Search

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likel

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows:. The objective of this review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we will report the results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture as follows. Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture Vertebral traumatic fracture Vertebral stress fracture. Secondary objectives The secondary objective of this review is to assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of red flag tests, if appropriate. In particular, we will assess the healthcare setting (e.g. primary, emergency, or secondary care) and the different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, and vertebral stress fracture. We will also assess mean age at different cut-off thresholds (e.g. > 50 years of age versus > 70 years of age) across different studies, as this has previously been shown to influence results.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to review information about risk factors for lower extremity running injuries in both short-distance (mean running distance ≤20 km/week and ≤10 km/session) and long-distance runners (mean running distance >20 km/week and >10 km/session). METHODS:Electronic databases were searched for articles published up to February 2019. Prospective cohort studies using multivariable analysis for the assessment of individual risk factors or risk models for the occurrence of lower extremity running injuries were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies for eligibility and assessed risk of bias with the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS:A total of 29 studies were included; 17 studies focused on short-distance runners, 11 studies focused on long-distance runners, and 1 study focused on both types of runners. A previous running-related injury was the strongest risk factor for an injury for long-distance runners, with moderate-quality evidence. Previous injuries not attributed to running was the strongest risk factor for an injury for short-distance runners, with high-quality evidence. Higher body mass index, higher age, sex (male), having no previous running experience, and lower running volume were strong risk factors, with moderate quality evidence, for short-distance runners. Low-quality evidence was found for all risk models as predictors of running-related injuries among short- and long-distance runners. CONCLUSION:Several risk factors for lower extremity injuries have been identified among short- and long-distance runners, but the quality of evidence for these risk factors for running-related injuries is limited. Running injuries seem to have a multifactorial origin both in short- and long-distance runners.

Study design

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Patient recovery expectations can predict treatment outcome. Little is known about the association of patient recovery expectations on treatment outcome in patients with neck pain consulting a manual therapist. This study evaluates the predictive value of recovery expectations in neck pain patients consulting manual therapists in the Netherlands. The primary outcome measure 'recovery' is defined as 'reduction in pain and perceived improvement'. A prospective cohort study a total of 1195 neck pain patients. Patients completed the Patient Expectancies List (PEL) at baseline (3 item questionnaire, score range from 3 to 12), functional status (NDI), the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) for recovery (7-points Likert scale) post treatment and pain scores (NRS) at baseline and post treatment. The relationship between recovery expectancy and recovery (dichotomized GPE scores) was assessed by logistic regression analysis. Patients generally reported high recovery expectations on all three questions of the PEL (mean sumscores ranging from 11.3 to 11.6). When adjusted for covariates the PEL sum-score did not predict recovery (explained variance was 0.10 for the total PEL). Separately, the first question of the PEL showed predictive potential (OR 3.7; 95%CI 0.19-73.74) for recovery, but failed to reach statistical significance. In this study patient recovery expectations did not predict treatment outcome. Variables predicting recovery were recurrence and duration of pain. The precise relationship between patient recovery expectations and outcome is complex and still inconclusive. Research on patient expectancy would benefit from more consistent use of theoretical expectancy and outcome models.

The aim of this study is to compare Dutch usual care musculoskeletal therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain with recommendations from international clinical practice guidelines. Physical therapy is diverse, as it may consist of exercise, massage, advice, and other modalities. Physical therapists with post graduate qualifications in manual therapy (MT) may additionally apply spinal thrust manipulation or non-thrust mobilization techniques to treat neck pain. It is important that, in the absence of a Dutch clinical guideline for the treatment of patients with neck pain, musculoskeletal therapists use the available recommendations from international clinical practice guidelines when treating patients with neck pain. One updated clinical practice guideline was identified (Blanpied, 2017), a report from the Task Force on Neck Pain (Guzman et al., 2008) and the IFOMPT International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for potential of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction prior to Orthopaedic Manual Therapy Intervention (Rushton et al., 2014). At baseline 1193 patients are included and data with regard to pain, disability, fear avoidance, expectations and applied treatment modalities are gathered. Outcome is measured using the Global Perceived Effect questionnaire. Results show that patients with acute neck pain are treated significantly more often with manipulation compared to patients with sub-acute or chronic neck pain (p < .000) and younger patients are treated with manipulation more often than older patients (p < .000). In the presence of comorbidity, the preference of spinal manipulation seems to diminish, in favour of mobilization and exercise. Almost every patient receives multimodal therapy (94.3%) and spinal manipulation and mobilization are rarely used as a stand-alone treatment (4.5% and 0.8%). Dutch musculoskeletal therapists choose treatment strategies that correspond with recommendations from international guidelines.

