Search

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]

Purpose: To determine whether emotional distress reported at the initial consultation affects subsequent healthcare use either directly or indirectly via moderating the influence of symptoms.Methods: Longitudinal observational study of 2891 participants consulting primary care for low back pain. Negative binomial regression models were constructed to estimate independent effects of emotional distress on healthcare use. Potential confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs.Results: After the initial consultation, participants had a mean (SD) of one (1.2) visit for back pain over 3 months, and nine (14) visits for back pain over 12 months. Higher reports of anxiety during the initial consultation led to increased short-term healthcare use (IRR 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01-1.11) and higher reports of depression led to increased long-term healthcare use (IRR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.02-1.07). The effect sizes suggest that a patient with a high anxiety score (8/10) would consult 50 % more frequently over 3 months, and a person with a high depression score (8/10) would consult 30 % more frequently over 12 months, compared to a patient with equivalent pain and disability and no reported anxiety or depression.Conclusions: Emotional distress in the acute stage of low back pain increased subsequent consultation rates. Interventions that target emotional distress during the initial consultation are likely to reduce costly and potentially inappropriate future healthcare use for patients with non-specific low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Marketing communication and brand identity is a fundamental principle of advertising and end-user engagement. Health researchers have begun to apply this principle to trial recruitment in primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a Teaser Campaign using a series of postcards in advance of a conventional mail-out increases the number of primary care clinics that engage with a clinical trial. Methods: Embedded randomised recruitment trial across primary care clinics (general practitioners and physiotherapists) in the Sydney metropolitan area. Clinics in the Teaser Campaign group received a series of branded promotional postcards in advance of a standard letter inviting them to participate in a clinical trial. Clinics in the Standard Mail group did not receive the postcards. Results: From a total of 744 clinics that were sent an invitation letter, 46 clinics in the Teaser Campaign group and 40 clinics in the Standard Mail group responded (11.6% total response rate). There was no between-group difference in the odds of responding to the invitation letter (odds ratio = 1.18, 95% confidence interval = 0.75-1.85, p = 0.49). For phy-siotherapy clinics and general practice clinics, the odds ratios were 1.43 (confidence interval = 0.82-2.48, p = 0.21) and 0.77 (confidence interval = 0.34-1.75, p = 0.54), respectively. Conclusion: A Teaser Campaign using a series of branded promotional postcards did not improve clinic engagement for a randomised controlled trial in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Globally it is responsible for the most years lived with disability. The most problematic type of LBP is chronic LBP (pain lasting longer than 3 mo); it has a poor prognosis and is costly, and interventions are only moderately effective. Targeting interventions according to risk profile is a promising approach to prevent the onset of chronic LBP. Developing accurate prognostic models is the first step. No validated prognostic models are available to accurately predict the onset of chronic LBP. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate the risk of chronic LBP.Methods and Findings: We used the PROGRESS framework to specify a priori methods, which we published in a study protocol. Data from 2,758 patients with acute LBP attending primary care in Australia between 5 November 2003 and 15 July 2005 (development sample, n = 1,230) and between 10 November 2009 and 5 February 2013 (external validation sample, n = 1,528) were used to develop and externally validate the model. The primary outcome was chronic LBP (ongoing pain at 3 mo). In all, 30% of the development sample and 19% of the external validation sample developed chronic LBP. In the external validation sample, the primary model (PICKUP) discriminated between those who did and did not develop chronic LBP with acceptable performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.69]). Although model calibration was also acceptable in the external validation sample (intercept = -0.55, slope = 0.89), some miscalibration was observed for high-risk groups. The decision curve analysis estimated that, if decisions to recommend further intervention were based on risk scores, screening could lead to a net reduction of 40 unnecessary interventions for every 100 patients presenting to primary care compared to a "treat all" approach. Limitations of the method include the model being restricted to using prognostic factors measured in existing studies and using stepwise methods to specify the model. Limitations of the model include modest discrimination performance. The model also requires recalibration for local settings.Conclusions: Based on its performance in these cohorts, this five-item prognostic model for patients with acute LBP may be a useful tool for estimating risk of chronic LBP. Further validation is required to determine whether screening with this model leads to a net reduction in unnecessary interventions provided to low-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the association between domestic and recreational physical activity (PA) and low back pain (LBP) after adjusting for genetic and environmental influences. Methods: Twins were recruited through the Australian twin registry. LBP prevalence and domestic (vigorous gardening/heavy yard work) and recreational (light walking, moderate/vigorous) PA were assessed by a validated questionnaire. Associations were analysed using a cross-sectional analysis of the complete sample of 486 twins, including a matched case-control analysis of 69 twin pairs discordant for LBP. Logistic regression and the lincom post-estimation method were used for the analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: The case-control analysis showed that LBP was significantly associated with heavy domestic PA (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.29-6.43), whereas no significant association was found with any form of recreational PA. The results of the lincom command indicated that being engaged in both heavy domestic and recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous) was associated with a significantly increased probability of LBP compared with being engaged only in recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous, ORs 3.48-4.22). Using the whole sample, we found weaker associations but in the same direction. Conclusions: We found evidence that heavy domestic PA is associated with an increased probability of LBP, and the combination of heavy domestic and recreational PA might increase the probability of LBP more so than heavy domestic or recreational PA alone. Associations being greater when using the co-twin case-control analysis indicate that genetic and environmental factors influence the relationship between PA and LBP, and demonstrate the value of a twin design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite the growing evidence that physical activity and familial factors play a role in low back pain (LBP), there is a lack of robust longitudinal studies that (1) investigate the types and dosages of physical activity that are protective or harmful for LBP, (2) employ objective measures of physical activity and (3) conduct appropriate adjustment for confounders. The AUstralian Twin BACK (AUTBACK) study was established to elucidate the longitudinal LBP-physical activity relationship with the benefits of controlling for familial (both genetic/nongenetic) factors that may influence physical activity engagement and LBP., Participants: Participants are twins registered at Twins Research Australia (TRA), older than 18 years, with access to internet. We collected data on LBP status (weekly) and physical activity levels (monthly) for 12 months as well as a wide range of health, lifestyle and physical activity (objective, self-reported, including different types and dosages) data., Findings to Date: We included 401 twins, 157 being complete twin pairs (n=314). Lifetime prevalence of LBP was 85%. Participants spent 61% of their week in sedentary time and only 4% in moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (accelerometer). So far, 168 participants (40% of the sample) have completed the 12-month follow-up. A total of 7150 weekly (LBP status) and 1763 monthly questionnaires (physical activity status) have been answered (92% response rate)., Future Plans: The 12-month follow-up will be completed by June 2020. This cohort represents a novel and comprehensive resource for researchers in the field, and includes high-quality, and frequent data on LBP and physical activity. It allows the investigation of genetic and shared environmental factors on the LBP-physical activity relationship. The AUTBACK group has planned a number of projects, with the main one being the investigation of the influence of physical activity on recurrence of LBP. Data linkage opportunities are available, including with other studies conducted by TRA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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 30minutes, 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., (Copyright © 2016 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)