Search

What model development and external validation studies exist that focus on the prognosis of patients with recent-onset low back pain (LBP)? What is the performance (in terms of discrimination and calibration) of these clinical prediction models?Systematic searches on MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were conducted. Model development and/or external validation studies of patients with recent-onset LBP were selected. Models predicting outcomes of pain, disability, sick leave, work absence and self-reported recovery, with at least 12 weeks of follow-up, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST instrument.We identified 17 prognostic models developed to predict outcomes in people with recent-onset LBP: six models were in the development phase and 11 were in the validation phase. The most assessed prediction model was the Original Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. The Da Silva Clinical Prediction Model was the only model, from a study with low risk of bias, that presented acceptable discrimination, demonstrating 'good' performance in predicting recovery from pain (C-statistic 0.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78) and overall acceptable agreement in calibration.Most prediction models for prognosis of patients with recent-onset LBP did not perform well at discrimination, few studies reported calibration and their performance varied across studies. It seems premature to advocate use of the available models, at their current state of development and validation, for low back pain in primary care, considering their generally poor methods and performance.CRD42020160988.

Background: To determine the feasibility, reliability, and safety of the remote five times sit to stand test (5STS) test in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing surgical treatment for lower gastrointestinal cancer at a major referral hospital in Sydney between July and November 2022 were included. Participants completed the 5STS test both face-to-face and remotely, with the order randomised. Outcomes included measures of feasibility, reliability, and safety. Results: Of fifty-five patients identified, seventeen (30.9%) were not interested, one (1.8%) had no internet coverage, and thirty-seven (67.3%) consented and completed both 5STS tests. The mean (SD) time taken to complete the face-to-face and remote 5STS tests was 9.1 (2.4) and 9.5 (2.3) seconds, respectively. Remote collection by telehealth was feasible, with only two participants (5.4%) having connectivity issues at the start of the remote assessment, but not interfering with the tests. The remote 5STS test showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.957), with limits of agreement within acceptable ranges and no significant systematic errors observed. No adverse events were observed within either test environment. Conclusions: Remote 5STS for the assessment of functional lower extremity strength in gastrointestinal cancer patients is feasible, reliable, and safe, and can be used in clinical and research settings.

Background The importance of lumbar findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains controversial. Changes in lumbar MRI findings over time may provide important insights into the causes of low back pain. However, the reliability and validity of temporal changes are unknown. Objective To (1) investigate the interrater reliability of subjective radiologist reporting of temporal changes in lumbar spine MRI findings and (2) determine how commonly temporal changes are reported when two scans are conducted 30 minutes apart (considered false positives). Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Radiology clinic. Participants Forty volunteers (mean age 40; 53% female) with current (n = 31) or previous (n = 9) low back pain underwent initial lumbar MRI on a single 3T scanner. Participants then lay on a bed for 30 minutes before undergoing an identical MRI. In addition, we purposely selected five participants from a previous study with repeat lumbar MRI scans where temporal changes were reported in at least one MRI finding (1-12 weeks after initial scan) and another five participants where no temporal change was reported. The 10 participants were included in analyses for aim 1 only. Interventions Not applicable. Main outcome measures Two blinded radiologists reported on temporal changes between the baseline and repeat scan for 12 different MRI findings (eg, disk herniation, annular fissure) at five levels. Results The interrater reliability of subjective reporting of temporal changes was poor for all MRI findings based on Kappa values (≤ 0.24), but agreement was relatively high (≥ 90.8%). This is explained by the low prevalence of temporal changes as demonstrated by high values for Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa (≥ 0.82). "False positive" temporal changes were reported by at least one radiologist for most MRI findings, but the rate was generally low. Conclusions Caution is required when interpreting temporal changes in lumbar MRI findings owing to low reliability and some false positive reporting.

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

Purpose: To estimate the healthcare resource utilisation of an Australian cohort of people with sciatica and explore individual-level factors associated with expenditure. Methods: Healthcare utilisation (services and medication) data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica (n = 185) were analysed to estimate healthcare expenditure of participants over 12 months. Associations between key baseline socio-economic, pain and quality of life characteristics and healthcare expenditure were examined using generalised linear imputation models. Results: On average, participants accessed AUD$1,134 of healthcare over the year, predominantly made up of $114 of medication and $914 of health services, which included $418 of physiotherapy services. Participants randomised to receive pregabalin incurred higher expenditure ($1,263 compared to $1,001 for placebo), which was largely driven by pregabalin ($158) and greater health services ($107). Healthcare expenditure was significantly higher for participants prescribed pregabalin, earning greater than $1,700 per week ($88,400 per year) and reporting poorer quality of life (physical and mental). Conclusion: Our results suggest inefficiency in the use of healthcare resources due to increased healthcare resource utilisation in people with sciatica treated with pregabalin, compared to placebo. Costs of treating sciatica varied based on individual quality of life and socio-economic characteristics.

