Search

Background: Leg pain associated with walking is sometimes incorrectly attributed to hip osteoarthritis (OA) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).Purpose: This study compared physicians' values of signs and symptoms for diagnosing and differentiating hip OA and LSS to their clinical utility.Study Design/setting: Musculoskeletal physicians were surveyed with online questionnaires. Patients were recruited from hip and spine specialty practices.Patient Sample: Seventy-seven hip OA and 79 LSS patients.Outcome Measures: Signs and symptoms of hip OA and LSS.Methods: Fifty-one of 66 invited musculoskeletal physicians completed online surveys about the values of 83 signs and symptoms for diagnosing hip OA and LSS. Of these, the most valued 32 symptoms and 13 physical examination items were applied to patients with symptomatic hip OA or LSS. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) were calculated for each items' ability to differentiate hip OA from LSS, with a +LR>2 set as indicating usefulness for favoring either diagnosis. Positive LRs were compared with surveyed physicians' values for each test.Results: All symptoms were reported by some patients with each diagnosis. Only 11 of 32 physician-valued symptoms were useful for discriminating hip OA from LSS. Eight symptoms favored hip OA over LSS: groin pain (+LR=4.9); knee pain (+LR=2.2); pain that decreased with continued walking (+LR=3.9); pain that occurs immediately with walking (+LR=2.4); pain that occurs immediately with standing (+LR=2.1); pain getting in/out of a car (+LR=3.3); pain with dressing the symptomatic leg (+LR=3.1); and difficulty reaching the foot of the symptomatic leg while dressing (+LR=2.3). Three symptoms favored LSS over hip OA: pain below the knee (+LR=2.3); leg tingling and/or numbness (+LR=2.7); and some pain in both legs (+LR=2.5). Notable symptoms that did not discriminate hip OA from LSS included: pain is less while pushing a shopping cart (+LR=1.0); back pain (+LR=1.1); weakness and/or heaviness of leg (+LR=1.1); buttocks pain (+LR=1.2); poor balance or unsteadiness (+LR=1.2); pain that increased with weight-bearing on the painful leg (+LR=1.3), and step to gait on stairs (+LR=1.7). Consistent with physicians' expectations, 7 of 13 physical examination items strongly favored hip OA over LSS: limited weight-bearing on painful leg when standing (+LR=10); observed limp (+LR=9); and painful and restricted range-of-motion with any of five hip maneuvers (+LR range 21-99). Four of five tested neurological deficits (+LR range 3-8) favored the diagnosis of LSS over hip OA.Conclusions: There is substantial crossover of symptoms between hip OA and LSS, with some physician-valued symptoms useful for differentiating these disorders whereas others were not. Physicians recognize the value of the examination of gait, the hip, and lower extremity neurological function for differentiating hip OA from LSS. These tests should be routinely performed on all patients for which either diagnosis is considered. Awareness of these findings might reduce diagnostic errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Cervical radiculopathy is a common disorder caused by compression of the cervical nerve roots and is characterized by arm pain and altered sensory-motor function. Incongruity in the locations of C6 and C7 dermatomes in competing versions of historical dermatome maps has plagued interpretation of impaired sensation associated with C6 and C7 radiculopathies. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows accurate identification of the C6 or C7 nerve root compression and therefore makes it possible to explore sensory findings that are associated with compression of specific nerve root.Purpose: This study compared the locations of impaired sensation in subjects with cervical radiculopathy from MRI-confirmed C6 and C7 nerve root compression.Study Design: Case series was used for this study.Patient Sample: A total of 122 subjects with symptoms suggestive of cervical radiculopathy were recruited by 11 spine specialist from 5 practice locations. Of these, 30 subjects had MRI-confirmed C6 and 40 subjects C7 radiculopathy.Outcome Measures: Standardized pinprick sensory examination of the forearm and hand of every subject was performed, and the locations of sensory impairments were recorded.Methods: Sensory examination was performed before reviewing MRI results or performing motor or reflex examination. Areas of impaired sensation were recorded on drawings of the palmar and dorsal forearm and hand, and translated using a grid into 36 specific areas for analysis. Chi-square was used to compare frequencies of findings for each grid area for C6 and C7 radiculopathies. Power analysis suggested that a minimum of 27 subjects in each group were needed to detect a 30 percentage point difference in frequency of sensory impairments. Significance was set at ≤.05.Results: Approximately 80% of subjects had impaired sensation in at least 1 grid area, most often in the distal forearm and hand, and many had findings in multiple areas. There was nearly complete overlap for locations of impaired