Search

Low back pain is a very common reason for patient visits to a general practitioner or medical specialist. It is associated with a negative effect on daily living and high costs of care. The differential diagnosis of low back pain is extensive, and usually no specific cause can be identified. In such a case, we speak of non-specific low back pain. In this article, we present practical pointers to recognising specific causes of low back pain and answer some frequently-asked questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.

Low back pain is a very common reason for patient visits to a general practitioner or medical specialist. It is associated with a negative effect on daily living and high costs of care. The differential diagnosis of low back pain is extensive, and usually no specific cause can be identified. In such a case, we speak of non-specific low back pain. In this article, we present practical pointers to recognising specific causes of low back pain and answer some frequently-asked questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.

Background Patients with back pain are often in contact with 2–4 hospital departments when receiving a back pain diagnosis and treatment. This complicates the entire clinical course description. There is, currently, no model that describes the course across departments for patients with back pain. This study aims to construct an interdisciplinary clinical course using the central register’s information. Methods All patients with back pain referred for diagnosis and treatment at the Spine Center of Southern Denmark from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2017 were included. By means of information available in central registers, we described the interdisciplinary clinical course for the individual patient, including information on all contacts at different departments, and proposed three different models to define the index and final date. The index date was defined as the first visit without a previous contact to the Spine Center for 6 months for model I, 1 year for model II, and 2 years for model III. The final date was defined as the last visit without following contacts for 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively, for models I, II, and III. Results A total of 69,564 patients (male: n = 30,976) with back pain diagnosis were identified. The three models all leave the information on the entire course at the hospital. In model I (64,757 clinical back pain courses), the time span to a possible previous clinical course is too short to secure the start of a new course (14% had two or more). With at least 1 year between a possible previous contact, model II (60,914 courses) fits the everyday clinical practice (9% had two or more clinical back pain courses). In model III (60,173 courses) it seems that two independent courses might be connected in the same course as only 5% had two or more clinical back pain courses. Conclusions Despite contact with different departments, the clinical course for back pain patients can be described by information from the central registers. A one-year time interval fits best the clinicians’ everyday observations.

Background Low-back pain, including facet joint pain, accounts for up to 20 % of all sick leaves in DenmarkA proposed treatment option is cryoneurolysis. This study aims to investigate the effect of cryoneurolysis in lumbar facet joint pain syndrome. Methods A single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) is performed including 120 participants with chronic facet joint pain syndrome, referred to the Department of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital. Eligible patients receive a diagnostic anesthetic block, where a reduction of pain intensity ≥ 50 % on a numerical rating scale (NRS) is required to be enrolled. Participants are randomized into three groups to undergo either one treatment of cryoneurolysis, radiofrequency ablation or placebo. Fluoroscopy and sensory stimulation is used to identify the intended target nerve prior to administrating the above-mentioned treatments. All groups receive physiotherapy for 6 weeks, starting 4 weeks after treatment. The primary outcome is the patients’ impression of change in pain after intervention (Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)) at 4 weeks follow-up, prior to physiotherapy. Secondary outcomes are a reduction in low-back pain intensity (numeric rating scale) and quality of life (EQ-5D, SF-36) and level of function (Oswestry Disability Index), psychological perception of pain (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) and depression status (Major Depression Inventory). Data will be assessed at baseline (T0), randomization (T1), day one (T2), 4 weeks (T3), 3 (T4), 6 (T5) and 12 months (T6). Discussion This study will provide information on the effectiveness of cryoneurolysis vs. the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation or placebo for patients with facet joint pain, and help to establish whether cryoneurolysis should be implemented in clinical practice for this patient population. Trial registration The trial is approved by the ethical committee of Central Jutland Denmark with registration number 1-10-72-27-19 and the Danish Data Protection Agency with registration number 666,852. The study is registered at Clinicaltrial.gov with the ID number NCT04786145.

Background Research is often undertaken using patient-reported outcomes from questionnaires. Achieving a high response rate demands expensive and time-consuming methods like telephone reminders. However, it is unknown whether telephone reminders change outcome estimates or only affect the response rate in research of populations with low back pain (LBP). The aim is to compare baseline characteristics and the change in outcome between patients responding before and after receiving a telephone reminder. Methods This is an ancillary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study employing questionnaires from 812 adults with LBP lasting more than 3 months. Patients not responding to the 52-week questionnaire were sent reminder emails after two and 3 weeks and delivered postal reminders after 4 weeks. Patients still not responding were contacted by telephone, with a maximum of two attempts. Patients were categorised into three groups: 1) patients responding before a telephone reminder was performed; 2) patients responding after the telephone reminder and 3) patients not responding at all. A positive outcome was defined as a 30% improvement on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire after 52 weeks. Results A total of 695 patients (85.2%) responded. Of these, 643 patients were classified in Group 1 and 52 patients were classified in Group 2. One hundred seventeen were classified in Group 3. No differences in outcome or baseline characteristics was found. In Group 1, 41.3% had a positive outcome, and in Group 2 48.9% had a positive outcome (P = 0.297). In group 3, non-respondents were younger, more often unemployed, more often smokers, more often reported co-morbidity, and reported higher depression scores than respondents. Conclusions Using a telephone reminder had no consequence on outcome estimates nor were there any differences in baseline characteristics between patients who responded before or after the telephone reminder. Trial registration The initial trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03058315).