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation when added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS:An economic evaluation was conducted alongside 3 pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in The Netherlands with a follow up of 52 weeks. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain; a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (n = 251), sacroiliac (SI) joints (n = 228), or a combination of facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs (n = 202); and were unresponsive to initial conservative care. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS:After 52 weeks, no difference in costs between groups was found in the facet joint or combination RCT. The total costs were significantly higher for the intervention group in the SI joint RCT. The maximum probability of radiofrequency denervation being cost-effective when added to a standardized exercise program ranged from 0.10 in the facet joint RCT to 0.17 in the SI joint RCT irrespective of the ceiling ratio, and 0.65 at a ceiling ratio of €30 000 per QALY in the combination RCT. CONCLUSIONS:Although equivocal among patients with symptoms in a combination of the facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs, evidence suggests that radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program cannot be considered cost-effective from a societal perspective for patients with chronic low back pain originating from either facet or SI joints in a Dutch healthcare setting.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Study design: A systematic overview of the literature and an agreement study. Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore the inter-professional agreement of diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound (DMUS) between physical therapists (PT) and radiologists, using a new classification strategy based upon the therapeutic consequences in patients with shoulder pain. Background: DMUS is frequently used by PTs, although the agreement regarding traditional diagnostic labels between PTs and radiologists is only fair. Nevertheless, DMUS could be useful when used as a stratifying-tool. Methods: First, a systematic overview of current evidence was performed to assess which traditional diagnostic labels could be recoded into new treatment related categories (referral to secondary care, corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, watchful waiting). Next, kappa values were calculated for these categories between PTs and radiologists. Results: Only three categories were extracted, as none of the traditional diagnostic labels were classified into the ‘corticosteroid injection’ category. Overall, we found moderate agreement to stratify patients into treatment related categories and substantial agreement for the category ‘referral to secondary care’. Both categories ‘watchful waiting’ and ‘indication for physical therapy’ showed moderate agreement between the two professions. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the agreement between radiologists and PTs is moderate to substantial when labelling is based on treatment consequences. DMUS might be able to help the PT to guide treatment, especially for the category ‘referral to secondary care’ as this showed the highest agreement. However, as this is just an explorative study, more research is needed, to validate and assess the consequences of this stratification classification for clinical care.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Study design: Prospective cohort study including patients with shoulder pain in primary care physiotherapy. Background: There is an increased tendency to use diagnostic ultrasound to aid the diagnostic strategy and target treatment. It is a relatively cheap and accessible imaging technique but the implications for practice and patients are unknown. Objectives: To study the influence of diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) on diagnostic work-up, treatment modalities and recovery. Methods: Participants (n = 389) with a new episode of shoulder pain were assessed at baseline and followed for 6, 12 and 26 weeks. Diagnostic work-up, including the use of DUS, and treatment strategies were reported by the therapists at 3, 6 and 12 weeks. Results: Most patients (41%) were diagnosed with subacromial impingement/pain syndrome after physical examination or DUS. DUS was used in 31% of the participants. Tendinopathy was the most found abnormality in this sub-population. Patients who underwent DUS were more frequently treated using exercise therapy. Patients that not had DUS were more likely to receive massage therapy, trigger point therapy or mobilisation techniques. Logistic regression analyses did not show a significant association between DUS and recovery after 26 weeks (0.88, 95%CI:0.50–1.57). Correcting for the therapist as a confounder using a multilevel binary logistic regression did not show a significant cluster effect. Conclusion: Diagnostic US as a work-up component does not seem to influence diagnosis or recovery but does influence the choice of treatment modality. Conclusions are limited to observational data. High quality randomized trials should study the effect of DUS on recovery.

© 2018 The Author(s). Main text: We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients. For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach. We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.

