up. The 10% improvement in quality of life (SF-36 MCS) at 5-months follow-up was associated with patient characteristics and psychological factors. At 5-months follow-up, the 10% improvement in quality of life (SF-36 PCS) and GPE was associated with patient characteristics, physical examination, work-related factors and psychological factors; for GPE, an association was also found with clinical status. At 12-months follow-up GPE was associated with patient characteristics, clinical status, physical examination and work-related factors. The next phase in this prognostic research is external validation of these results.

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012. RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group. CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

Prognosis and course of disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a 5- and 12-month follow-up cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on the course of and predictors for disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the course of disability and identify clinically important prognostic factors of low-back-pain-specific disability in patients with CNSLBP receiving multidisciplinary therapy. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was conducted. METHODS: A total of 1,760 patients with CNSLBP who received multidisciplinary therapy were evaluated for their course of disability and prognostic factors at baseline and at 2-, 5-, and 12-month follow-ups. Recovery was defined as 30% reduction in low back pain-specific disability at follow-up compared with baseline and as absolute recovery if the score on the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) was ≤20 points at follow-up. Potential prognostic factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean patient-reported disability scores on the QBPDS ranged from 51.7 (SD=15.6) at baseline to 31.7 (SD=15.2), 31.1 (SD=18.2), and 29.1 (SD=20.0) at 2, 5, and 12 months, respectively. The prognostic factors identified for recovery at 5 and 12 months were younger age and high scores on disability and on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (Physical and Mental Component Summaries) at baseline. In addition, at 5-month follow-up, a shorter duration of complaints was a positive predictor, and having no comorbidity and less pain at baseline were additional predictors at 12-month follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Missing values at 5- and 12-month follow-ups were 11.1% and 45.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: After multidisciplinary treatment, the course of disability in patients with CNSLBP continued to decline over a 12-month period. At 5- and 12-month follow-ups, prognostic factors were identified for a clinically relevant decrease in disability scores on the QBPDS.

Prognostic factors for recovery in chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on predictors for a favorable outcome in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP). PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess prognostic factors for pain intensity, disability, return to work, quality of life, and global perceived effect in patients with CNLBP at short-term (≤ 6 months) and long-term (>6 months) follow-up. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies evaluating the prognosis of CNLBP were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE (through March 2010). Study Selection Articles with all types of study designs were included. Inclusion criteria were: participants were patients with CNLBP (≥ 12 weeks' duration), participants were older than 18 years of age, and the study was related to prognostic factors for recovery. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted the data and details of each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: A qualitative analysis using "level of evidence" was performed for all included studies. Data were summarized in tables and critically appraised. LIMITATIONS: The results of the studies reviewed were limited by their methodological weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: At short-term follow-up, no association was found for the factors of age and sex with the outcomes of pain intensity and disability. At long-term follow-up, smoking had the same result. At long-term follow-up, pain intensity and fear of movement had no association with disability. At short-term follow-up, conflicting evidence was found for the association between the outcomes pain intensity and disability and the factor of fear of movement. At long-term follow-up, conflicting evidence was found for the factors of age, sex, and physical job demands. At long-term follow-up, conflicting evidence also was found for the association between return to work and age, sex, and activities of daily living. At baseline, there was limited evidence of a positive influence of lower pain intensity and physical job demands on return to work. No high-quality studies were found for the outcomes of quality of life and global perceived effect.

Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included when evaluating conservative interventions in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with CR. Selection criteria and definitions for patients with CR were extracted and evaluated on their uniformity. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included. Pain was used as an inclusion criterion in 11 studies. Inclusion based on the duration and location of pain varied between studies. Five studies used sensory symptoms in the arm as inclusion criterion. Four studies used cervical range of motion and motor disturbances as inclusion criteria, while reflex changes were used in two studies. Three studies included patients with a positive Spurling's test and two studies used it within a cluster of provocation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria used to select patients with CR vary widely between different intervention studies. Selection criteria and test methods used are poorly described. There is consensus on the presence of pain, but not on the exact location of pain.

Course and prognosis of recovery for chronic non-specific low back pain: design, therapy program and baseline data of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing focus on factors predicting the development of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. For patients already experiencing chronic non-specific low back pain it is also relevant to investigate which prognostic factors predict recovery. We present the design of a cohort study that aims to determine the course and prognostic factors for recovery in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS/DESIGN: All participating patients were recruited (Jan 2003-Dec 2008) from the same rehabilitation centre and were evaluated by means of (postal) questionnaires and physical examinations at baseline, during the 2-month therapy program, and at 5 and 12 months after start of therapy. The therapy protocol at the rehabilitation centre used a bio-psychosocial approach to stimulate patients to adopt adequate (movement) behaviour aimed at physical and functional recovery. The program is part of regular care and consists of 16 sessions of 3 hours each, over an 8-week period (in total 48 hours), followed by a 3-month self-management program. The primary outcomes are low back pain intensity, disability, quality of life, patient's global perceived effect of recovery, and participation in work. Baseline characteristics include information on socio-demographics, low back pain, employment status, and additional clinical items status such as fatigue, duration of activities, and fear of kinesiophobia. Prognostic variables are determined for recovery at short-term (5 months) and long-term (12 months) follow-up after start of therapy. DISCUSSION: In a routine clinical setting it is important to provide patients suffering from chronic non-specific low back pain with adequate information about the prognosis of their complaint.

Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant 'other considerations' to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development. METHODS: An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 'very important' to 'not important'. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were 'clinical relevance', 'safety', and 'availability of resources'. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain 'conflicts of interest by industry' was excluded because of lack of consensus. CONCLUSION: This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

Reproducibility of the measurement of active and passive cervical range of motion.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of tests for the active and passive range of motion used in the physical examination for patients with neck pain. The secondary aim was to determine whether the history of the patients influences the reproducibility and the prevalence of positive findings. METHODS: Sixty-nine participants were recruited in 3 physical therapy practices. Two examiners independently performed a physical examination on all participants. The examiners were blinded for patient characteristics (neck pain/no neck pain) and each other's findings. History findings were available for only half the patients with neck pain. Cohen's kappa was used to express reproducibility. RESULTS: The reproducibility for active and passive range of motion was moderate (kappa = 0.52 and 0.54, respectively), but a wide range in kappa scores was found. Extension of the neck showed good reproducibility for both active and passive movements (kappa = 0.88 and 0.85), whereas lateral flexion showed poor reproducibility (kappa = 0.35 and 0.33). Knowledge of history had no influence on the reproducibility and prevalence of positive findings. CONCLUSION: The reproducibility for active and passive range of motion is moderate. Knowledge of the patient's history did not influence the reproducibility and prevalence of positive findings.

Effect of bracing and other conservative interventions in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents: a systematic review of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many conservative treatments are available for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis, but the evidence for their accepted use is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of braces and other conservative treatments of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents by systematically reviewing the literature. METHODS: The literature was searched in the PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and PEDro databases. Studies were selected if the design was a randomized clinical trial or a controlled clinical trial, if all patients had an idiopathic scoliosis, if all patients were less than 18 years of age during the intervention, and if the type of intervention was a conservative one. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Delphi list and performed data extraction. Analysis was based on the levels of evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the final inclusion criteria, showing a wide range of interventions such as bracing, electrical surface stimulation, and exercises. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that the effectiveness of bracing and exercises is not yet established, but might be promising. They found no evidence of the effectiveness of electrical stimulation.