Search

BACKGROUND To determine the effectiveness of an individualised, daily targeted step count intervention and usual care compared with usual care alone on improving surgical and patient reported outcomes. METHODS The Fit-4-Home trial was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted from April 2019 to February 2021. Patients undergoing elective surgery for liver, stomach or pancreatic cancer in two Australian hospitals were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to receive an individualised, targeted step count intervention and usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). A wearable activity tracker was provided to the intervention group to monitor their daily step count target. Primary outcome was the length of stay in the gastrointestinal ward. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complication rates, discharge destination, quality of life, physical activity, pain, fatigue, distress and hospital re-admission within 30 days. Outcome measures were compared between groups using non-parametric statistics. RESULTS Of the 96 patients recruited, 47 were randomised to the intervention group and 49 were randomised to the control group. The median (interquartile) length of stay in the ward was 7 days (5.0-13.0) in the intervention group and 7 days (5.0- 12.0) in the control group (p = 0.330). Fatigue scores were worse in the intervention group when compared to control (p = 0.018). No other differences between groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS An individualised, daily targeted step count intervention and usual care did not confer additional benefits in reducing the length of stay in the ward compared to usual care alone for patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000194167).

Background and objective The aim of this study was to investigate prognostic factors for pain and functional disability in children and/or adolescents with persisting pain. Databases and data treatment To be included, studies had to be published, peer-reviewed prospective cohort studies of children and/or adolescents with persisting pain at baseline, that reported at least one baseline prognostic factor and its relationship with pain or functional disability at least 1 month after baseline. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, completed data extraction and undertook quality assessment. Meta-analyses were performed when a prognostic factor was reported in two or more studies. Results Of 10,992 studies identified from electronic database searches, 18 were included, investigating 62 potential prognostic factors. In clinical settings, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis. Some positive associations with pain and/or disability were reported by single studies for older age, baseline pain intensity and baseline functional disability across multiple combinations of follow-up times and outcomes. In community settings, meta-analyses of two studies found that prognostic factors for the ongoing presence of pain at medium-term (1-year) follow-up were older age (OR 1.25; 95% CI = 1.05-1.47), weekly day tiredness (OR 1.69; 95% CI = 1.14-2.51), weekly abdominal pain (OR 1.44; 95% CI = 1.03-2.02) and waking during the night (OR 1.49; 95% CI = 1.05-2.13). No studies in community settings reported on prognostic factors for functional disability. Conclusions Prognostic factors having significant associations with future pain and disability were identified; however, as few were investigated in more than one comparable study, the results need to be interpreted with caution. Significance Prognostic factors from across the biopsychosocial spectrum are important to consider in paediatric pain clinical practice. However, most prognostic factors that experts have previously agreed upon have not been assessed in prospective cohort studies to date. The findings may help with prioritising data to collect during clinical assessments of children presenting with pain, in the context of pain and functional disability outcomes.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy, compared with placebo or another comparison treatment, in people with low back pain or radicular pain, or both.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE PEDro (the Physiotherapy Evidence Database) is a widely used, comprehensive, freely available, online database that indexes studies of the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions. We have recently built another database, called DiTA, on the same platform as PEDro. DiTA provides a comprehensive index of studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests used by physiotherapists. This study aims to describe the number and scope of such studies. METHODS A comprehensive search was conducted for studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The search was conducted on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases from their inceptions to November 2018. Subsequently, monthly searches have updated the database. To be included on DiTA, studies need to investigate (a) both a pathology and patients that a physiotherapist could assess in clinical practice, and (b) an index test that a physiotherapist would perform themselves rather than one which they would request. RESULTS To date, the searches have yielded 44,884 titles. Screening has identified 1,419 reports that meet the inclusion criteria. The most frequently studied subdisciplines are "musculoskeletal" (1,050/1,419; 74.0%) and "cardiothoracics" (241; 17.0%); the most frequently studied categories of pathologies are joint pathologies (463; 32.6%) and nervous system pathologies (175; 12.3%); and the most frequently studied body part is the "lower leg or knee" (232; 16.3%). Most studies investigate index tests which are "physical examination" procedures (851; 60.0%); fewer investigate "questions or questionnaires" (420; 29.6%) and "health technologies" (351; 24.7%). DISCUSSION There is a rapidly growing body of evidence on the accuracy of diagnostic tests relevant to most physiotherapy subdisciplines. While the volume of evidence is substantial, it is not yet clear how much of the evidence is of good enough quality to support clinical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) in older adults is poorly understood because the vast majority of the LBP research has focused on the working aged population. The aim of this study was to compare older adults consulting with chronic LBP to middle aged and young adults consulting with chronic LBP, in terms of their baseline characteristics, and pain and disability outcomes over 1 year.METHODS: Data were systematically collected as part of routine care in a secondary care spine clinic. At initial presentation patients answered a self-report questionnaire and underwent a physical examination. Patients older than 65 were classified as older adults and compared to middle aged (45-65 years old) and younger adults (17-44 years old) for 10 baseline characteristics. Pain intensity and disability were collected at 6 and 12 month follow-ups and compared between age groups.RESULTS: A total of 14,479 participants were included in the study. Of these 3087 (21%) patients were older adults, 6071 (42%) were middle aged and 5321 (37%) were young adults. At presentation older adults were statistically different to the middle aged and younger adults for most characteristics measured (e.g. less intense back pain, more leg pain and more depression); however, the differences were small. The change in pain and disability over 12 months did not differ between age groups.CONCLUSIONS: This study found small baseline differences in older people with chronic LBP compared to middle aged and younger adults. There were no associations between age groups and the clinical course.SIGNIFICANCE: Small baseline differences exist in older people with chronic low back pain compared to middle aged and younger adults referred to secondary care for chronic low back pain. Older adults present with slightly less intense low back pain but slightly more intense leg pain. Changes in pain intensity and disability over a 12 month period were similar across all age groups.