© 2018 Background: Running injuries are very common. Risk factors for running injuries are not consistently described across studies and do not differentiate between runners of long- and short distances within one cohort. Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine risk factors for running injuries in recreational long- and short distance runners separately. Design: A prospective cohort study. Methods: Recreational runners from four different running events are invited to participate. They filled in a baseline questionnaire assessing possible risk factors about 4 weeks before the run and one a week after the run assessing running injuries. Using logistic regression we developed an overall risk model and separate risk models based on the running distance. Results: In total 3768 runners participated in this study. The overall risk model contained 4 risk factors: previous injuries (OR 3.7) and running distance during the event (OR 1.3) increased the risk of a running injury whereas older age (OR 0.99) and more training kilometers per week (OR 0.99) showed a decrease. Models between short- and long distance runners did not differ significantly. Previous injuries increased the risk of a running injury in all models, while more training kilometers per week decreased this risk. Conclusions: We found that risk factors for running injuries were not related to running distances. Previous injury is a generic risk factor for running injuries, as is weekly training distance. Prevention of running injuries is important and a higher weekly training volume seems to prevent injuries to a certain extent.

© 2017 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Objective To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT). Design Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up. Setting Primary care. Participants General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both. Interventions Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment. Main Outcome Measures Prevalence of patients’ risk profile and clinicians’ applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment. Results In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, a

© 2017 Elsevier Inc. Background Context In clinical practice, the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy is based on information from the patient's history, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging. Various physical tests may be performed, but their diagnostic accuracy is unknown. Purpose This study aimed to summarize and update the evidence on diagnostic performance of tests carried out during a physical examination for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. Study Design A review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests was carried out. Study Sample The study sample comprised diagnostic studies comparing results of tests performed during a physical examination in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy with a reference standard of imaging or surgical findings. Outcome Measures Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios are presented, together with pooled results for sensitivity and specificity. Methods A literature search up to March 2016 was performed in CENTRAL, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2. Results Five diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. Only Spurling's test was evaluated in more than one study, showing high specificity ranging from 0.89 to 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59–1.00); sensitivity varied from 0.38 to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.21–0.99). No studies were found that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of widely used neurological tests such as key muscle strength, tendon reflexes, and sensory impairments. Conclusions There is limited evidence for accuracy of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. When consistent with patient history, clinicians may use a combination of Spurling's, axial traction, and an Arm Squeeze test to increase the likelihood of a cervical radiculopathy, whereas a combined results of four negative neurodynamics tests and an Arm Squeeze test could be used to rule out the disorder.

© 2017 Taylor & Francis. Background: Working alliance is the interaction between the patient and therapist. It is a crucial part of the physiotherapeutic process. One instrument to measure working alliance is available in Dutch/Flemish language and validated in psychotherapy setting. Objective: This study aims to validate the Working Alliance Inventory Short-Form in a Dutch physiotherapy setting. Design: A prospective cohort study in primary-care physiotherapy. Method: To validate the Dutch/Flemish version of the working alliance inventory short-form (WAV-12) a RASCH analysis was used. Results: Sixty-six physiotherapists enrolled in total 389 patients with an average age of 50 years and a mean duration of shoulder pain of 33 weeks. A total of 274 patients filled in one or more items of the WAV-12. The WAV-12 showes good discriminative abilities and all items contributed to a one-dimensional construct. Due to the selective nature of the missing items, we believed rewording was necessary to make it more suitable to the physiotherapy setting. We performed a Delphi study and revised the WAV-12 into the PAS (Physio Alliance Scale). The validity of the revised version is unknown and is therefore not sufficiently strong to be implemented as a measurement tool. Limitations: The response rate for three items especially was low and we found ceiling effects in ten items. Conclusion: Although the measurement instrument shows good internal consistency and reliability, we made adjustments to the WAV-12 for Dutch physiotherapy setting.