To evaluate the effect of walking promotion strategies on physical activity, pain, and function in people with musculoskeletal disorders.Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis.We performed the searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) from inception to August 2019.We included randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions that promote walking in people with musculoskeletal disorders.We used the PEDro scale for assessing risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence. We expressed pooled effects for between-group differences as mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, or as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects meta-analyses.Twelve eligible trials (n = 1456 participants) were identified. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence of no difference in physical activity levels for walking promotion interventions when compared to minimal interventions, and a significant effect favoring walking promotion when compared with usual care in the short term. There was moderate-quality evidence that walking promotion was modestly effective for reducing pain and improving function compared with minimal intervention and usual care. There was no difference in pain and function for walking promotion compared to supervised exercise. Walking promotion was not associated with different rates of adverse events compared to control conditions.Strategies to promote walking did not increase physical activity in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Walking promotion was associated with small improvements in pain and function compared to minimal intervention and usual care.

OBJECTIVES Clinical guidelines recommend that health care providers assist children to understand their experience of persistent pain, with pain science education a key component of clinical management in pediatric pain clinics. Currently, no tool exists to assess a child's concept of pain. The aim of this study was to develop such a tool and to evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS After a rigorous process to generate items, assess content validity, evaluate readability and understandability, and pretest items, a cohort of 124 children (aged 8 to 12 y) independently completed the measure on 2 occasions, along with additional measures of pain, function, and pain-related distress. RESULTS The resulting unidimensional 14-item Concept of Pain Inventory (COPI) had acceptable internal consistency (α= 0.78) and moderate test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (3,1) = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68). Higher COPI scores reflect greater alignment with contemporary pain science. COPI scores were inversely correlated with pain intensity and functional disability, but unrelated to pain catastrophizing and pain-related fear. At 1 to 2 months' follow-up, baseline COPI scores were inversely correlated with clinical variables of functional disability and pain intensity. DISCUSSION These results support the COPI as a brief, psychometrically sound tool to assess a child's concept of pain. Clinically, this tool may facilitate individualized pain science education to target identified conceptual "gaps" or misconceptions and to evaluate the effectiveness of pain science education in children. Further research examining its efficacy and impact is warranted.

Question What is the effect of a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program on the risk of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) and on the impact of LBP? Design Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. Participants 262 adults recently recovered from an episode of LBP. Intervention The experimental group received a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program delivered over two individual sessions of 30 to 45 minutes with a physiotherapist, approximately 2 weeks apart. The control group received a single advice session over the phone. Outcome measures The primary outcome was time to first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting LBP. Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence of any LBP, time to a recurrence causing care seeking and a composite measure of pain and function (‘impact of LBP’). Participants were followed-up monthly for ≥ 12 months. Results The estimated effect of the experimental intervention on the risk of recurrence of an episode of: activity-limiting LBP was HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.54), any LBP was HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.26), and LBP for which care was sought was HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.04). The quarterly estimates of the experimental intervention’s effect on impact of LBP and their 95% CIs were all within 4 points above or below 0 (no effect) on this scale from 8 to 50. Conclusion This study’s best estimate is that a McKenzie-based self-management exercise and education program does not produce a worthwhile reduction in the risk of an activity-limiting episode of LBP; however, modestly reduced or moderately increased risk cannot be ruled out. It may markedly reduce the risk of an episode of LBP resulting in care seeking, but does not have any worthwhile effect on the impact of LBP over 12 months. Trial registration ACTRN12616000926437.

Background This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the Trial Of Prevention Strategies for low back pain (TOPS). Objectives TOPS aimed to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise and education classes compared with a minimal intervention control in preventing recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in people who have recently recovered from an episode of LBP. Methods TOPS is a superiority, pragmatic, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessors, and intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were randomized to a physical therapist-led exercise and education program for 12 weeks or minimal intervention. The primary outcome was days to recurrence of an episode of LBP. The three key secondary outcomes were days to recurrence of an episode of LBP resulting in (1) activity limitation, (2) care seeking for LBP; and (3) work absence of at least 1 day. Differences in survival curves for the primary (days to recurrence) and secondary outcome (days to LBP with activity limitation, days to care seeking due to LBP, and days to work absence due to LBP) will be compared using Cox regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals (CI) will be calculated. The number of adverse events, including serious adverse events will be reported and the proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using a Chi-squared test. Discussion This paper will provide a detailed description of the planned analyses for the TOPS trial. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000939594).

