Prognostic factors for perceived pain and function at one-year follow-up in primary care patients with neck pain.

PURPOSE: To identify prognostic factors for perceived pain and function with focus at one-year follow-up in primary care patients treated for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: A prospective study was performed including 193 neck pain patients. Before and after treatment period, and 12 months after the start date for treatment, patients completed a questionnaire including background data and aspects of pain, function and general health. Linear multiple regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors with the dependent variables Oswestry score and pain intensity at 12-month follow-up. Response rate 81%. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, Oswestry score identified four prognostic factors: pain intensity; well-being; expectations of treatment; and duration of current episode. Adjusted R2 for the model was 0.32, and 20% of the patients had three of the four prognostic factors at entry, indicating risk of poor outcome. The dependent variable pain intensity revealed three prognostic factors: Oswestry score; duration of current episode; and similar problem during the previous five years. Adjusted R2 was 0.24, and 60% of the patients had two of the three prognostic factors at entry, indicating risk of poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Different prognostic factors (with the exception of duration of current episode) were identified by the two outcome variables. Thus the results suggest that it should be taken into account whether an impairment or disability outcome is used.

A 12-year follow-up of subjects initially sicklisted with neck/shoulder or low back diagnoses.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neck/shoulder and low back pain are common in the Western world and can cause great personal and economic consequences, but so far there are few long term follow-up studies of the consequences of back pain, especially studies that separate the location of back pain. More knowledge is needed about different patterns of risk factors and prognoses for neck/shoulder and low back pain, respectively, and they should not be treated as similar conditions. The aim of the present study was to investigate possible long-term differences in neck/shoulder and low back symptoms, experienced over a 12-year period, with regard to work status, present health, discomfort and influence on daily activities. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study of individuals sicklisted with neck/shoulder or low back diagnoses 12 years ago was undertaken. Included were all 213 people who, in 1985, lived in the municipality of Linköping, Sweden, were aged 25-34 years and who had taken at least one new period of sickleave lasting > 28 days with a neck/shoulder or low back diagnosis. In 1996, a questionnaire was mailed to the 204 people who were still resident in Sweden (response rate 73%). RESULTS: Those initially absent with neck/shoulder diagnoses rated their present state of discomfort as worse than those sicklisted with low back diagnoses. Only 4% of the neck/shoulder group reported no present discomfort compared with 25% of the low back group. Notably, both groups reported the same duration of low back discomfort during the last year, which may indicate a higher risk for symptoms in more than one location for subjects with neck/shoulder problems. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with sickness absence of more than 28 days with neck/shoulder or low back diagnoses appear to be at high risk of developing long-standing symptoms significantly more so for those initially having neck/shoulder diagnoses.

A critical analysis of randomised clinical trials on neck pain and treatment efficacy. A review of the literature.

The efficacy of physiotherapy or chiropractic treatment for patients with neck pain was analysed by reviewing 27 randomised clinical trials published 196-1995. Three different methods were employed: systematic analyses of; methodological quality; comparison of effect size; analysis of inclusion criteria, intervention and outcome according to The Disablement Process model. The quality of most of the studies was low; only one-third scored 50 or more of a possible 100 points. Positive outcomes were noted for 18 of the investigations, and the methodological quality was high in studies using electromagnetic therapy, manipulation, or active physiotherapy. High methodological quality was also noted in studies with traction and acupuncture, however, the interventions had either no effect or a negative effect on outcome. Pooling data and calculation of effect size showed that treatments used in the studies were effective for pain, range of motion, and activities of daily living. Inclusion criteria, intervention, and outcome were based on impairment in most of the analysed investigations. Broader outcome assessments probably would have revealed relationships between treatment effect and impairment, functional limitation and disability.