Search

Objectives: To identify prognostic forms of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) related to the nonsurgical management of adults with low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate their current stage of development., Study Design and Setting: Systematic review using a sensitive search strategy across seven databases with hand searching and citation tracking., Results: A total of 10,005 records were screened for eligibility with 35 studies included in the review. The included studies report on the development of 30 prognostic LBP CPRs. Most of the identified CPRs are in their initial phase of development. Three CPRs were found to have undergone validation--the Cassandra rule for predicting long-term significant functional limitations and the five-item and two-item Flynn manipulation CPRs for predicting a favorable functional prognosis in patients being treated with lumbopelvic manipulation. No studies were identified that investigated whether the implementation of a CPR resulted in beneficial patient outcomes or improved resource efficiencies., Conclusion: Most of the identified prognostic CPRs for LBP are in the initial phase of development and are consequently not recommended for direct application in clinical practice at this time. The body of evidence provides emergent confidence in the limited predictive performance of the Cassandra rule and the five-item Flynn manipulation CPR in comparable clinical settings and patient populations., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify the types of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for low back pain (LBP) that Australian physiotherapists wish to see developed and the characteristics of LBP CPRs that physiotherapists believe are important., Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups., Setting: Metropolitan and regional areas of New South Wales, Australia., Participants: Twenty-six physiotherapists who manage patients with LBP (77% male, 81% private practice)., Results: Participants welcomed the development of prognostic forms of LBP CPRs. Tools that assist in identifying serious spinal pathology, likely responders to interventions, patients who are likely to experience an adverse outcome, and patients not requiring physiotherapy management were also considered useful. Participants thought that LBP CPRs should be uncomplicated, easy to remember, easy to apply, accurate and precise, and well-supported by research evidence. They should not contain an excessive number of variables, use complicated statistics, or contain variables that have no clear logical relationship to the dependent outcome. It was considered by participants that LBP CPRs need to be compatible with traditional clinical reasoning and decision-making processes, and sufficiently inclusive of a broad range of management approaches and common clinical assessment techniques., Conclusion: There were several identified areas of perceived need for LBP CPR development and a range of characteristics such tools need to encompass to be considered clinically meaningful and useful by physiotherapists in this study. Targeting and incorporating the needs and preferences of physiotherapists is likely to result in the development of tools for LBP with the greatest potential to positively impact clinical practice., (Copyright © 2014 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Systematic review., Objectives: To identify diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for low back pain (LBP) and to assess their readiness for clinical application., Background: Significant research has been invested into the development of CPRs that may assist in the meaningful subgrouping of patients with LBP. To date, very little is known about diagnostic forms of CPRs for LBP, which relate to the present status or classification of an individual, and whether they have been developed sufficiently to enable their application in clinical practice., Methods: A sensitive electronic search strategy using 7 databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion using a 2-stage selection process. The quality appraisal of included studies was conducted by 2 independent raters using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and checklists composed of accepted methodological standards for the development of CPRs., Results: Of 10 014 studies screened for eligibility, the search identified that 13 diagnostic CPRs for LBP have been derived. Among those, 1 tool for identifying lumbar spinal stenosis and 2 tools for identifying inflammatory back pain have undergone validation. No impact analysis studies were identified., Conclusion: Most diagnostic CPRs for LBP are in their initial development phase and cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice at this time. Validation and impact analysis of the diagnostic CPRs identified in this review are warranted, particularly for those tools that meet an identified unmet need of clinicians who manage patients with LBP., Level of Evidence: Diagnosis, level 2a-.

Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs) have been developed to assist in the physiotherapy management of low back pain (LBP) although little is known about the factors that may influence their implementation in clinical practice. This study used qualitative research methodology to explore the knowledge, attitudes and practices/behaviours of physiotherapists in relation to these tools. Four semi-structured focus groups involving 26 musculoskeletal physiotherapists were conducted across three Australian geographic regions. A fictitious LBP case scenario was developed and used to facilitate group discussion. Participant knowledge of CPRs was found to be mixed, with some clinicians never having previously encountered the term or concept. LBP CPRs were often conceptualised as a formalisation of pattern recognition. Attitudes towards CPRs expressed by study participants were wide-ranging with several facilitating and inhibiting views identified. It was felt that more experienced clinicians had limited need of such tools. Only a small number of participants expressed that they had ever used LBP CPRs in clinical practice. To optimise the successful adoption of an LBP CPR, researchers should consider avoiding the use of the term 'rule' and ensure that the tool and its interface are uncomplicated and easy to use. Understanding potential barriers, the needs of clinicians and the context in which CPRs will be implemented will help facilitate the development of tools with the highest potential to positively influence physiotherapy practice., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Synopsis: Decision making in physical therapy is increasingly informed by evidence in the form of probabilities. Prior beliefs concerning diagnoses, prognoses, and treatment effects are quantitatively revised by the integration of new information derived from the history, physical examination, and other investigations in a well-recognized application of Bayes' theorem. Clinical prediction rule development studies commonly employ such methodology to produce quantified estimates of the likelihood of patients having certain diagnoses or achieving given outcomes. To date, the physical therapy literature has been limited to the discussion and calculation of the point estimate of such probabilities. The degree of precision associated with the construction of posterior probabilities, which requires consideration of both uncertainty associated with pretest probability and uncertainty associated with test accuracy, remains largely unrecognized and unreported. This paper provides an introduction to the calculation of the uncertainty interval, known as a credible interval, around posterior probability estimates. The method for calculating the credible interval is detailed and illustrated with example data from 2 clinical prediction rule development studies. Two relatively quick and simple methods for approximating the credible interval are also outlined. It is anticipated that knowledge of the credible interval will have practical implications for the incorporation of probabilistic evidence in clinical practice. Consistent with reporting standards for interventional and diagnostic studies, it is equally appropriate that studies reporting posterior probabilities calculate and report the level of precision associated with these point estimates.

Objective: To identify, appraise and determine the clinical readiness of diagnostic, prescriptive and prognostic Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs) in the physiotherapy management of Low Back Pain (LBP)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1990 to January 2010 using sensitive search strategies for identifying CPR and LBP studies. Citation tracking and hand-searching of relevant journals were used as supplemental strategies., Study Selection: Two independent reviewers used a two-phase selection procedure to identify studies that explicitly aimed to develop one or more CPRs involving the physiotherapy management of LBP. Diagnostic, prescriptive and prognostic studies investigating CPRs at any stage of their development, derivation, validation, or impact-analysis, were considered for inclusion using a priori criteria. 7453 unique records were screened with 23 studies composing the final included sample., Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data into evidence tables using a standardised instrument., Data Synthesis: Identified studies were qualitatively synthesized. No attempt was made to statistically pool the results of individual studies. The 23 scientifically admissible studies described the development of 25 unique CPRs, including 15 diagnostic, 7 prescriptive and 3 prognostic rules. The majority (65%) of studies described the initial derivation of one or more CPRs. No studies investigating the impact phase of rule development were identified., Conclusions: The current body of evidence does not enable confident direct clinical application of any of the identified CPRs. Further validation studies utilizing appropriate research designs and rigorous methodology are required to determine the performance and generalizability of the derived CPRs to other patient populations, clinicians and clinical settings., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)