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text This individual participant data meta-analysis assessed the effect of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain (LBP). Based on this review, there is no evidence to suggest that specific patients’ characteristics are associated with a clinically better response to spinal manipulative therapy as compared with other recommended treatments for chronic LBP., Study Design. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Objective. The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP. Summary of Background. The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies. Methods. IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). Results. We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with

Background Although many people with chronic low back pain (LBP) improve following conservative treatment, one in five will experience worsening symptoms after discharge from treatment and seek health care again. The current LBP clinical care pathway in many health services lacks a well-integrated, systematic approach to support patients to remain physically active and self-manage their symptoms following discharge from treatment. Health coaching can support people to improve physical activity levels and may potentially reduce health care utilisation for LBP. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of introducing a coordinated support system (linking hospital outpatient physiotherapy services to a public health coaching service) at discharge from LBP treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, compared with usual care provided at discharge. Methods Three hundred and seventy-four adults with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy departments of public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will be individually randomised to a support system (n = 187) or usual care group (n = 187). All participants will receive usual care provided at discharge from treatment. Participants allocated to the support system will also receive up to 10 telephone-based health coaching sessions, delivered by the Get Healthy Service®, over a 6-month period. Health coaches will monitor and support participants to improve physical activity levels and achieve personal health-related goals. The primary outcome is the total number of encounters with hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, at 12 months from baseline. A within-trial economic evaluation will quantify the incremental costs and benefits of the support system from a health system perspective, to support reimbursement decision making. Discussion This study will establish the effect of a coordinated support system, introduced at discharge from treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP and various health outcomes. Conclusion Innovative community-driven solutions to support people with chronic LBP after discharge from treatment are urgently needed. Study findings will help inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia. Trial Registration Prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000889954) on 10/09/2020.

Objectives to assess intra/inter-operator reliability and agreement of maximum isometric abdominal and back muscle strength in a functional trunk and isolated lumbar protocol, using an isokinetic dynamometer, in healthy persons and persons with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). Design Test-retest. Setting Participants performed two assessments consisting of two protocols on the Biodex 3 system, evaluating maximum isometric back and abdominal strength in a functional trunk and isolated lumbar position. During the first assessment, each protocol was executed twice, supported by different operators. Participants Healthy persons (n = 20) and persons with CNSLBP (n = 20). Main outcome measures Intraclass Correlation (ICC), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM and %SEM), and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) of muscle strength outcomes and seat positioning characteristics were calculated. Results Intra/inter reliability of muscle strength outcomes was excellent (ICC: 0.94–0.98), while seat positioning characteristics varied from low to high (ICC: 0–0.94). For muscle strength outcomes, %SEM ranged from 4.7 to 9.2% and MDC ranged from 14.3 to 29.8 Nm in trunk flexion and 39.1–68.5 Nm in trunk extension. Conclusions The Biodex 3 system can be used reliably to assess maximum isometric trunk muscle strength with the aforementioned protocols in healthy persons and persons with CNSLBP. All muscle strength outcomes showed comparable agreement (%SEM

This randomized clinical trial examines a decision support tool that provides lower back pain information and self-management recommendations that are specific to an individual’s characteristics, symptoms, and symptom progression., Key Points Question Is selfBACK, an evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support system that is delivered through an artificial intelligence–based app and in conjunction with usual care, effective for pain-related disability in adults with lower back pain? Findings In this randomized clinical trial involving 461 participants in Denmark and Norway, those who received the selfBACK intervention had reduced pain-related disability compared with those who received usual care alone. However, the effect may be too small to be clinically meaningful. Meaning The findings of this trial and process evaluation may inform and encourage further development of the selfBACK intervention to increase its effectiveness., Importance Lower back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and challenging condition in primary care. The effectiveness of an individually tailored self-management support tool delivered via a smartphone app has not been rigorously tested. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of selfBACK, an evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support system delivered through an app as an adjunct to usual care for adults with LBP-related disability. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial with an intention-to-treat data analysis enrolled eligible individuals who sought care for LBP in a primary care or an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark and Norway from March 8 to December 14, 2019. Participants were 18 years or older, had nonspecific LBP, scored 6 points or higher on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and had a smartphone and access to email. Interventions The selfBACK app provided weekly recommendations for physical activity, strength and flexibility exercises, and daily educational messages. Self-management recommendations were tailored to participant characteristics and symptoms. Usual care included advice or treatment offered to participants by their clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was the mean difference in RMDQ scores between the intervention group and control group at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included average and worst LBP intensity levels in the preceding week as measured on the numerical rating scale, ability to cope as assessed with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, fear-avoidance belief as assessed by the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, cognitive and emotional representations of illness as assessed by the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, health-related quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire, physical activity level as assessed by the Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale, and overall improvement as assessed by the Global Perceived Effect scale. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months. Results A total of 461 participants were included in the analysis; the population had a mean [SD] age of 47.5 [14.7] years and included 255 women (55%). Of these participants, 232 were randomized to the intervention group and 229 to the control group. By the 3-month follow-up, 399 participants (87%) had completed the trial. The adjusted mean difference in RMDQ score between the 2 groups at 3 months was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.06-1.51; P = .03), favoring the selfBACK intervention. The percentage of participants who reported a score improvement of at least 4 points on the RMDQ was 52% in the intervention group vs 39% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.15-2.70; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance Among adults who sought care for LBP in a primary care or an outpatient spine clinic, those who used the selfBACK system as an adjunct to usual care had reduced pain-related disability at 3 months. The improvement in pain-related disability was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Process evaluation may provide insights into refining the selfBACK app to increase its effectiveness. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798288

Background People with severe low back pain are at higher risk of poor health. Patients scheduled for lumbar fusion surgery are assumed to have low levels of physical activity, but few data exist. The aim of the study was firstly to investigate preoperative levels of objectively measured physical activity in patients with severe low back pain waiting for lumbar fusion surgery, and secondly to investigate whether factors in the fear-avoidance model were associated with these levels. Methods We included 118 patients waiting for lumbar fusion surgery (63 women and 55 men; mean age 46 years). Physical activity expressed as steps per day and total time spent in at least moderate-intensity physical activity was assessed with ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers. The data were compared to the WHO recommendations on physical activity for health. Whether factors in the fear-avoidance model were associated with physical activity was evaluated by two different multiple linear regression models. Results Ninety-six patients (83%) did not reach the WHO recommendations on physical activity for health, and 19 (16%) patients took fewer than 5000 steps per day, which indicates a sedentary lifestyle. On a group level, higher scores for fear of movement and disability were associated with lower numbers of steps per day. Conclusion A high proportion of the patients did not reach the WHO recommendations on physical activity and are therefore at risk of poor health due to insufficient physical activity. We also found a negative association between both fear of movement and disability, and the number of steps per day. Action needs to be taken to motivate patients to be more physically active before surgery, to improve health postoperatively. There is a need for interventions aimed at increasing physical activity levels and reducing barriers to physical activity in the prehabilitation phase of this patient group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN 17115599, retrospectively Registered 18 may 2015.