sensation for C6 and C7 radiculopathy, and the frequencies of impaired sensation differed only in the dorsal aspect of the distal radial forearm where it was twice as common in C6 radiculopathy (p=.02).Conclusions: The location of sensory impairments associated with symptomatic C6 and C7 nerve root compression overlap to the extent that caution should be exercised when predicting compression of either the C6 or C7 nerve roots based on locations of impaired sensation. Impaired sensation in the radial aspect of the distal forearm is more common in C6 radiculopathies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background context: Walking limitations caused by neurogenic claudication (NC) are typically assessed with self-reported measures, although objective evaluation of walking using motorized treadmill test (MTT) or self-paced walking test (SPWT) has periodically appeared in the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) literature. Purpose: This study compared the validity and responsiveness of MTT and SPWT for assessing walking ability before and after common treatments for NC. Study design: Prospective observational cohort study. Patient sample: Fifty adults were recruited from an urban spine center if they had LSS and substantial walking limitations from NC and were scheduled to undergo surgery (20%) or conservative treatment (80%). Outcome measures: Walking times, distances, and speeds along with the characteristics of NC symptoms were recorded for MTT and SPWT. Self-reported measures included back and leg pain intensity assessed with 0 to 10 numeric pain scales, disability assessed with Oswestry Disability Index, walking ability assessed with estimated walking times and distances, and NC symptoms assessed with the subscales from the Spinal Stenosis Questionnaires. Methods: Motorized treadmill test used a level track, and SPWT was conducted in a rectangular hallway. Walking speeds were self-selected, and test end points were NC, fatigue, or completion of the 30-minute test protocol. Results from MTT and SPWT were compared with each other and self-reported measures. Internal responsiveness was assessed by comparing changes in the initial results with the posttreatment results and external responsiveness by comparing walking test results that improved with those that did not improve by self-reported criteria. Results: Mean age of the participants was 68 years, and 58% were male. Neurogenic claudication included leg pain (88%) and buttock(s) pain (12%). Five participants could not safely perform MTT. Walking speeds were faster and distances were greater with SPWT, although the results from both tests correlated with each other and self-reported measures. Of the participants, 72% reported improvement after treatment, which was confirmed by significant mean differences in self-reported measures. Motorized treadmill test results did not demonstrate internal responsiveness to change in clinical status after treatment but SPWT results did, with increased mean walking times (6 minutes) and distances (387 m). When responsiveness was assessed against external criterion, both SPWT and MTT demonstrated substantial divergence with self-reported changes in clinical status and alternative outcome measures. Conclusions: Both MTT and SPWT can quantify walking abilities in NC. As outcome tools, SPWT demonstrated better internal responsiveness than MTT, but neither test demonstrated adequate external responsiveness. Neither test should be considered as a meaningful substitution for disease-specific measures of function. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background context: For patients with low back pain, fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) represent cognitions and emotions that underpin concerns and fears about the potential for physical activities to produce pain and further harm to the spine. Excessive FABs result in heightened disability and are an obstacle for recovery from acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain. Purpose: This article summarizes past research concerning the etiology, impact, and assessment of FABs; reviews the results and relevance to clinical practice of trials that have addressed FAB as part of low back pain treatment; and lists areas in need of further study. Study design: This article reports on a plenary presentation and discussion of an expert panel and workshop entitled “Addressing fear-avoidance beliefs in a fear-avoidant world—translating research into clinical practice” that was held at Forum X, Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, during June 2009, at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, MA, USA. Methods: Important issues including the definition, etiology, impact, and treatment of FAB on low back pain outcomes were reviewed by six panelists with extensive experience in FAB-related research. This was followed by a group discussion among 40 attendees. Conclusion and recommendations were extracted by the workshop panelist and summarized in this article. Results: Fear-avoidance beliefs are derived from both emotionally based fears of pain and injury and