© 2017 American Physical Therapy Association. Background. Health care providers need prognostic factors to distinguish between patients who are likely to recover and those who are not likely to recover. Objective. The aim of this study was to: (1) describe the clinical course of recovery and (2) identify prognostic factors of recovery in patients with shoulder pain at the 26-week follow-up. Design. A prospective cohort study was carried out in the Netherlands and included 389 patients who consulted a physical therapist for a new episode of shoulder pain. Method. Participants were followed for 26 weeks. Potential predictors of recovery were selected from the literature and, with the addition of 2 new variables (ie, use of diagnostic ultrasound and working alliance), evaluated in the multivariable regression analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data, and bootstrap methods were used for internal validation. Results. The recovery rate was 60% for the total population and 65% for the working population after 26 weeks. Short duration of complaints, lower disability scores, having a paid job, better working alliance, and no feelings of anxiety or depression were associated with recovery. In the working population, only duration of complaints and disability remained in the final model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the final model was 0.67 for the total population and 0.63 for the working population. After internal validation, the AUC was corrected to 0.66 and 0.63, respectively. Limitations. External validation of the prognostic model should be done prior to its use in clinical practice. Conclusion. The results of this study indicate that several factors can predict recovery.

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice, recruiting incident patients with (sub)acute sciatica, was discontinued because of insufficient recruitment. AIM: To describe factors that influenced the recruitment process and ultimately led to discontinuation of this trial, and to enable others to learn from this experience. DESIGN & SETTING: A pragmatic RCT was designed to compare two pain medication prescription strategies for treatment of (sub)acute sciatica in general practice. After 1 year of patient recruitment, the trial was prematurely terminated. METHOD: To analyse the underperforming recruitment, patient information systems of 20 general practices were screened twice a month to search for eligible patients and identify reasons for non-eligibility. Secondly, after study termination, an open question was distributed to the participating GPs for their views on the recruitment process. RESULTS: A total of 116 GPs from 37 general practices collaborated in the trial. Only eight of 234 patients were included after 12 months. The 22 GPs who offered their opinion on the main reasons for unsuccessful recruitment considered that these were the low incidence rate and strict eligibility criteria, a strong patient and/or GP preference, and time constraints. CONCLUSION: For this RCT, multiple factors were related to recruitment problems but it remains unknown which determinants prevailed. As the research question is unanswered but remains relevant, it is recommended that GPs' daily practice is taken into account when designing an RCT, a pilot study should be performed for feasibility of recruitment, and GP assistants should be involved at an early stage.

© 2016 European Pain Federation - EFIC ® Patient history and physical examination are frequently used procedures to diagnose chronic low back pain (CLBP) originating from the facet joints, although the diagnostic accuracy is controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of patient history and/or physical examination to identify CLBP originating from the facet joints using diagnostic blocks as reference standard. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Collaboration database from inception until June 2016. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated sensitivity and specificity values, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Twelve studies were included, in which 129 combinations of index tests and reference standards were presented. Most of these index tests have only been evaluated in single studies with a high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Revel's criteria combination. Because of the clinical heterogeneity, results were not pooled. The published sensitivities ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.02–0.29) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.75–1.00), and the specificities ranged from 0.66 (95% CI 0.46–0.82) to 0.91 (95% CI 0.83–0.96). Due to clinical heterogeneity, the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of patient history and/or physical examination to identify facet joint pain is inconclusive. Patient history and physical examination cannot be used to limit the need of a diagnostic block. The validity of the diagnostic facet joint block should be studied, and high quality studies are required to confirm the results of single studies. Significance: Patient history and physical examination cannot be used to limit the need of a diagnostic block. The validity of the diagnostic facet joint block should be studied, and high quality studies are required to confirm the results of single studies.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the STarT Back screening Tool (SBT), for patients with neck pain. Methods We modified the SBT to fit patients with neck pain. General practitioners and physiotherapists included patients who completed both a baseline and a follow-up questionnaire at 3 days and 3 months, respectively. The construct validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation between the SBT and the reference questionnaires. The reproducibility was assessed in the first week using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using a relative-risk ratio (RR) for, amongst others, persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analysed using both floor and ceiling effects. Results In total, 100 patients were included; 58% were categorised as being at “low risk” for persisting disability, 37% at “medium risk” and 5% at “high risk”. As expected for the construct validity, we found a moderate to high correlation for all questions except for activity question 3. The reproducibility had a quadratic-weighted kappa of 0.58, and a specific agreement of 90.9% for “low-risk” and 66.7% for “medium-risk” patients. The RRs for persisting disability for “medium-risk” against “low-risk” patients were 1.5 (95% C.I. 0.9–2.4) and 1.5 (95% C.I. 0.5–4.1) for pain. The sample size for high-risk patients was low. Conclusion The original SBT is modified to fit patients with neck pain in Dutch primary care. The psychometric analysis indicates sufficiently reliable outcomes, although the predictive validity showed statistically insignificant results.