Background There is substantial variability in the prognosis of acute low back pain (LBP). The ability to identify the probability of individual patients recovering by key time points would be valuable in making informed decisions about the amount and type of treatment to provide. Predicting recovery based on presentation 1-week after initially seeking care is clinically important and may be more accurate than predictions made at initial presentation. The aim of this study was to predict the probability of recovery at 1-week, 1-month and 3-months after 1-week review in patients who still have LBP 1-week after initially seeking care. Methods The study sample comprised 1070 patients with acute LBP, with a pain score of ≥2 1-week after initially seeking care. The primary outcome measure was days to recovery from pain. Ten potential prognostic factors were considered for inclusion in a multivariable Cox regression model. Results The final model included duration of current episode, number of previous episodes, depressive symptoms, intensity of pain at 1-week, and change in pain over the first week after seeking care. Depending on values of the predictor variables, the probability of recovery at 1-week, 1-month and 3-months after 1-week review ranged from 4% to 59%, 19% to 91% and 30% to 97%, respectively. The model had good discrimination (C = 0.758) and calibration. Conclusions This study found that a model based on five easily collected variables could predict the probability of recovery at key time points in people who still have LBP 1-week after seeking care. Significance A clinical prediction model based on five easily collected variables was able to predict the likelihood of recovery from an episode of acute LBP at three key time points. The model had good discrimination (C = 0.758) and calibration.

Background Imaging for low back pain (LBP) remains common despite guidelines recommending against routine imaging. Patient beliefs about imaging may contribute to the problem. This study aimed to quantitatively investigate patient beliefs regarding the need for imaging in managing LBP and to investigate whether personal characteristics, pain characteristics or back pain beliefs are associated with imaging beliefs. Methods A survey was performed of consecutive patients presenting to general medical practitioners in Sydney, Australia. Nine medical clinics were selected across varied socioeconomic regions. Survey questions assessed beliefs about the importance of imaging for LBP, collected demographic information, LBP history and general beliefs about back pain. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyse findings. Results Three hundred completed surveys were collected with a 79.6% response rate. The mean age was 44 years and 60.7% of respondents were women. Exactly, 54.3% (95%CI: 48.7–58.9%) believed that imaging was necessary for the best medical care for LBP. Exactly, 48.0% (95%CI: 42.4–53.6%) believed that everyone with LBP should obtain imaging. Increased age, lower education level, non-European or non-Anglo-saxon cultural background, history of previous imaging and Back Beliefs Questionnaire scores were associated with beliefs that imaging was necessary. Conclusion Approximately, half of all patients presenting to a medical doctor consider low back imaging to be necessary. This may have important implications for overutilization of low back imaging investigations. Knowledge of the factors associated with the patient's belief that imaging is necessary may be helpful in designing appropriate interventions to reduce unnecessary imaging for LBP.

Background: This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of visceral manipulation, to a standard physiotherapy algorithm, improved outcomes in patients with low back pain. Methods: Sixty-four patients with low back pain who presented for treatment at a private physiotherapy clinic were randomized to one of two groups: standard physiotherapy plus visceral manipulation (n = 32) or standard physiotherapy plus placebo visceral manipulation (n = 32). The primary outcome was pain (measured with the 0–10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were pain at 2 and 52 weeks, disability (measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6 and 52 weeks and function (measured with the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) at 2, 6 and 52 weeks. This trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611000757910). Results: The addition of visceral manipulation did not affect the primary outcome of pain at 6 weeks (�0.12, 95% CI = �1.45 to 1.21). There were no significant between-group differences for the secondary outcomes of pain at 2 weeks or disability and function at 2, 6 or 52 weeks. The group receiving addition of visceral manipulation had less pain than the placebo group at 52 weeks (mean 1.57, 95% CI = 0.32 to 2.82). Participants were adequately blinded to group status and there were no adverse effects reported in either group. Conclusions: Our study suggests that visceral manipulation in addition to standard care is not effective in changing short-term outcomes but may produce clinically worthwhile improvements in pain at 1 year.