information-based beliefs about the soundness of the spine, causes of spine degeneration, and importance of pain. Excessively elevated FABs, both in patients and treating health care providers, have a negative impact on low back pain outcomes as they delay recovery and heighten disability. Fear-avoidance beliefs may be best understood when patients are categorized into subgroups of misinformed avoiders, learned pain avoiders, and affective avoiders as these categories elucidate potential treatment strategies. These include FAB-reducing information for misinformed avoiders, pain desensitizing treatments for pain avoiders, and fear desensitization along with counseling to address the negative cognition in affective avoiders. Although mixed results have been noted, most clinical trials have documented improved outcomes when FAB is addressed as part of treatment. Deficiencies in knowledge about brief methods for assessing FAB during clinical encounters, the importance of medical explanations for back pain, usefulness of subgroup FABs, core points for information-based treatments, and efficient strategies for transferring FAB-reducing information to patients hamper the translation of FAB research into clinical practice. Conclusions: By incorporating an understanding of FAB, clinicians may enhance their ability to assess the predicaments of their patients with low back pain and gain insight into potential value of corrective information that lessen fears and concerns on well-being of their patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

: Background contextPain anticipated before and induced by physical activities has been shown to influence the physical performance of patients with chronic back pain. Limited data exist as to the influence of treatment on this component of pain.: PurposeThis study attempted to determine if pain anticipated before and induced by physical activities was altered during an exercise-oriented physical therapy program for chronic back pain.: Study design/settingSubjects were recruited from three physical therapy sites with similar spine rehabilitation programs that used intense exercise delivered in a group format. During the recruitment period, 70 subjects with chronic low back pain and disability agreed to participate and complied with recommended treatments. The primary outcome measures were anticipated and induced pain as assessed by visual analog scales (VAS) during six tests of back flexibility and strength. Additional outcome measures included the performance levels of these six tests (trunk flexion, extension, straight leg raising, back strength, lifting from floor to waist and waist to shoulder height), global back and leg VAS and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire scores.: MethodsAt evaluation for the spine rehabilitation programs, we recorded the anticipated and induced pain levels associated with the six tests of back function, the performance levels on each test and global pain and disability scores. Subjects then participated in the spine rehabilitation program that consisted of intense exercise delivered up to three times per week, for 2 hours over a period of 6 weeks. All outcome measures were reassessed at discharge. Pre- and posttreatment outcome scores were statistically compared using paired sample t tests and chi-squared test. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to compare anticipated and induced pain results with global back and leg pain VAS scores, Oswestry scores and physical performance levels for each physical test.: ResultsMost measures of anticipated and induced pain improved between evaluation and discharge. Improvements were noted for global back pain (p<.001), leg pain (p = .001), disability (p<.001) and performance on each physical testing (p<.001) after treatment. Performances on all physical testing correlated with anticipated and induced pain for all tests at evaluation but only for measures of flexibility at discharge. Improvements in global pain and disability correlated with improvements in anticipated and induced pain with physical testing.: ConclusionAnticipated and induced pain with physical activities was lessened after physical therapy using exercise. Anticipated and induced pain with physical activities related to physical performance levels, global pain and disability ratings. These findings may help explain how exercise exerts a positive influence on chronic back pain and disability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