Background Physical capacity tasks are useful tools to assess functioning in patients with low back pain (LBP), but evidence is scarce regarding the responsiveness (ability to detect change over time) and minimal important change (MIC). The aim was to investigate the responsiveness and MIC of 5-min walk, 1-min stair climbing, 50-ft walk, and timed up-and-go in patients with chronic LBP undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Methods In this clinimetric study, 118 patients scheduled for lumbar fusion surgery for motion-elicited chronic LBP with degenerative changes were included. All patients performed the physical capacity tasks 5-min walk, 1-min stair climbing, 50-ft walk, and timed up-and-go 8–12 weeks before and six months after surgery. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing five a priori responsiveness hypotheses. The hypotheses concerned the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and correlations (Spearman’s rho) between the change scores of the physical capacity tasks, the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), and back pain intensity measured with visual analog scale (VAS). At least 80% of the hypotheses would have to be confirmed for adequate responsiveness. Absolute and relative MICs for improvement were determined by the optimal cut-off point of the ROC curve based on the classification of improved and unchanged patients according to construct-specific global perceived effect (GPE) scales. Results One-minute stair climbing, 50-ft walk and timed up-and-go displayed adequate responsiveness (≥ 80% of hypotheses confirmed), while 5-min walk did not (40% of hypotheses confirmed). The absolute MICs for improvement were 45.5 m for 5-min walk, 20.0 steps for 1-min stair climbing, − 0.6 s for 50-ft walk, and − 1.3 s for timed up-and-go. Conclusions The results of responsiveness for 1-min stair climbing, 50-ft walk, and timed up-and-go implies that these have the ability to detect changes in physical capacity over time in patients with chronic LBP who have undergone lumbar fusion surgery.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is the most common musculoskeletal disorder and a leading cause of disability worldwide. It impacts daily life and work capacity and is the most common reason for consulting a general practitioner (GP). According to international guidelines, information, reassurance, and advice are key components in the management of people with LBP; however, the consultation time available in general practice for each patient is often limited. Therefore, new methods to support the delivery of information and advice are needed and online technologies provide new opportunities to extend the consultation beyond the GP’s office. However, it is not known whether GPs and people consulting their GP because of LBP will accept online technologies as part of the consultation. By involving patients in the development of online information, we may produce more user-friendly content and design, and improve patient acceptance and usage, optimising satisfaction and clinical outcomes. The purpose is to study satisfaction in people consulting their GP with LBP depending on whether they are randomised to receive supporting information through a new participant-driven web application or a standard reference website containing guideline-based information on LBP. It is hypothesised that patients offered information in a new web application will be more satisfied with the online information after 12 weeks compared to patients allocated to a standard website. Methods Two hundred patients with LBP aged ≥ 18 years consulting Danish general practice will be randomly allocated 1:1 to either the new web application or standard online information in permuted blocks of two, four, and six. Patients with serious spinal diseases (cancer, fractures, spinal stenosis, spondyloarthritis), those without Danish reading skills or without online access, and pregnant women will not be included in the trial. Patient satisfaction measured by the Net Promotor Score after 12 weeks is the primary outcome. Patients will be aware of their allocation. GPs will be blinded unless informed by the patient. Assessors are blinded. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first trial evaluating whether involving LBP patients in the development of an online web application will result in higher patient satisfaction. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03088774. Registered on 23 March 2017. Last updated on 14 March 2018. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2795-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prior studies indicate that stratified care for low back pain results in better clinical outcome and reduced costs in healthcare compared to current practice. Stratified care may be associated with clinical benefits for patients with low back pain at a lower cost, but evidence is sparse. Hence this study aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of stratified care in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to current practice. The study is a two-armed randomised controlled trial in primary care in the Regions of Southern and Central Denmark (2.5 million citizens). Patients with non-specific low back will be recruited by paticpating GPs. Patients are randomised to either (1) stratified care or (2) current practice at participating physiotherapy clinics. In the stratified care arm, the intervention is based on the patient’s STarT Back Tool classification and trained accordingly, whereas physiotherapists in the current pratice arm are blinded to the STarT score. Primary outcomes in the trial will be group differences in time off work, improvement in LBP disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and patient-reported global change. Secondary measures will be pain intensity, patient satisfaction, data on patient healthcare resource utilisation and quality-adjusted life year based on the EQ-5D-5L. Stratified care that effectively targets treatment to relevant sub-groups of patients has potentially great impact on the treatment pathways of low back pain. Thus, if effective, this could result in better patient outcomes and at the same time reduce the costs for treatment of low back pain. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02612467 . Registered on 16 November 2015.