Background Heritability and population-specific lifestyle factors are considered to significantly contribute to chronic low back pain (LBP), but traditional population studies fail to (1) adjust for genetics; and (2) use standard and validated definitions for LBP and for lifestyle factors. Methods Using a classical and a co-twin control study design and validated definitions for chronic LBP and lifestyle variables, we explored the relative contribution of genetics and environment on the prevalence of chronic LBP in a sample of adult Australian twins. Results Data from 105 twin pairs showed that the prevalence of chronic LBP is significantly determined by genetic factors (heritability = 32%). Additionally, monozygotic twins were five times more likely to have chronic LBP than dizygotic twins when one of the siblings of the pair was affected. In a case-control analysis (n = 38 twin pairs), an exploratory analysis showed higher prevalence of chronic LBP associated with light walking exercises and vigorous gardening or heavy work around the house. Daily time spent in sitting was also positively associated with chronic LBP, but not moderate physical activities such as jogging, cycling and gentle swimming. In the final multivariate model, only time spent in vigorous gardening or heavy work around the house remained associated with chronic LBP (odds ratio 6.5; 95% confidence interval 1.47–28.8). Conclusions The type, frequency and duration of physical activity may be important to understand risk factors for chronic LBP. The causation path between chronic LBP and people's engagement in activities involving frequent bending and twisting such as gardening and housework should be further investigated.

Background and Objective Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to identify pathology responsible for low back pain (LBP). However, the importance of findings on MRI remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review whether MRI findings of the lumbar spine predict future LBP in different samples with and without LBP. Databases and Data Treatment MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched. Included were prospective cohort studies investigating the relationship between baseline MRI abnormalities of the lumbar spine and clinically important LBP outcome at follow-up. We excluded cohorts with specific diseases as the cause of their LBP. Associations between MRI findings and LBP pain outcomes were extracted from eligible studies. Results A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies presented data on participants with current LBP; one included a sample with no current LBP, three included a sample with no history of LBP and two included mixed samples. Due to small sample size, poor overall quality and the heterogeneity between studies in terms of participants, MRI findings and clinical outcomes investigated, it was not possible to pool findings. No consistent associations between MRI findings and outcomes were identified. Single studies reported significant associations for Modic changes type 1 with pain, disc degeneration with disability in samples with current LBP and disc herniation with pain in a mixed sample. Conclusions The limited number, heterogeneity and overall quality of the studies do not permit definite conclusions on the association of MRI findings of the lumbar spine with future LBP (PROSPERO: CRD42012002342).

Many terms exist to describe radiating leg pain or symptoms associated with back pain (e.g., sciatica or radiculopathy) and it appears that these terms are used inconsistently. We examined the terms used to describe, and the eligibility criteria used to define, radiating leg pain in randomized controlled trials of conservative treatments, and evaluated how the eligibility criteria compared to an international pain taxonomy. Eligible studies were identified from two systematic reviews and an updated search of their search strategy. Studies were included if they recruited adults with radiating leg pain associated with back pain. Two independent reviewers screened the studies and extracted data. Studies were grouped according to the terms used to describe radiating leg pain. Thirty-one of the seventy-seven included studies used multiple terms to describe radiating leg pain; the most commonly used terms were sciatica (60 studies) and disc herniation (19 studies). Most studies that used the term sciatica included pain distribution in the eligibility criteria, but studies were inconsistent in including signs (e.g., neurological deficits) and imaging findings. Similarly, studies that used other terms to describe radiating leg pain used inconsistent eligibility criteria between studies and to the pain taxonomy, except that positive imaging findings were required for almost all studies that used disc herniation to describe radiating leg pain. In view of the varying terms to describe, and eligibility criteria to define, radiating leg pain, consensus needs to be reached for each of communication and comparison between studies.

Some patients with low back pain recover quickly while others continue to experience pain beyond 3 months. The primary aim of this study was to develop a simple prediction rule to help clinicians identify patients with acute low back pain likely to recover at different rates. The secondary aim was to compare a clinician's prognosis judgement to the prediction rule. The study sample included 239 patients with acute low back pain who participated in a randomised controlled trial. The primary outcome was days to recovery from pain. Potential prognostic factors were initially tested for univariate association with recovery using Cox regression (p