: Background contextExercise is a widely prescribed treatment for chronic low back pain, with demonstrated effectiveness for improving function and work.: PurposeThe goal of this article is to review several key aspects about the safety and efficacy of exercise that may help clinicians understand its utility in treating chronic back pain.: Study design/settingA computerized literature search of MEDLINE was conducted using “exercise,” “fitness,” “back pain,” “backache” and “rehabilitation” as search words. Identified abstracts were scanned, and useful articles were acquired for further review. Additional references were acquired through the personal collections of research papers possessed by the authors and by reviewing prior review articles on this subject. These final papers were scrutinized for data relevant to the key aspects about exercise covered in this article.: ResultsFor people with acute, subacute or chronic low back pain, there is no evidence that exercise increases the risk of additional back problems or work disability. To the contrary, current medical literature suggests that exercise has either a neutral effect or may slightly reduce risk of future back injuries. Exercise can be prescribed for patients with chronic low back pain with three distinct goals. The first and most obvious goal is to improve or eliminate impairments in back flexibility and strength, and improve performance of endurance activities. There is a large body of evidence confirming that this goal can be accomplished for a majority of patients with chronic low back pain. The second goal of exercise is to reduce the intensity of back pain. Most studies of exercise have noted overall reduction in back pain intensity that ranges from 10% to 50% after exercise treatment. The third goal of exercise is to reduce back pain–related disability through a process of desensitization of fears and concerns, altering pain attitudes and beliefs and improving affect. The mechanisms through which exercise can accomplish this goal have been the subject of substantial research.: ConclusionsExercise is safe for individuals with back pain, because it does not increase the risk of future back injuries or work absence. Substantial evidence exists supporting the use of exercise as a therapeutic tool to improve impairments in back flexibility and strength. Most studies have observed improvements in global pain ratings after exercise programs, and many have observed that exercise can lessen the behavioral, cognitive, affect and disability aspects of back pain syndromes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background Context: Rehabilitation services using intensive exercise for the treatment of chronic spinal pain have traditionally been scheduled at a frequency of three times per week.Purpose: In an attempt to reduce the cost of rehabilitation services, this study was designed to determine whether treatment offered two times per week could produce similar outcomes when compared with an established three times per week spine therapy program.Study Design: Prospective cohort study.Patient Sample: Seventy-seven consecutive patients with chronic spinal pain were treated with aggressive spine rehabilitation either two or three times per week.Outcome Measures: Flexibility, trunk strength and lifting capacity were quantified before and after treatment. Pain visual analog scores and Oswestry disability scores were measured before and after treatment, as well as 12 months after treatment.Methods: A two times per week physical therapy program was developed to be identical in its treatment method to an established three times per week, group-oriented physical therapy program used for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Patients with spinal pain who continued to work despite chronic pain complaints were allowed to choose between the two therapy programs based on availability of treatment slots and convenience. Treatment consisted of non-pain contingent quota-based exercises targeting identified physical impairments. Treatment sessions lasted for 2 hours and consisted of 30 minutes of stretching, 30 minutes of low-impact step aerobics class and 1 hour of exercise on strength and endurance equipment. Therapy occurred in groups consisting of a maximum of eight patients who were closely supervised by two therapists. Targeted treatment time was 6 weeks. At 12 months after treatment, subjects were surveyed by mailed questionnaires.Results: Seventy-seven patients with chronic spinal pain with a mean duration of symptoms of 32 months underwent treatment. Twenty-four subjects opted for the twice per week and 53 opted for the three times per week treatment. Seventy-one percent of subjects responded to the 12-month follow-up questionnaire. Physical and self-reported measures improved with both treatment frequencies. There were no differences in outcomes between treatment frequencies for measured flexibility, trunk strength, lifting capacity, pain intensity scores or Oswestry scores at the completion of treatment. At 12-month follow-up, no differences were noted between treatment frequencies for pain scores, Oswestry scores, patients' perceptions of adequacy of treatment, posttreatment exercise compliance or use of other treatments for their spinal problem. Total therapy visits were less in the two than three times per week groups (12 vs 15 visits).Conclusion: Similar outcomes were obtained from aggressive spine rehabilitation occurring two versus three times per week in patients presenting with moderate levels of chronic spinal pain. Reduction in physical therapy services and therefore cost did not adversely affect clinical outcomes in the treatment of this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background context: Vascular