© 2017 American Physical Therapy Association. Objective. The purpose of this study was to translate and to investigate the reliability and validity of the STarT Back screening tool (SBT) in the primary care setting among patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Design. The SBT was formally translated into Dutch following a multistep approach for forward and backward translation. General practitioners and physical therapists included patients with LBP. Methods. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire and a follow-up at 3 days and 3 months. The construct validity was calculated with Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The reproducibility was assessed using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using relative risk ratios for persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analyzed using floor and ceiling effects. Results. In total, 184 patients were included; 52.2% were categorized in the “low-risk” subgroup, 38.0% “medium-risk,” and 9.8% “high-risk.” For the construct validity we found, as expected, a moderate to high Pearson’s correlation for questions 3 to 9 and a low correlation for questions 1 and 2 with their respective reference questionnaires. The reproducibility had a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.65 and the specific agreement of 82.4% for “low-risk,” 53.3% for “medium-risk,” and 33.3% for “high-risk.” For the predictive validity for persisting disability we found a relative risk ratio for “medium-risk” of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0–3.1) and 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4–4.9) for “high-risk” compared with “low-risk.” For the content validity, we found that no floor and ceiling effects were present. Limitations. There was a relatively small sample size for the retest reliability study. Patients were not compared between physical therapist and GP, as there were not enough patients in both groups. For practical reasons, the patients filled out the baseline questionnaire after receiving the first

© 2017 International Association for the Study of Pain. Clinicians do not want to miss underlying serious pathology, but it is still unclear which red flags are relevant. We aimed to evaluate the origin and evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flags for malignancy for management of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. We performed a comprehensive overview and searched the literature using snowballing techniques and reference checking for evidence on red flags endorsed in clinical guidelines for identifying patients with higher likelihood of malignancy. We selected studies including people with LBP without any restriction on study design. We extracted data on prevalence and diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, we assessed the methodological quality of studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Weidentified 13 red flags endorsed in a total of 16 guidelines and 2 extra red flags not endorsed in any guideline. We included 33 publications varying from systematic reviews to case reports. The origin of many red flags was unclear or was sourced from case reports. The incidence of malignancy in patients presenting with LBP in primary care varied between 0% and 0.7%. Seven studies provided diagnostic accuracy data on red flags. We found 5 red flags with accuracy data from 2 or more studies, with 2 ("history of malignancy" and "strong clinical suspicion") considered informative. In conclusion, the origin and diagnostic accuracy of many red flags endorsed in guidelines are unclear. A "history of malignancy" and "strong clinical suspicion" are the only red flags with empirical evidence of acceptably high diagnostic accuracy.

© 2016 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Background Shoulder pain is one of the three main musculoskeletal complaints and more than 50% of the patients have symptoms longer than 6 months. Until now, limited data exist about the content of physiotherapy for patients with shoulder pain in primary care. Objective Describe current physiotherapeutic diagnostic- and therapeutic management, including the use of diagnostic ultrasound, in patients with shoulder pain in primary care. Design and setting A prospective cohort study in primary care physiotherapy with a 12 week follow-up. Methods Descriptive data from physiotherapists was collected, such as: the diagnostic hypotheses after patient history and physical examination, the use of specific tests and diagnostic ultrasound, the interventions used and possible changes in treatment plan. Results Subacromial impingement syndrome was the most common hypothesis after patient history (48%) as well as physical examination (39%). Diagnostic ultrasound was used in 31% and of these patients the clinical diagnosis changed in 29%. Various interventions were used in all clinical diagnoses. After 12 weeks 41% of patients still received physiotherapy treatment. Conclusions Patients with shoulder pain in physiotherapy practice frequently show signs of subacromial impingement syndrome. The interventions used by the physiotherapists were generally in line with the guideline for subacromial impingement syndrome however a small proportion of physiotherapists used massage and tape/bracing techniques. A large proportion of patients were still receiving treatment after 12 weeks when no improvement was observed. If treatment for patients with subacromial impingement shows no benefit patients should be referred back to the general practitioner or orthopedic surgeon. Conclusions from this study might be slightly biased because of the selection of physiotherapists.