Background The quality of health care provider clinical decisions has long been recognized as variable. Research has focused on clinical decision making with the aim of improving patient outcomes. No studies have looked at chiropractic students´ abilities in this regard. Method In 2016, advanced students from two Australian chiropractic programs (N = 444) answered a questionnaire on patient case scenarios for neck and low back pain (LBP). We selected 7 scenarios representing the three categories; continuing care, non-indicated care, and contraindicated care. This represented a total of 21 tested scores. Comparisons of correct answers were made a) for program years 3, 4 and 5, and b) between the three categories of care. Results In almost 1/3 of scenarios, correct scores were 70% or greater. Best results were for two neck pain cases (simple and with spinal cord involvement). Continued care showed most improvements with study year. However, the scenarios that reflected non-indication for continued care had much worse results and did not improve in higher years. For the obvious contraindicated neck scenario, the results were good from the beginning and progressively improved and for a contraindicated LBP scenario the results started poorly in year 3 but improved over the program years. Conclusions Although student responses were generally good, there is still room for improvement, especially for non-indicated care. The quality of students’ clinical decisions can be measured and thus has the potential to be used by chiropractic educators and regulatory bodies to identify student’s in need of assistance as well as to monitor chiropractic programs in relation to student competence. Trial registration Not applicable. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-017-0170-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background context The clinical presentation and outcome of patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) are very heterogeneous and may be better understood by the recognition of reproducible subgroups. One approach to subgrouping is the identification of clinical course patterns (trajectories). However, it has been unclear how dependent these trajectories are on the analytical model used and the pain characteristics included. Purpose To identify LBP trajectories using LBP intensity and frequency measured once a week over 1 year and compare the results obtained using different analytical approaches. Study design A prospective observational cohort study. Patient sample Patients presenting with nonspecific LBP to general practitioners and chiropractors. Outcome measures Weekly self-report of LBP intensity (0–10) and the number of LBP days measured by short message service cell phone questions over a 1-year follow-up period. Methods Latent class analysis was used to identify the trajectories of LBP and 12 different analytical models were compared. The study was a component of a broader study funded by an unrestricted grant from the Danish Chiropractors' Foundation (USD 370,000). Results The study included 1,082 patients. The 12 models resulted in 5 to 12 subgroups, with a number of trajectories stable across models that differed on pain intensity, number of LBP days, and shape of trajectory. Conclusions The clinical course of LBP is complex. Most primary care patients do not become pain-free within a year, but only a small proportion reports constant severe pain. Some distinct patterns exist which were identified independently of the way the outcome was modeled. These patterns would not be revealed by using the simple summary measures traditionally applied in LBP research or when describing a patient's pain history only in terms of duration. The appropriate number of subgroups will depend on the intended purpose of subgrouping.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to (1) test the concurrent validity of brief screening questions for 5 psychosocial constructs (anxiety, depression, social isolation, catastrophization, and fear of movement) and (2) translate into Danish and validate those screening questions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 5 cross-sectional samples (total n=1105) of people seeking care for low back pain in Australian primary care settings and a Danish secondary care hospital. The responses to English and Danish-translated versions of 1-item or 2-item screening questions were compared with those of validated full-length questionnaires. RESULTS: Compared with anxiety, depression, and social isolation scores from full-length questionnaires, screening questionnaire responses demonstrated: a correlation of 0.62 to 0.83, overall accuracy of 78% to 91%, sensitivity of 70% to 82%, specificity of 75% to 95%, positive likelihood ratios of 3.3 to 13.9, and negative likelihood ratios of 0.21 to 0.33. For catastrophization and fear of movement, the results demonstrated: correlation of 0.89 to 0.95, overall accuracy of 88% to 93%, sensitivity of 78% to 88%, specificity of 91% to 96%, positive likelihood ratios of 9.5 to 20.8, and negative likelihood ratios of 0.13 to 0.23. DISCUSSION: The concurrent validity of these screening questions was comparable to, or better than, alternate questions previously reported, and stable across age, sex, pain intensity, pain duration, and counties. On the basis of the observed likelihood ratios, all of the screening questions provided moderate or strong evidence to rule in or out an extreme score on each psychosocial construct. Given the ease of administration of these brief screening questions, their prognostic and treatment implications should be investigated.

Objective: To determine the level of knowledge and attitudes of physicians in Tijuana based on Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of Nonspecific Low Back Pain (NLBP). Methods: Prospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study. Data were obtained from doctors who practice in clinics, private surgeries, and/or government institutions. Results: Of a total of 56 doctors surveyed, 37 were men and 19 women. None of the doctors said they had not seen a patient with Back Pain. 49% knew the GPC, and 51% did not know of its existence. Conclusions: Although some physicians reported knowledge of the GPC, according to the results, there was a lack of full knowledge of, and adherence to these guidelines. Not knowing the GPC did not make it impossible to complete the questionnaire. The doctors felt more connected to the health system, but with less confidence in the management of cases of NLBP. Objetivo: Determinar o nível de conhecimentos e a conduta dos médicos de Tijuana, com base nas Diretivas de Prática Clínica (DPC) para prevenção, diagnóstico e tratamento da dor lombar não específica (DLNE). Métodos: Estudo prospectivo, transversal e descritivo. Os dados foram obtidos junto a médicos que prestam serviços em clínicas, consultórios particulares e/ou instituições governamentais. Resultados: Atingiu-se um total de 56 médicos entrevistados, dos quais 37 eram homens e 19 mulheres. Nenhum médico disse que não atende um paciente com dor lombar. Do total, 49% conhecem as DPC e 51% não sabiam da sua existência. Conclusões: Apesar de alguns médicos relatarem conhecer as DPC, de acordo com os resultados obtidos, falta-lhes maior domínio e conformidade com relação a essas diretivas. Não conhecer as DPC não impossibilita responder ao questionário. Os médicos sentem-se mais conectados ao sistema de saúde, mas com menos confiança na conduta em casos DLI. Objetivo: Determinar el nivel de conocimientos y las actitudes de los médicos en Tijuana, con base en la Guía de Práctica Clínica (GPC) para la prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento del Dolor Lumbar Inespecífico (DLI). Métodos: Estudio prospectivo, transversal y descriptivo. Los datos fueron obtenidos de los médicos que prestan sus servicios en clínicas, consultorios privados y/o instituciones de gobierno. Resultados: Se obtuvo un total de 56 médicos encuestados, 37 hombres y 19 mujeres. Ningún médico contestó que no atiende un paciente con dolor lumbar. El 49% conocen la GPC y el 51% no saben de su existencia. Conclusiones: A pesar de que algunos médicos refieren conocer la GPC, según los resultados obtenidos falta mayor dominio y apego de la misma. El no conocer la GPC no hace imposible contestar el cuestionario. Los médicos se sienten más conectados con el sistema de salud, pero con menor autoconfianza en el manejo del DLI.