disease has been proposed as a risk factor for disc height loss (DHL). Purpose: To examine the relationship between quantitative measures of abdominal aortic calcifications (AACs) as a marker of vascular disease, and DHL, on computed tomography (CT). Study design: Cross-sectional study in a community-based population. Patient sample: Four hundred thirty-five participants from the Framingham Heart Study. Outcome measures: Quantitative AAC scores assessed by CT were grouped as tertiles of “no” (reference), “low,” and “high” calcification. Disc height loss was evaluated on CT reformations using a four-grade scale. For analytic purposes, DHL was dichotomized as moderate DHL of at least one level at L2–S1 versus less than moderate or no DHL. Methods: We examined the association of AAC and DHL using logistic regression before and after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and before and after adjusting for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Results: In crude analyses, low AAC (odds ratio [OR], 2.05 [1.27–3.30]; p=.003) and high AAC (OR, 2.24 [1.38–3.62]; p=.001) were strongly associated with DHL, when compared with the reference group of no AAC. Diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and smoking were not associated with DHL and did not attenuate the observed relationship between AAC and DHL. Adjustment for age, sex, and BMI markedly attenuated the associations between DHL and low AAC (OR, 1.20 [0.69–2.09]; p=.51) and high AAC (OR, 0.74 [0.36–1.53]; p=.42). Conclusions: Abdominal aortic calcification was associated with DHL in this community-based population. This relationship was independent of cardiovascular risk factors. However, the association of AAC with DHL was explained by the effects of age, sex, and BMI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background Context: Because imaging findings of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) may not be associated with symptoms, clinical classification criteria based on patient symptoms and physical examination findings are needed.Purpose: The objective of this study was to develop clinical classification criteria that identify patients with neurogenic claudication (NC) caused by LSS.Study Design: This study is a two-stage process that includes Phase 1, the Delphi process, and Phase 2, the cross-sectional study.Patient Sample: Outpatients were recruited from spine clinics in five countries.Outcome Measure: The outcome measure includes items from the patients' history and physical examination.Methods: In Phase 1, a list of potential predictors of NC caused by LSS was based on the available literature and was evaluated through a Delphi process involving 17 spine specialists (surgeons and non-surgeons) from eight countries. In Phase 2, 19 different clinical spine specialists from five countries identified patients they classified as having (1) NC caused by LSS, (2) radicular pain caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH), or (3) non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) with radiating leg pain. The patients completed survey items and the specialists documented the examination signs. Coefficients from general estimating equation models were used to select predictors, to generate a clinical classification score, and to obtain a receiver operating characteristic curve. Conduction of the Delphi process, data management, and statistical analysis were partially supported by an unrestricted grant of less than 15,000 US dollars from Merck Sharp & Dohme. No fees were allocated to participating spine specialists.Results: Phase 1 generated a final list of 46 items related to LSS. In Phase 2, 209 patients with leg pain caused by LSS (n=63), LDH (n=89), or NSLBP (n=57) were included. Criteria that independently predicted NC (p<.05) were age over 60 years, positive 30-second extension test, negative straight leg test, pain in both legs, leg pain relieved by sitting, and leg pain decreased by leaning forward or flexing the spine. A classification score using a weighted set of these criteria was developed. The proposed N-CLASS score ranged from 0 to 19 and had an area under the curve of 0.92, and the cutoff (>10/19) to obtain a specificity of >90.0% resulted in a sensitivity of 82.0%.Conclusions: Clinical criteria independently associated with neurogenic claudication due to LSS were identified. The use of these symptom and physical variables as a classification score for clinical research could improve homogeneity among enrolled patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Classification criteria are recommended for diseases that lack specific biomarkers to improve homogeneity in clinical research studies. Because imaging evidence of lumbar disc herniations (LDHs) may not be associated with symptoms, clinical classification criteria based on patient symptoms and physical examination findings are required.Purpose: This study aimed to produce clinical classification criteria to identify patients with radicular pain caused by LDH.Study Design: The study design was a two-stage process. Phase 1 included a Delphi process and Phase 2 included a