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

Low back pain is common and remains one of the leading causes of disability globally. This study aimed to develop an evidence map of the quantity of available evidence assessing approaches to manage low back pain, to identify potential redundancies or gaps in the synthesized data, and guide future research focus.MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched to March 2022 for systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of 10 guideline-recommended approaches to manage low back pain. For each management strategy, the number of systematic reviews, date of publication, eligibility criteria and included primary trials were extracted and descriptive data presented.Substantial evidence, including both systematic reviews and primary trials, was available for each management approach except for patient reassurance. The quantity of available evidence has continued to increase over time. Cochrane reviews have been performed for all 10 treatments, except reassurance of the benign nature of low back pain; however, many of the Cochrane reviews were performed prior to 2015. Substantial heterogeneity in the eligibility criteria between systematic reviews exists; however, some age ranges (children and older adults), clinical settings (emergency), and conditions (radiculopathy) were infrequently assessed.Based on systematic reviews, there is a large body of evidence assessing the effectiveness of common approaches to manage low back pain. Justification of the need for further systematic reviews and primary trials should consider the available evidence and is essential to avoid potential research redundancy when investigating effective management of low back pain.Substantial evidence (systematic reviews and primary trials) exists for 10 approaches to manage low back pain. The quantity of available evidence has continued to increase over time. The quantity and large heterogeneity of inclusion criteria in available systematic reviews may influence conflicting recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Justification of the need for further systematic reviews and primary trials is essential to avoid potential research redundancy.

Study Design. Case-control study. Objective. Investigate the association between lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and 5-year trajectories of low back pain (LBP) in young Australian adults. Summary of Background Data. The association between lumbar spine imaging findings and LBP remains unclear due to important limitations of previous research, such as a lack of clearly defined LBP phenotypes and inadequate controlling for age, which may substantially affect the association. Methods. Seventy-eight ‘‘case’’ participants with a previously identified ‘‘consistent high disabling LBP’’ trajectory from age 17 to 22 years and 78 ‘‘control’’ participants from a trajectory with consistently low LBP over the same time period, matched for sex, body mass index, physical activity levels, and work physical demands, were identified from Gen2 Raine Study participants. At age 27, participants underwent a standardized lumbar MRI scan, from which 14 specific MRI phenotypes were identified. Primary analyses used unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for covariates used in the matching process, to investigate the relationship between presence of each imaging finding and being a case or control. Secondary analyses explored those relationships based on the number of spinal levels with each MRI finding. Results. The odds for being a case compared with a control were higher in those with disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grade ≥ 3; OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.60 – 6.44; P = 0.001) or those with a herniation (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.96 – 3.74; P – 0.065). We also found that the association became substantially stronger when either disc degeneration or herniation was present at two or more spinal levels (OR = 5.56, 95% CI: 1.97 – 15.70; P = 0.001, and OR = 5.85, 95% CI: 1.54 – 22.25; P = 0.009, respectively). The other investigated MRI findings were not associated with greater odds of being a case. Conclusion. Lumbar disc degeneration and herniation may be important contributors to disabling LBP in young adults. Further investigation of their potential prognostic and causal roles is indicated.

Background Evidence suggests that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. Methods A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with one year follow up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data was collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging during their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previous imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two-weeks, three-months, and one-year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two-weeks. Results 2162 patients were included, with 24.1% referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two-weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one-year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two-weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but the changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed. Conclusions Diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.

BACKGROUND: Although there is some qualitative research on physiotherapists' experiences of delivering low back pain treatment, we do not know the extent that these findings apply to low back pain prevention. OBJECTIVE: To explore physiotherapists' understanding, attitudes and experiences related to delivering low back pain prevention programs. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHOD: Interviews from 25 Australian physiotherapists (56% female; 44% male) were analysed using framework thematic analysis. RESULTS: Theme 1 explored physiotherapists' hesitancy about 'low back pain prevention,' raising concerns this term might inadvertently entrench unhelpful beliefs. They preferred language about minimising the risk and impact of recurrences, and promoting an active lifestyle. Theme 2 emphasised that as pain receded, engaging patients could be challenging. Some discussed that person-centred care and individualised programs helped overcome this challenge. Several wanted more training in counselling skills, and more consistent external messaging about low back pain prevention. Theme 3 highlighted uncertainty about delivering high-value prevention care. Some perceived the programs as potentially placing unnecessary financial burden on some patients. Many physiotherapists were uncertain about how to support patients when they weren't in pain (i.e., remission) and wanted training in tailored exercise prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the physiotherapists had some hesitations and unmet needs regarding delivery of exercise programs for secondary prevention of low back pain. Clinicians may find it useful to ask patients directly about their interest in prevention programs and work with interested patients to develop tailored, progressive programs that continue to be motivating, even during periods when there is no pain.