Background. The impact of physical therapy on the outcomes of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) stratified by the STart Back Screening Tool (SBST) is unclear. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute LBP who were stratified as medium or high risk. Design. This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Setting. Patients were recruited between March 2011 and November 2013 from primary care clinics in Salt Lake City, Utah. Participants. One hundred eighty-one participants with acute LBP who were stratified as medium risk (n = 120) or high risk (n = 61) by the SBST were included. They were aged 18 through 60 years, with duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no symptoms below the knee, no treatment for LBP in the past 6 months, and an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 20% or greater. Intervention. After participants received education on how to manage their LBP, they were randomized to receive usual care (n = 97) by their primary care provider or early intervention (n = 84) by a physical therapist. Measurements. The primary (3-month ODI score) outcome measure was obtained at baseline and at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. Results. No differences were detected in the effect of intervention between participants stratified as medium or high risk. For the high-risk subgroup, there was a significant difference between the early intervention and usual care groups for the 3-month ODI (mean difference = –5.87 [95% CI = –11.24, –0.50]) favoring early intervention. Limitations. The primary study was not designed to examine the SBST. Conclusions. Patients with acute LBP stratified as high risk seem likely to respond well to one session of education. They may experience additional benefit by 3 months from evidence-based physical therapy treatments. These effects disappear at 1 year.

Background To investigate if psychological and behavioral factors (as determined by the Swedish version of the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory, MPI-S) can predict the early clinical course of Low Back Pain (LBP). Methods MPI-S data from patients (18–65 years of age) seeking chiropractic care for recurrent and persistent LBP were collected at the 1st visit. A follow-up questionnaire was administered at the 4th visit. The predictive value of the MPI-S subgroups Adaptive Copers (AC), Interpersonally Distressed (ID) and Dysfunctional (DYS) was calculated against the subjective improvement at the 4th visit and clinically relevant difference in pain intensity between the 1st and 4th visit. Results Of the 666 subjects who were included at the 1st visit, 329 completed the questionnaire at the 4th visit. A total of 64.7 % (AC), 68.0 % (ID) and 71.3 % (DYS) reported a definite improvement. The chance of “definite improvement”, expressed as relative risk (95 % CI) with the AC group as reference, was 1.05 (.87–1.27) for the ID and 1.10 (.93–1.31) for the DYS groups, respectively. The DYS and ID groups reported higher values in pain intensity both at the 1st and the 4th visit. The proportion of subjects who reported an improvement in pain intensity of 30 % or more (clinically relevant) were 63.5 % AC, 72.0 % ID and 63.2 % DYS. Expressed as relative risk (95 % CI) with the AC group as reference, this corresponded to 1.26 (.91–1.76) for the ID and 1.09 (.78–1.51) for the DYS groups, respectively. Conclusions The MPI-S instrument could not predict the early clinical course of recurrent and persistent LBP in this sample of chiropractic patients. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov; NCT01539863, February 22, 2012. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-0933-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low back pain (LBP) has become one of the greatest public health problems. The differentiation between specific and non-specific low back pain is mandatory. In the specific low back pain are classified all diseases whose etiology is well defined, quick and accurate diagnosis is required for specific treatment. Other types of low back pain can be considered non-specific. The management of acute low back pain is mainly based on analgesic treatment and early mobilization. Maintaining activity can prevent chronicity of LBP. Chronicity factors are multiple, mainly psycho-social and professional. The chronic low back pain treatment goals are the reduction of pain and better activity/participation to achieve the prevention of disability and maintaining work ability. Multidisciplinary treatment programs including personalized and guided physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and short-term training programs will help to improve, restore and maintain the function in chronic low back pain.