© 2017 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. IMPORTANCE Radiofrequency denervation is a commonly used treatment for chronic low back pain, but high-quality evidence for its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Three pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials on the effectiveness of minimal interventional treatments for participants with chronic low back pain (Mint study) were conducted in 16 multidisciplinary pain clinics in the Netherlands. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain, a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (facet joint trial, 251 participants), sacroiliac joints (sacroiliac joint trial, 228 participants), or a combination of facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or intervertebral disks (combination trial, 202 participants) and were unresponsive to conservative care. INTERVENTIONS All participants received a 3-month standardized exercise program and psychological support if needed. Participants in the intervention group received radiofrequency denervation as well. This is usually a 1-Time procedure, but the maximum number of treatments in the trial was 3. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas pain intensity (numeric rating scale, 0-10; whereby 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated worst pain imaginable) measured 3 months after the intervention. The prespecified minimal clinically important difference was defined as 2 points or more. Final follow-up was at 12 months, ending October 2015. RESULTS Among 681 participants who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 years; 421 women [61.8%], mean baseline pain intensity, 7.1), 599 (88%) completed the 3-month follow-up, and 521 (77%) completed the 12-month follow-up. The mean difference in pain intensity between the radiofrequenc

Background: Sciatica is a severe, disabling condition that lacks high quality evidence for effective treatment strategies. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methodology of analysis for the PRECISE study. Methods/design: PRECISE is a prospectively registered, double blind, randomised placebo controlled trial of pregabalin compared to placebo, in addition to usual care in patients with sciatica. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include disability (key secondary), back pain intensity, quality of life, participants' perceived global effect, work absenteeism and health utilisation. Information about medication usage and tolerability are also collected. Outcomes are collected over one year (weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52). Double data entry will be conducted for primary and key secondary outcomes. Other outcomes will be checked using a risk-based approach. Analyses will be consistent with the intention-to-treat principle. Statistical tests will be two-tailed with a p value <0.05 considered significant. Group allocation will remain masked until analyses and interpretation are finalised. Repeated-measure linear mixed models will assess the effect of treatment (pregabalin versus placebo) on primary and secondary outcomes at all time points. Fixed effects will include group allocation, visit as a categorical variable and the interaction between group and visit. Covariates will include baseline leg pain and symptom duration, with an interaction term between baseline leg pain and visit. Pairwise differences between groups will be tested at weeks 8 and 52. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events will be reported, and the proportion of patients per group who have at least one event will be compared using Fisher's exact test. An economic evaluation will be conducted if there is a treatment effect on the primary outcome at wee

Introduction: Low back pain and neck pain are extremely prevalent and are responsible for an enormous burden of disease globally. Strong analgesics, such as opioid analgesics, are recommended by clinical guidelines for people with acute low back pain or neck pain who are slow to recover and require more pain relief. Opioid analgesics are widely and increasingly used, but there are no strong efficacy data supporting the use of opioid analgesics for acute low back pain or neck pain. Concerns regarding opioid use are further heightened by the risks of adverse events, some of which can be serious (eg, dependency, misuse and overdose). Methods and analysis: OPAL is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded trial that will investigate the judicious use of an opioid analgesic in 346 participants with acute low back pain and/or neck pain who are slow to recover. Participants will be recruited from general practice and randomised to receive the opioid analgesic (controlled release oxycodone plus naloxone up to 20 mg per day) or placebo in addition to guideline-based care (eg, reassurance and advice of staying active) for up to 6 weeks. Participants will be followed-up for 3 months for effectiveness outcomes. The primary outcome will be pain severity. Secondary outcomes will include physical functioning and time to recovery. Medication-related adverse events will be assessed and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. We will additionally assess long-term use and risk of misuse of opioid analgesics for up to 12 months. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained. Trial results will be disseminated by publications and conference presentations, and via the media. Trial registration number: ACTRN12615000775516: Pre-results.

