Search

This study explored the relationship between sleep quality and next-day pain intensity for people with low back pain and investigated whether there was any evidence that this relationship was causal. We conducted a secondary analysis of an observational study that investigated sleep quality in people with low back pain. People with low back pain were recruited from primary care and the community. Sleep quality was measured with subjective (self-report) and objective (polysomnography (PSG)) measures. PSG analysis classifies sleep into stages, of which slow-wave sleep (SWS) is thought to have a key role in maintaining or increasing pain intensity. We drew directed acyclic graphs to identify possible confounders of the relationship between both measures of sleep quality, and pain intensity. We constructed two linear regression models to explore the effect of subjective and objective sleep quality on next-day pain intensity before and after confounder adjustment. Thirty-nine participants were included in the study. For participants with low back pain, self-reported better quality sleep β=−0.38 (95% CI −0.63 to −0.13), or spending a greater proportion of time in SWS β=−0.12 (95% CI −0.22 to −0.02) was associated with lower next day pain intensity. After confounder adjustment, the effect reduced and was no longer significant for either self-reported β=−0.18 (95% CI −0.46 to 0.10), or SWS β=−0.08 (95% CI −0.18 to 0.03). Sleep quality, whether measured by self-report or proportion of time in SWS, was associated with next day pain intensity for people with low back pain. However, this relationship is likely to be confounded and therefore not likely to be causal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been hypothesised that attentional bias to environmental threats can contribute to persistent pain. It is unclear whether people with acute low back pain (LBP) have an attentional bias to environmental threats. We investigated if attentional bias of threat related words is different in people with acute LBP and pain-free controls. People with acute LBP and pain-free people completed a free viewing eye tracking task. Participants were simultaneously presented with two words, a threat related word and a neutral control word. Threat related words were general threat, affective pain and sensory pain. We conducted linear mixed models to detect differences between acute LBP and pain-free participants on five eye tracking outcome measures (dwell time, first fixation, latency to first fixation, first run dwell time and number of fixations). We calculated absolute reliability, (standard error of measure), and relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC 2,1]) for each eye tracking outcome measures. We recruited 65 people with acute LBP and 65 pain-free controls. Participants with acute LBP had a higher proportion of fixations towards the affective pain words (M=0.5009, 95% CI=0.4941, 0.5076) than the pain-free controls had (M=0.4908, 95% CI=0.4836, 0.4979), mean between group difference = −0.0101, 95% CI [−0.0198, −0.0004], p=0.0422. There was no difference between acute LBP and pain-free controls for the remaining eye tracking outcome measures (all p>0.05). The only outcome measure that had an ICC of more than 0.7 was the latency to first fixation (affective pain words ICC=0.73, general threat words ICC=0.72). When compared with pain-free controls, people with acute LBP looked more often at affective pain words relative to neutral control words. This may indicate a form of engagement bias for people with acute LBP. Attentional bias was not consistent across outcome measures or word groups. Further research is needed to investigate the potential role of attentional bias in the development of persistent pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does feeling reassured after a consultation reduce future disability or healthcare use in people with acute low back pain (LBP)? Mediation analysis of a randomised, sham-controlled trial. Two hundred and two people with acute LBP at above average risk (high risk) of developing chronic LBP. All participants received guideline-based care from their usual clinician. Participants received two additional 1-hour sessions of patient education focused on emphasising the benign nature of LBP or sham patient education that included active listening only. The two primary outcomes for this study were self-reported disability and healthcare use. The mediator was feeling reassured that LBP was not caused by serious illness. Data from 194 (96%) participants and 178 (88%) participants were included in the analysis for disability and healthcare use outcome models, respectively. Feeling reassured did not mediate the effect of the intervention on disability (indirect effect −0.23, 95% CI −0.71 to 0.18) or healthcare use (indirect effect 0.00, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.04). Patient education intervention increased feeling reassured (1.14 points, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.85) compared with sham patient education. However, the mediator (ie, feeling reassured) did not reduce disability (−0.20 points, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.19) or healthcare use (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.21). Feeling reassured after a consultation did not lead to improvements in disability and healthcare use for people with acute LBP. Clinicians should reflect on the time that they allocate to reassuring their patients and consider reallocating time to other aspects of the consultation that could reduce disability and future healthcare use. ACTRN12612001180808, study protocol https://osf.io/4tfaz/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the incidence of wrist fracture is increasing. There are currently no externally validated prognostic models to inform early decision making for these patients. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a prognostic model from a comprehensive range of candidate prognostic factors that can identify patients who are at risk of developing persistent pain following wrist or hand fracture. METHODS: We developed and validated a prognostic model using secondary data derived from a prospective cohort study (n = 715), with recruitment sites in 3 metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, Australia. The primary outcome was persistent pain 4 months following the injury. The current study used a backward stepwise regression analysis to develop the model in 2 hospitals (n = 408) and externally validate it in a third hospital (n = 307). To determine the accuracy of the model, we assessed calibration and discrimination in accordance with the PROGnosis RESearch Strategy framework. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 95% of the cohort. Of 14 candidate variables, the final model contained 2 prognostic factors: patient age and pain intensity reported at initial presentation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69) in the development sample and 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.51,0.70) in the validation sample. The model systematically overestimated risk (intercept, -1.13; slope, 0.73). CONCLUSION: We developed and externally validated a prognostic model to predict persistent pain 4 months after a wrist or hand fracture. Future studies are needed to assess whether the accuracy of this model can be improved by updating and validating it in local settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1b. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Question What influence do physiotherapists’ beliefs and attitudes about chronic low back pain have on their clinical management of people with chronic low back pain? Design Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies. Quantitative and qualitative studies were included if they investigated an association between physiotherapists’ attitudes and beliefs about chronic low back pain and their clinical management of people with chronic low back pain. Results Five quantitative and five qualitative studies were included. Quantitative studies used measures of treatment orientation and fear avoidance to indicate physiotherapists’ beliefs and attitudes about chronic low back pain. Quantitative studies showed that a higher biomedical orientation score (indicating a belief that pain and disability result from a specific structural impairment, and treatment is selected to address that impairment) was associated with: advice to delay return to work, advice to delay return to activity, and a belief that return to work or activity is a threat to the patient. Physiotherapists’ fear avoidance scores were positively correlated with: increased certification of sick leave, advice to avoid return to work, and advice to avoid return to normal activity. Qualitative studies revealed two main themes attributed to beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists who have a relationship to their management of chronic low back pain: treatment orientation and patient factors. Conclusion Both quantitative and qualitative studies showed a relationship between treatment orientation and clinical practice. The inclusion of qualitative studies captured the influence of patient factors in clinical practice in chronic low back pain. There is a need to recognise that both beliefs and attitudes regarding treatment orientation of physiotherapists, and therapist-patient factors need to be considered when introducing new clinical practice models, so that the adoption of new clinical practice is maximised. [Gardner T, Refshauge K, Smith L, McAuley J, Hübscher M, Goodall S (2017) Physiotherapists’ beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 132–143] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the prognostic and predictive models relevant to healthcare, particularly in the clinical decision-making, with implications for payers, patients, and providers.

Unlabelled: Migraine is prevalent and disabling yet is poorly understood. One way to better understand migraine is to examine its clinical characteristics and potential biomarkers such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). The primary objective of this study was to explore whether relevant disease characteristics of migraine are associated with brain GABA levels. Twenty adults fulfilling the established diagnostic criteria for migraine and 20 age- and gender-matched controls completed this cross-sectional study. Pain, central sensitization, negative emotional state, and perceived disability were measured using Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2, Central Sensitization Inventory, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21, and Headache Impact Test-6, respectively. Secondary analysis of brain GABA levels of the same cohort measured using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy was conducted. The migraine group had significantly higher scores than the control group on pain, central sensitization, and disability. Correlation analyses showed fair positive association between GABA levels and pain and central sensitization scores. No association was found between GABA levels and emotional state and disability. These findings are preliminary evidence supporting the use of questionnaires and GABA levels in characterizing migraine better and broadening the diagnostic process. These findings also strengthen the rationale for the role of GABA in migraine pathophysiology and corroborate the potential of GABA as a migraine biomarker.Perspective: Higher pain and central sensitization scores were associated with increased brain GABA levels in individuals with migraine. These findings offer preliminary evidence for the usefulness of measuring pain and central sensitization in migraine and provide some support for the possible role of GABA in migraine pathophysiology and its potential as a diagnostic marker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of disability, and results in significant personal hardship. Most available treatments, when tested in high-quality randomised, controlled trials , achieve only modest improvements in pain, at best. Recently, treatments that target central nervous system function have been developed and tested in small studies. Combining treatments that target central nervous system function with traditional treatments directed towards functioning of the back is a promising approach that has yet to be tested in adequately powered, prospectively registered , clinical trials. The RESOLVE trial will be the first high-quality assessment of two treatment programs that combine central nervous system-directed and traditional interventions in order to improve chronic low back pain. Aim To compare the effectiveness of two treatment programs that combine central nervous system-directed and traditional interventions at reducing pain intensity at 18 weeks post randomisation in a randomised clinical trial of people with chronic low back pain. Design Two-group, randomised, clinical trial with blinding of participants and assessors. Participants and setting Two hundred and seventy -five participants with