Background Reports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to identify characteristics of patients with a changeable lumbar condition, i.e. presenting with centralization or peripheralization, that were likely to benefit the most from either the McKenzie method or spinal manipulation. Methods 350 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to either the McKenzie method or manipulation. The possible effect modifiers were age, severity of leg pain, pain-distribution, nerve root involvement, duration of symptoms, and centralization of symptoms. The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting success at two months follow-up. The values of the dichotomized predictors were tested according to the prespecified analysis plan. Results No predictors were found to produce a statistically significant interaction effect. The McKenzie method was superior to manipulation across all subgroups, thus the probability of success was consistently in favor of this treatment independent of predictor observed. When the two strongest predictors, nerve root involvement and peripheralization, were combined, the chance of success was relative risk 10.5 (95% CI 0.71-155.43) for the McKenzie method and 1.23 (95% CI 1.03-1.46) for manipulation (P = 0.11 for interaction effect). Conclusions We did not find any baseline variables which were statistically significant effect modifiers in predicting different response to either McKenzie treatment or spinal manipulation when compared to each other. However, we did identify nerve root involvement and peripheralization to produce differences in response to McKenzie treatment compared to manipulation that appear to be clinically important. These findings need testing in larger studies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00939107 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0526-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific low back pain among 3 professional groups in the Netherlands: orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors.METHODS: Information was obtained from training materials from professional groups, literature searches, and observation of selected practitioners at work.RESULTS: In The Netherlands, there are differences in education between the 3 professional groups. The focus of orthomanual medicine is on abnormal positions of components of the skeleton and symmetry in the spine. Manual therapy focuses on functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Chiropractic focuses on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems in relation to patients' health in general. Orthomanual medicine considers inspection and palpation the most important diagnostic tools. Manual therapists and chiropractors additionally perform tests to determine functional disorders and manual therapists evaluate psychosocial influences. Chiropractors take radiographs if necessary. Orthomanual physicians apply mobilization techniques using fixed protocols. Manual therapists and chiropractors use various manipulation and mobilization techniques and their manipulation techniques differ in amplitude and velocity.CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic techniques and treatment methods of the 3 professional groups differ considerably. For more accurate reporting of the efficacy of manipulative and mobilizing therapies, the characteristics of treatments should be described in more detail when reported in studies such as randomized clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, clinical study with a 2-year follow-up.OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effect of three different rehabilitation strategies for lumbar spinal fusion patients.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fifteen percent to 40% of lumbar spinal fusion patients are not expected to improve significantly over a 2-year period. Optimization of present forms of rehabilitation could possibly further improve the outcome.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1996 and 1999, 90 patients who had undergone lumbar spinal fusion were 3 months after surgery randomized to one of three different rehabilitation groups. Video group participants watched a video of exercises for training and were subsequently and only once provided instruction regarding their use. The back-café group was provided the same program as the video group, but as a supplement met with a back-café with other fusion-operated patients three times over an 8-week period. The training group was provided physical therapy training twice weekly for 8 weeks. Functional outcome was evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery by use of the low back pain rating scale and a questionnaire covering daily functions, work status, and a patient's contact with the primary sector.RESULTS: By 2-year follow-up, the back-café and video groups had less pain compared with the training group (P < 0.03). The back-café group was better at performing daily functions such as carrying bags of market items (P < 0.01), getting up from a chair (P < 0.01), and ascending staircases (P < 0.01) compared with the video and training groups. More in the back-café group resumed working after surgery compared with the two other groups (P < 0.04). The video group had significantly more contacts with general practitioners, physical therapists, and so on compared with the back-café and training groups (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: The patients in the back-café group were significantly better at accomplishing a succession of daily tasks compared with the video and training groups 2 years after lumbar spinal fusion. At the 2-year follow-up the training group had a significant pain problem compared with the video and back-café groups. The video group had significantly more treatment demands outside the hospital system. This study demonstrates the relevance of the inclusion of coping schemes and questions the role of intensive exercises in a rehabilitation program for spinal fusion patients.

The majority of trials investigating the effectiveness of primary care interventions for back pain have shown small or at best, moderate effects of treatment 36 , 37 and the fi eld is looking for better ways to improve outcomes for patients with back pain. Mediation analysis aims to provide better insight into the causal pathways underlying treatment effects, explaining why treatments work or do not work and potentially offering new opportunities to improve patient outcomes by optimizing the content or delivery of treatment. Until recently, mediation analysis in clinical research was often limited to a descriptive evaluation of the processes potentially underlying the effects of treatment in trials. 38 , 39 During the past few years, interest in the use of more sophisticated approaches to mediation analysis has increased, often guided by methods described in the psychological literature. In this article, we have summarized the concepts and different designs used in mediation analysis and explained the importance of experimental designs when investigating mediators of treatment effect. We have also emphasized the importance of other considerations such as defi ning and understanding constructs, selecting study measures with appropriate measurement properties, and ensuring study measurement time points are appropriately selected, to investigate the longitudinal associations between mediating and outcome variables. We have also outlined the relevance of observational and qualitative research in identifying potential mediating factors. On the basis of the discussions during the 2012 workshop and supported by the literature, we have proposed a set of recommendations to support and improve the design of mediation analysis in back pain research (Box 1), with the ultimate aim to improve the design and delivery of intervention studies and optimize outcomes for patients with back pain. © 2014 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Back pain episodes are traditionally regarded as individual events, but this model is currently being challenged in favour of treating back pain as a long-term or lifelong condition. Back pain can be present throughout life, from childhood to older age, and evidence is mounting that pain experience is maintained over long periods: for example, people with pain continue to have it on and off for years, and people without pain do not suddenly develop long-term pain. A number of factors predict back pain presence in epidemiological studies, and these are often present, and predictive, at different life stages. There are also factors present at particular life stages, such as childhood or adolescence, which predict back pain in adulthood. However, there are little published data on long-term pain patterns or predictors over the life course. Such studies could improve our understanding of the development and fluctuations in back pain, and therefore influence treatment approaches.

Multisite musculoskeletal pain is common among people suffering from low back pain. Although the mechanisms behind co-occurrence of multiple somatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain are still unknown, patients with co-morbidities and co-occurring musculoskeletal symptoms tend to have worse functional status, a poorer prognosis and respond less favourably to treatment. Evidence also suggests that the more pain sites a patient reports, the more reduced their physical and mental function will be regardless of location of pain. At the same time, evidence suggests that strategies for diagnosis and treatment of low back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders such as neck pain and lower limb osteoarthritis are very similar. In this chapter, we discuss the prevalence, consequences, and implications of commonalities between low back pain, pain in other sites and co-occurring pain. In addition, we propose a conceptual framework for a common stepwise approach to the diagnosis and management of back and musculoskeletal pain.