cohort study.Patient Sample: The patient sample included outpatients recruited from spine clinics in five countries.Outcome Measures: The outcome measures were items from history and physical examination.Materials and Methods: In Phase 1, 17 spine experts participated in a Delphi process to select symptoms and signs suggesting radicular pain caused by LDH. In Phase 2, 19 different clinical experts identified patients they confidently classified as presenting with (1) radicular pain caused by LDH, (2) neurogenic claudication (NC) caused by lumbar spinal stenosis, or (3) non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) with referred leg pain. Patients completed survey items and specialists documented examination signs. A score to predict radicular pain caused by LDH was developed based on the coefficients of the multivariate model. An unrestricted grant of less than US$15,000 was received from MSD: It was used to support the conception of the Delphi, data management, and statistical analysis. No fees were allocated to participating spine specialists.Results: Phase 1 generated a final list of 74 potential symptoms and signs. In Phase 2, 209 patients with pain caused by LDH (89), NC (63), or NSLBP (57) were included. Items predicting radicular pain caused by LDH (p<.05) were monoradicular leg pain distribution, patient-reported unilateral leg pain, positive straight leg raise test <60° (or femoral stretch test), unilateral motor weakness, and asymmetric ankle reflex. The score had an AUC of 0.91. An easy-to-use weighted set of criteria with similar psychometric characteristics is proposed (specificity 90.4%, sensitivity 70.6%).Conclusions: Classification criteria for identifying patients with radicular pain caused by LDH are proposed. Their use could improve the homogeneity of patients enrolled in clinical research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: There are no previous epidemiologic studies examining associations between physical activity and imaging-detected lumbar zygapophyseal joint osteoarthritis (ZJO) in a community-based sample.Purpose: To determine whether physical activity is associated with prevalent lumbar ZJO on computed tomography (CT).Study Design/setting: A community-based cross-sectional study.Patient Sample: Four hundred twenty-four older adults from the Framingham Heart Study.Outcome Measures: Participants received standardized CT assessments of lumbar ZJO at the L2-S1 levels. Severe lumbar ZJO was defined according to the presence and/or degree of joint space narrowing, osteophytosis, articular process hypertrophy, articular erosions, subchondral cysts, and intra-articular vacuum phenomenon. This definition of lumbar ZJO was based entirely on CT imaging findings and did not include any clinical criteria such as low back pain.Methods: Physical activity was measured using the Physical Activity Index, which estimate hours per day typically spent in these activity categories: sleeping, sitting, slight activity, moderate activity, and heavy activity. Participants reported on usual frequency of walking, running, swimming, and weightlifting. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between self-reported activity and severe lumbar ZJO, while adjusting for key covariates including age, sex, height, and weight.Results: In multivariable analyses, ordinal categories of heavy physical activity duration per day were significantly associated with severe lumbar ZJO (p for trend=.04), with the greatest risk observed for the category 3 or more hours per day, odds ratio 2.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-4.67). When heavy activity was modeled as a continuous independent variable, each hour was independently associated with 1.19 times the odds of severe lumbar ZJO (95% CI 1.03-1.38, p=.02). Less vigorous types of physical activity and the type of exercise were not associated with severe lumbar ZJO. Older age, lesser height, and greater weight were independently and significantly associated with severe lumbar ZJO. In multivariable models predicting lumbar ZJO, neither model discrimination nor reclassification improved with the addition of physical activity variables, compared with a multivariable model including age, sex, height, and weight.Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate a statistically significant cross-sectional association between heavy physical activity and CT-detected severe lumbar ZJO. However, the additional discriminatory capability of heavy physical activity above and beyond that contributed by other factors was negligible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement. Perspective A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Walking limitations caused by neurogenic claudication (NC) are typically assessed with self-reported measures, although objective evaluation of walking using motorized treadmill test (MTT) or self-paced walking test (SPWT) has periodically appeared in the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) literature.Purpose: This study compared the validity and responsiveness of MTT and SPWT for assessing walking ability before and after common