chronic low back pain that has persisted longer than 3 months and no specific spinal pathology will be recruited from the community and primary care in Sydney, Australia. Interventions Both of the interventions contain treatments that target central nervous system function combined with treatments directed towards functioning of the back. Adherence to the intervention will be monitored using an individual treatment diary and adverse events recorded through passive capture. Participants are informed prior to providing informed consent that some of the treatments are not active. Blinding is maintained by not disclosing any further information. Complete disclosure of the contents of the intervention has been made with the UNSW HREC (HC15357) and an embargoed project registration has been made on the Open Science Framework to meet the Declaration of Helsinki requirement for transparent reporting of trial methods a priori . Intervention A Participants randomised to Intervention A will receive a 12-session treatment program delivered as 60-minute sessions, scheduled approximately weekly, over a period of 12 to 18 weeks. All treatment sessions are one-on-one. The program includes a home treatment component of 30 minutes, five times per week. The intervention comprises discussion of the participant's low back pain experience, graded sensory training, graded motor imagery training and graded, precision-focused and feedback-enriched, functional movement training. Treatment progression is determined by participant proficiency, with mandatory advancement at set time points with respect to a standard protocol. Intervention B Participants randomised to Intervention B will receive a 12-session treatment program of the same duration and structure as Intervention A. The intervention comprises discussion of the participant's low back pain experience, transcranial direct current stimulation to the motor and pre-frontal cortices, cranial electrical stimulation, and low-intensity laser therapy and pulsed electromagnetic energy to the area of greatest pain. Treatment is delivered according to published recommendations and progressed with respect to a standard protocol. Measurements The primary outcome is pain intensity at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include disability, depression, pain catastrophising, kinesiophobia, beliefs about back pain , pain self-efficacy, quality of life, healthcare resource use, and treatment credibility. Assessment will occur at baseline and at 18, 26 and 52 weeks after randomisation. Treatment credibility will be assessed at baseline and 2 weeks after randomisation only. Analysis A statistician blinded to group status will analyse the data by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Linear contrasts will be constructed to compare the adjusted mean change (continuous variables) in outcome from baseline to each time point between intervention A and intervention B. This will provide effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals for any difference between the interventions. Significance Preliminary data suggest that combining treatments that target central nervous system function with traditional interventions is a promising approach to chronic low back pain treatment. In the context of modest effects on pain intensity from most available treatments, this approach may lead to improved clinical outcomes for people with chronic low back pain. The trial will determine which, if either, of two treatment programs that combine central nervous system-directed and traditional interventions is more effective at reducing pain intensity in a chronic low back pain cohort. Central nervous system-directed interventions constitute a completely new treatment paradigm for chronic low back pain management. The results have the potential to be far reaching and change current physiotherapy management of chronic low back pain in Australia and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Pain education is a complex intervention developed to help clinicians manage low back pain. Although complex interventions are usually evaluated by their effects on outcomes, such as pain or disability, most do not directly target these outcomes; instead, they target intermediate factors that are presumed to be associated with the outcomes. The mechanisms underlying treatment effects, or the effect of an intervention on an intermediate factor and its subsequent effect on outcome, are rarely investigated in clinical trials. This leaves a gap in the evidence for understanding how treatments exert their effects on outcomes. Mediation analysis provides a method for identifying and quantifying the mechanisms that underlie interventions. Aim To determine whether the effect of pain education on pain and disability is mediated by changes in self-efficacy, catastrophisation and back pain beliefs. Design Causal mediation analysis of the PREVENT randomised controlled trial. Participants and setting Two hundred and two participants with acute low back pain from primary care clinics in the Sydney metropolitan area. Intervention Participants will be randomised to receive either ‘pain education’ (intervention group) or ‘sham education’ (control group). Measurements All outcome measures (including patient characteristics), primary outcome measures (pain and disability), and putative mediating variables (self-efficacy, catastrophisation and back pain beliefs) will be measured prior to randomisation. Putative mediators and primary outcome measures will be measured 1 week after the intervention, and primary outcome measures will be measured 3 months after the onset of low back pain. Analysis Causal mediation analysis under the potential outcomes framework will be used to test single and multiple mediator models. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the estimated mediation effects on the influence of violating sequential ignorability – a critical assumption for causal inference. Discussion and significance Mediation analysis of clinical trials can estimate how much the total effect of the treatment on the outcome is carried through an indirect path. Using mediation analysis to understand these mechanisms can generate evidence that can be used to tailor treatments and optimise treatment effects. In this study, the causal mediation effects of a pain education intervention for acute non-specific low back pain will be estimated. This knowledge is critical for further development and refinement of interventions for conditions such as low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]