Low back pain is not a self-limiting problem, but rather a recurrent and sometimes persistent disorder. To understand the course over time, detailed investigation, preferably using repeated measure- ments over extended periods of time, is needed. New knowledge concerning short-term trajectories indicates that the low back pain 'episode' is short lived, at least in the primary care setting, with most patients improving. Nevertheless, in the long term, low back pain often runs a persistent course with around two-thirds of patients estimated to be in pain after 12 months. Some individuals never have low back pain, but most have it on and off or persistently. Thus, the low back pain 'condition' is usually a lifelong experience. However, subgroups of patients with different back pain trajec- tories have been identified and linked to clinical parameters. Further investigation is warranted to understand causality, treat- ment effect and prognostic factors and to study the possible as- sociation of trajectories with pathologies.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition and a socioeconomic problem in many countries. Due to its recurrent nature, the prevention of further episodes (secondary prevention), seems logical. Furthermore, when the condition is persistent, the minimization of symptoms and prevention of deterioration (tertiary prevention), is equally important. Research has largely focused on treatment methods for symptomatic episodes, and little is known about preventive treatment strategies.METHODS: This study protocol describes a randomized controlled clinical trial in a multicenter setting investigating the effect and cost-effectiveness of preventive manual care (chiropractic maintenance care) in a population of patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.Four hundred consecutive study subjects with recurrent or persistent LBP will be recruited from chiropractic clinics in Sweden. The primary outcome is the number of days with bothersome pain over 12 months. Secondary measures are self-rated health (EQ-5D), function (the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), psychological profile (the Multidimensional Pain Inventory), pain intensity (the Numeric Rating Scale), and work absence.The primary utility measure of the study is quality-adjusted life years and will be calculated using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Direct medical costs as well as indirect costs will be considered.Subjects are randomly allocated into two treatment arms: 1) Symptom-guided treatment (patient controlled), receiving care when patients feel a need. 2) Preventive treatment (clinician controlled), receiving care on a regular basis. Eligibility screening takes place in two phases: first, when assessing the primary inclusion/exclusion criteria, and then to only include fast responders, i.e., subjects who respond well to initial treatment. Data are collected at baseline and at follow-up as well as weekly, using SMS text messages.DISCUSSION: This study investigates a manual strategy (chiropractic maintenance care) for recurrent and persistent LBP and aims to answer questions regarding the effect and cost-effectiveness of this preventive approach. Strict inclusion criteria should ensure a suitable target group and the use of frequent data collection should provide an accurate outcome measurement. The study utilizes normal clinical procedures, which should aid the transferability of the results.Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov; NCT01539863, February 22, 2012. The first patient was randomized into the study on April 13th 2012.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is common, and social isolation is both a risk factor for poor recovery and a consequence. However, no studies seem to have validated social isolation measures in LBP populations. Aims: This study assessed the validity of the Friendship Scale (FS), a brief measure of social isolation. Methods: LBP participants were 100 consecutive consenting adult patients attending physiotherapy outpatient clinics, matched (1: 2) by age and gender with a general population sample (GPS; n = 200). FS validation was through factor analysis, internal consistency, sensitivity by known groups, and Rasch analysis. Results: There were significant differences between LPB and GPS on 5 of the 6 FS items. Social isolation on the FS was reported by 26% of the LBP cohort compared with 9% of the GPS. All FS items loaded on the principal component > 0.60, suggesting uni-dimensionality. Internal consistency was alpha = 0.81. The FS was sensitive by pain severity and study cohort. Rasch analysis showed no disordered items, although 2 items were marginally misfitting. Differential item functioning by sex was observed on 1 item; there was no other observed differential item functioning. After removal of the worst fitting item (feeling alone), the remaining items fit the Rasch model. This, however, may have been a function of study samples. Conclusions: Generally, the FS performed well, and its descriptive system contains excess capacity beyond that needed in the study population; that is, those with LBP were not particularly socially isolated, and responses indicating severe social isolation were barely reported by these participants. Overall, the FS appears to be a suitable instrument for assessing social isolation among LBP patients.

Purpose: Biopsychosocial interventions in low back pain (LBP) rehabilitation aim at preparing patients to accept and manage their pain conditions and to encourage them to maintain their everyday life routines. Although such approaches have demonstrated a positive effect, for example, in relation to return to work (RTW), few studies have explored how social contexts influence how pain is being managed. Using a theoretical approach that addresses pain as social performance, we illustrate how pain is expressed and managed in three different contexts: at the clinic, at home and at work. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with eight patients who had followed a hospital-based RTW intervention. Results: Low back patients experience dilemmas of how to express their pain sensations and constantly evaluate whether the activities they participate in will ease or worsen their pain sensations. In this process, their behavior is guided by how they think their social role will be affected by their decision to abstain from or undertake the activities in question. Conclusions: Interventions in rehabilitation may benefit from knowledge of the social processes at play when LBP patients articulate, express and suppress their symptoms in their interaction with health professionals, workmates, families and friends. Implications for Rehabilitation Low back pain In order to manage pain, patients with low back pain are encouraged to exercise and to maintain their everyday activities. Choosing to become physically active, although in pain, is related to those social roles one wishes to maintain or support. Future interventions could offer support so that patients will be able both to maintain their social roles and to retire from social activities without their social roles being threatened.

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-29T07:13:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011-12-01 Objective: Sleepiness and naps occur in classrooms everywhere in the world. Poor seating posture is also common in classrooms. Even though poor posture causes students to be at risk for developing problems in the vertebral column, the relationship between sleep deprivation and bad postures has not yet received attention. Present study evaluated the viability of such hypothesis of link and tried to disclose other possibly involved factors. Methods: Twenty physicians, ten of whom were orthopedists, evaluated the possible risk to the vertebral column of 23 seating postures depicted in photos. Thirty-two skilled teachers testified they had frequently detected the occurrence of those postures displayed in the photos evaluated with the highest risk. Results: According to them, habit (90%), sleep deprivation (24%) and laziness (11%) are the main causal factors of these postures. Interviews carried-out with 50 scholars, 8 to 14 years old, both sexes, revealed that part of them has sleep debit frequently and gave additional information confirming it. Sleepiness during lessons was reported by 39 (78%) among 50 students and 22 (44%) of them said to have slept at least once during lessons. Sleepiness and laziness in the day following sleep reduction was recognized by 96% of the students, and 92% reported to sit differently on those days. Conclusion: The obtained data seems to grant the pertinence of the hypothesis that sleep deprivation can be correlated to high risk bodily postures in classrooms and allows us to hypothesize about laziness involvement in this relationship. Departamento de Pediatria Universidade Estadual Paulista 'Júlio de Mesquita Filho' (UNESP), Botucatu (SP) Departamento de Ciências Biológicas Universidade Estadual Paulista 'Júlio de Mesquita Filho' (UNESP), Botucatu (SP) Departamento de Pediatria Universidade Estadual Paulista 'Júlio de Mesquita Filho' (UNESP), Botucatu (SP) Departamento de Ciências Biológicas Universidade Estadual Paulista 'Júlio de Mesquita Filho' (UNESP), Botucatu (SP)