PURPOSE: To test whether the localization of worsening of pain during coughing, sneezing and straining matters in the assessment of lumbosacral nerve root compression or disc herniation on MRI. METHODS: Recently the diagnostic accuracy of history items to assess disc herniation or nerve root compression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was investigated. A total of 395 adult patients with severe sciatica of 6-12 weeks duration were included in this study. The question regarding the influence of coughing, sneezing and straining on the intensity of pain could be answered on a 4 point scale: no worsening of pain, worsening of back pain, worsening of leg pain, worsening of back and leg pain. Diagnostic odds ratio's (DORs) were calculated for the various dichotomization options. RESULTS: The DOR changed into significant values when the answer option was more narrowed to worsening of leg pain. The highest DOR was observed for the answer option 'worsening of leg pain' with a DOR of 2.28 (95 % CI 1.28-4.04) for the presence of nerve root compression and a DOR of 2.50 (95 % CI 1.27-4.90) for the presence of a herniated disc on MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Worsening of leg pain during coughing, sneezing or straining has a significant diagnostic value for the presence of nerve root compression and disc herniation on MRI in patients with sciatica. This study also highlights the importance of the formulation of answer options in history taking.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. METHOD: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. RESULTS: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture ('major or significant trauma' and 'use of steroids or immunosuppressors') and two for malignancy ('history of cancer' and 'unintentional weight loss'). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of red flags was presented in

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of MRI variables to predict outcome in patients with herniated disc-related sciatica, and whether MRI could facilitate the decision making between early surgery and prolonged conservative care in these patients. METHODS A prospective observational evaluation of patients enrolled in a randomized trial with 1-year follow-up was completed. A total of 283 patients with sciatica who had a radiologically confirmed disc herniation were randomized either to surgery or to prolonged conservative care with surgery if needed. Outcome measures were recovery and leg pain severity. Recovery was registered on a 7-point Likert scale. Complete/near complete recovery was considered a satisfactory outcome. Leg pain severity was measured on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale. Multiple MRI characteristics of the degenerated disc herniation were independently scored by 3 spine experts. Cox models were used to study the influence of MRI variables on rate of recovery, and linear mixed models were used to determine the predictive value of MRI variables for leg pain severity during follow-up. The interaction of each MRI predictor with treatment allocation was tested. There were no study-specific conflicts of interest. RESULTS Baseline MRI variables associated with less leg pain severity were the reader's assessment of presence of nerve root compression (p < 0.001), and assessment of extrusion compared with protrusion of the disc herniation (p = 0.006). Both variables tended to be associated, but not significantly, with satisfactory outcome during follow-up (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.24, and HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.96-1.61, respectively). The size of disc herniation at baseline was not associated with outcome. There was no significant change in the effects between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS MRI assessment of the presence of nerve root compression and extrusion of a herniated disc at baseline was associated with less leg pain during 1-year

Objective: To investigate the prevalence and pattern of radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA) of the hand joints and its association with self reported hand pain and disability. Methods: Baseline data on a population based study (age ≥55 years) were used (n = 3906). Hand ROA was defined as the presence of Kellgren–Lawrence grade ≥2 radiological changes in two of three groups of hand joints in each hand. The presence of hand pain during the previous month was defined as hand pain. The health assessment questionnaire was used to measure hand disability. Results: 67% of the women and 54.8% of the men had ROA in at least one hand joint. DIP joints were affected in 47.3% of participants, thumb base in 35.8%, PIP joints in 18.2%, and MCP joints in 8.2% (right or left hand). ROA of other joint groups (right hand) co-occurred in 56% of DIP involvement, 88% of PIP involvement, 86% of MCP involvement, and 65% of thumb base involvement. Hand pain showed an odds ratio of 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4) with the ROA of the hand (right). Hand disability showed an odds ratio of 1.5 (1.1 to 2.1) with ROA of the hand (right or left). Conclusions: Hand ROA is common in the elderly, especially in women. Co-occurrence of ROA in different joint groups of the hand is more common than single joint disease. There is a modest to weak association between ROA of the hand and hand pain/disability, varying with the site of involvement.