OBJECTIVES Assessing knowledge and beliefs regarding pain science can identify gaps and misconceptions. The Concept of Pain Inventory (COPI) was recently developed in children with the intent to guide targeted pain science education. We utilized the original COPI item pool to (1) develop a tool to assess an adult's concept of pain in a cohort who had not received pain science education, (2) evaluate its psychometric properties, (3) examine distribution of scores in a cohort of adults who had received pain science education, and (4) examine associations between scores and clinical variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total cohort of 627 adults were recruited through social media for an online survey. Initial development was conducted on those who had not received prior pain science education (n=125), then the COPI-Adult tool was tested in those who had received prior pain science education (n=502). RESULTS The resulting unidimensional 13-item COPI-Adult had acceptable internal consistency (α=0.78) and good test-retest reliability at 1 week (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient3,1=0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.91). Higher COPI-Adult scores reflect greater alignment with contemporary pain science. COPI-Adult scores were correlated with revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (rNPQ) scores and inversely correlated with average and current pain intensity, and pain interference. Adults who reported having received pain science education had significantly higher mean COPI-Adult scores than those who had not, and this difference exceeded the smallest detectable change. DISCUSSION The COPI-Adult is a brief questionnaire with promising psychometric properties to identify conceptual gaps or misconceptions to inform individualized pain science education.

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

Background Inappropriate imaging and low-value care for low back pain (LBP) are common. A new patient-education booklet was created to overcome identified barriers to the delivery of recommended care, including the use of inappropriate imaging. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of this booklet as part of primary care for LBP patients in comparison to usual care. Methods A cluster-randomized trial was performed. The intervention involved providing practitioners with the new patient-education booklet and a 30-min training session on its use. The booklet was provided during the clinical consult to all consenting LBP patients in the intervention group. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients presenting with LBP who underwent imaging examinations during the first three months of follow-up and PROMIS PF-20 (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 20-item physical functioning short form) change between baseline and three-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes, including sick leave and imaging examinations at 12 months, were investigated. Logistic regression using GEE-estimation was used for dichotomous outcomes, Poisson regression using GEE-estimation for count outcomes, and linear mixed models for continuous outcomes. Results Using the patient education booklet appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of LBP patients who underwent an imaging examination at three months, but the result was not statistically significant (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.27 to 1.22). At 12 months, the effect was slightly larger and statistically significant (OR 0.50, 95%Cl 0.30 to 0.83, p = 0.008). No difference was observed in the PROMIS PF-20 T-score change between baseline and 3 months or 12 months (p = 0.365 and p = 0.923, respectively). The number of sick leave days in the intervention group was less than that in the control group at 3 months (RR 0.47, 95%Cl 0.26 to 0.83, p = 0.010) and at 12 months (RR 0.36, 95%Cl 0.18 to 0.72, p = 0.004). Conclusions The booklet appeared to be effective in reducing the proportion of LBP patients who underwent imaging examinations over 12 months. The intervention had no discernible effect on the PROMIS PF20 T-score change. The number of sick leave days was substantially lower in the intervention group. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN14389368, Registered 4 April 2019—Retrospectively registered.