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional design. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to describe the occurrence and to investigate the association of the fear-avoidance model variables (pain intensity, kinesiophobia, depression, and disability) in patients with specific or nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Affective factors, particularly fear, have proven to be central in the explanation and understanding of chronic pain. The fear-avoidance model has shown that fearful patients with CLBP are at risk of becoming trapped in a vicious cycle of pain, fear, disability, and depressive symptoms. Little is known about the relationship between these factors in patients subgrouped as specific or nonspecific CLBP. METHODS: All 147 patients (81 women and 66 men) were examined by an orthopedic surgeon and diagnosed as either specific or nonspecific CLBP on the basis of that examination. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to assess the ability of three independent variables (back pain intensity, VAS; kinesiophobia, TSK; depressed mood, Zung) to predict levels of disability after controlling for the influence of age and sex. RESULTS.: Both groups (specific and nonspecific CLBP) presented elevated values on the fear-avoidance model variables. All the independent fear-avoidance variables contributed in a statistically significant manner to predict disability in patients with specific CLBP, 67.0%, F (5, 59) = 24.46, P < 0.000. In patients with nonspecific CLBP, all variables except kinesiophobia predicted disability in a statistically significant manner, 63.0%, F (5, 59) = 22.64, P < 0.000. CONCLUSION: We conclude that persistent musculoskeletal pain affects the individual in a similar manner, regardless of the cause of the pain. In clinical terms, this means that pain must be analyzed and treated as a parallel process to searching for the cause of the pain.

The majority of women recover from pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain within 3 months of delivery. Since biomechanical and hormonal changes from pregnancy are largely reversed by 3 months postpartum, consequently, it is assumed that other factors might interfere with recovery. Relative to the fear-avoidance model and with reference to previous studies, we chose to investigate some pre-decided factors to understand persistent lumbopelvic pain. The evaluation of lumbopelvic pain postpartum is mostly based on self-administered questionnaires or interviews. Clinical classification of the lumbopelvic pain may increase our knowledge about postpartum subgroups. Two hundred and seventy-two consecutively registered pregnant women evaluated at 3 months postpartum, answered questionnaires concerning disability (Oswestry disability index), pain intensity on visual analog scale, health-related quality of life (HRQL, EQ5D), activity level, depressive symptoms (Edinburgh postnatal Depression Scale) and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia). Women were classified into lumbopelvic pain subgroups according to mechanical assessment of the lumbar spine, pelvic pain provocation tests, standard history, and pain drawings. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to explain the variance of disability. Thirty-three percent of postpartum women were classified with lumbopelvic pain; 40% reported moderate to severe disability. The impacts were similar among subgroups. Pain intensity, HRQL and kinesiophobia explained 53% of postpartum disability due to lumbopelvic pain. In conclusion, one of three postpartum women still had some lumbopelvic pain and the impacts were equivalent irrespective of symptoms in lumbar or pelvic areas. The additional explanations of variance in disability by HRQL and kinesiophobia were minor, suggesting that pain intensity was the major contributing factor. The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com:Annelie Gutke, Mari Lundberg, Hans Christian Ostgaard and Birgitta Öberg, Impact of postpartum lumbopelvic pain on disability, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, activity level, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms, 2011, EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, (20), 3, 440-448.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1487-6Copyright: Springer Science Business Mediahttp://www.springerlink.com/

Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surface-based point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at follow-up 51 years, were analysed. Fifty-three patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "non-organic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group ( P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores ( P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP.METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared.RESULTS: The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls).CONCLUSIONS: On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.

Background Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the gold standard for detailed visualisation of spinal pathological and degenerative processes, but the prevailing view is that such imaging findings have little or no clinical relevance for low back pain. This is because these findings appear to have little association with treatment effects in clinical populations, and mostly a weak association with the presence of pain in the general population. However, almost all research into these associations is based on the examination of individual MRI findings, despite its being very common for multiple MRI findings to coexist. Therefore, this proof-of-concept study investigated the capacity of a multivariable statistical method to identify clusters of MRI findings and for those clusters to be grouped into pathways of vertebral degeneration. Methods This study is a secondary analysis of data from 631 patients, from an outpatient spine clinic, who had been screened for inclusion in a randomised controlled trial. The available data created a total sample pool of 3,155 vertebral motion segments. The mean age of the cohort was 42 years (SD 10.8, range 18–73) and 54% were women. MRI images were quantitatively coded by an experienced musculoskeletal research radiologist using a detailed and standardised research MRI evaluation protocol that has demonstrated high reproducibility. Comprehensive MRI findings descriptive of the disco-vertebral component of lumbar vertebrae were clustered using Latent Class Analysis. Two pairs of researchers, each containing an experienced MRI researcher, then independently categorised the clusters into hypothetical pathoanatomic pathways based on the known histological changes of discovertebral degeneration. Results Twelve clusters of MRI findings were identified, described and grouped into five different hypothetical pathways of degeneration that appear to have face validity. Conclusions This study has shown that Latent Class Analysis can be used to identify clusters of MRI findings from people with LBP and that those clusters can be grouped into degenerative pathways that are biologically plausible. If these clusters of MRI findings are reproducible in other datasets of similar patients, they may form a stable platform to investigate the relationship between degenerative pathways and clinically important characteristics such as pain and activity limitation.