treatments for NC.Study Design: Prospective observational cohort study.Patient Sample: Fifty adults were recruited from an urban spine center if they had LSS and substantial walking limitations from NC and were scheduled to undergo surgery (20%) or conservative treatment (80%).Outcome Measures: Walking times, distances, and speeds along with the characteristics of NC symptoms were recorded for MTT and SPWT. Self-reported measures included back and leg pain intensity assessed with 0 to 10 numeric pain scales, disability assessed with Oswestry Disability Index, walking ability assessed with estimated walking times and distances, and NC symptoms assessed with the subscales from the Spinal Stenosis Questionnaires.Methods: Motorized treadmill test used a level track, and SPWT was conducted in a rectangular hallway. Walking speeds were self-selected, and test end points were NC, fatigue, or completion of the 30-minute test protocol. Results from MTT and SPWT were compared with each other and self-reported measures. Internal responsiveness was assessed by comparing changes in the initial results with the posttreatment results and external responsiveness by comparing walking test results that improved with those that did not improve by self-reported criteria.Results: Mean age of the participants was 68 years, and 58% were male. Neurogenic claudication included leg pain (88%) and buttock(s) pain (12%). Five participants could not safely perform MTT. Walking speeds were faster and distances were greater with SPWT, although the results from both tests correlated with each other and self-reported measures. Of the participants, 72% reported improvement after treatment, which was confirmed by significant mean differences in self-reported measures. Motorized treadmill test results did not demonstrate internal responsiveness to change in clinical status after treatment but SPWT results did, with increased mean walking times (6 minutes) and distances (387 m). When responsiveness was assessed against external criterion, both SPWT and MTT demonstrated substantial divergence with self-reported changes in clinical status and alternative outcome measures.Conclusions: Both MTT and SPWT can quantify walking abilities in NC. As outcome tools, SPWT demonstrated better internal responsiveness than MTT, but neither test demonstrated adequate external responsiveness. Neither test should be considered as a meaningful substitution for disease-specific measures of function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background context: No prior study has investigated the frequency of patient-identified inciting events in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) or their clinical significance. Purpose: To examine the clinical frequency of patient-identified inciting events in LDH, and to identify associations between the presence of inciting events and the severity of the clinical presentation. Study design/setting: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a cohort study with prospective recruitment, with retrospective data collection on inciting events. The setting was a hospital-based specialty spine clinic. Patient sample: One hundred fifty-four adults with lumbosacral radicular pain and LDH confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. Outcome measures: Self-report measures of disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, and the VAS for back pain. Methods: Dependent variables included the presence of a patient-identified inciting event, which were categorized as spontaneous onset, nonlifting physical activity, heavy lifting (>35 lbs), light lifting (<35 lbs), nonexertional occurrence, or physical trauma. We examined the association of an inciting event, or a lifting-related event, with each outcome, first using univariate analyses, and second using multivariate modeling, accounting for important adjustment variables. Results: Sixty-two percent of LDH did not have a specific patient-identified event associated with onset of symptoms. Nonlifting activities were the most common inciting event, comprising 26% of all LDH. Heavy lifting (6.5%), light lifting (2%), nonexertional occurrences (2%), and physical trauma (1.3%) accounted for relatively small proportions of all LDH. Patient-identified inciting events were not significantly associated with a more severe clinical presentation in crude analyses. Spontaneous LDH was significantly associated with higher baseline ODI scores in multivariate analysis, although the magnitude of this effect was small. There were no significant associations (p≤.05) between the presence of a lifting-associated event and the outcomes of ODI, VAS leg pain, or VAS back pain. Conclusions: The majority of LDH occurred without specific inciting events. A history of an inciting event was not significantly associated with a more severe clinical presentation. There was no significant association between the occurrence of a lifting-related event and the severity of the clinical presentation. This information may be useful in the counseling of patients recovering from acute LDH. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]