STUDY DESIGN: Population-based cohort studyObjective. We examined associations between common lumbar degenerative changes observed on MRI and present or future low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The association between lumbar MRI degenerative findings and LBP is unclear. Longitudinal studies are sparse. METHODS: Participants (n = 3,369) from a population-based cohort study were imaged at study entry, with LBP status measured at baseline and 6-year follow-up. MRI scans were reported on for the presence of a range of MRI findings. LBP status was measured on a 0-10 scale. Regression models were used to estimate the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between individual and multiple MRI findings and LBP severity. Separate longitudinal analyses were conducted for participants with and without baseline pain. RESULTS: MRI findings were present in persons with and without back pain at baseline. Higher proportions were found in older age groups. 76.4% of participants had a least one MRI finding and 8.3% had 5 or more different MRI findings. Cross-sectionally, most MRI findings were slightly more common in those with LBP and pain severity was slightly higher in those with MRI findings (ranging from 0.06 for high intensity zone to 0.83 for spondylolisthesis). In the longitudinal analyses we found most MRI findings were not associated with future LBP-severity regardless of the presence or absence of baseline pain. Compared to zero MRI findings, having multiple MRI findings (≥5) was associated with mildly greater pain-severity at baseline (0.84; 0.50 to 1.17) and greater increase in pain-severity over 6 years in those pain free at baseline (1.21; 0.04 to 2.37), but not in those with baseline pain (-0.30; -0.99 to 0.38). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the MRI degenerative findings we examined, individually or in combination, do not have clinically important associations with LBP, with almost all effects less than one unit on a 0-10 pain scale.Level of Evidence: 3.

General medical practitioner (GP) recruitment and subsequent data collection in clinical practice are challenging and may limit successful completion of a large-scale trial. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial to test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain in general medical practice.A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was performed, with recruitment of GPs and randomisation of GP clinics. All GPs attended a training session and were asked to record low back pain codes in electronic medical records for any low back pain presentations. Intervention group GPs were trained in the use of a patient education booklet to be used during low back pain patient visits. Control group GPs provided usual care. Outcomes for the proposed trial were collected to determine feasibility. GP recruitment was assessed as the proportion of GPs approached who consented to participate. Low back pain imaging outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (counts of patients presenting with low back pain) and from Australian healthcare administrative (Medicare) data (counts of imaging use). GP compliance with study procedures was assessed and qualitative data reported.Thirty-four GP clinics were approached, with four participating (12%). At these clinics, 13/19 (68%) GPs consented to participate, and 10/19 (53%) started the study. Outcome data were collected from medical records for all GPs. Three GPs (30%) withdrew consent to access Medicare data, limiting reporting of imaging outcome measures. Three GPs (30%) self-reported low compliance entering low back pain codes.This pilot cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the feasibility of many aspects of a full-scale effectiveness study, while also identifying a number of challenges that need to be resolved. Recommendations related to GP recruitment, study compliance, data collection, and outcome measures were made to increase the success of a future trial.Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR), Trial ID: ACTRN12619000991112; Registered 11 July 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376973.

Questions: How commonly and how quickly does low back pain reoccur in a cohort of people who have recently recovered from an episode of low back pain? What are the prognostic factors for a recurrence of low back pain? Design: Prospective inception cohort study with monthly follow-up for 12 months. Participants: A total of 250 patients who had recovered from an episode of low back pain within the last month. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was days to recurrence of an episode of low back pain. Secondary outcomes were: days to recurrence of low back pain severe enough to limit activity moderately, and days to recurrence of low back pain for which healthcare was sought. Results: Within 12 months after recovery, 69% (95% CI 62 to 74) of participants had a recurrence of an episode of low back pain, 40% (95% CI 33 to 46) had a recurrence of activity-limiting low back pain, and 41% (95% CI 34 to 46) had a recurrence of low back pain for which healthcare was sought. The median time to recurrence of an episode of low back pain was 139 days (95% CI 105 to 173). Frequent exposure to awkward postures, longer time sitting (> 5 hours per day), and more than two previous episodes were predictive of recurrence of an episode of low back pain within 12 months (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Recurrence of low back pain is very common, with more than two-thirds of individuals having a recurrence within 12 months after recovery. Prognostic factors for a recurrence include exposure to awkward posture, longer time sitting, and more than two previous episodes. Key words: Risk, Recurrence, Low back pain, Prognosis, Cohort studies

ObjectivesTo (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion.Data sourcesElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system.Results45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors.Summary/conclusionOne in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns.Trial registration numberCRD42016041987.

There is moderate quality evidence that exercise can help to prevent future low back pain (LBP). This study aimed to explore patient needs and preferences for exercise programs to prevent LBP and the outcomes of these programs that would be most important to a patient. Researchers conducted 26 semistructured interviews with people with LBP. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using framework thematic analysis. Three themes were developed. Theme 1 emphasised that everyone's LBP was different, translating to preferences for tailored prevention programs with a high level of initial supervision and individualised biomedical explanations for the program. Theme 2 highlighted important outcomes. Pain was considered not only for intensity but also for the duration, frequency, and severity of flare-ups or episodes. Other important outcomes were general fitness and capacity to engage in everyday activities, social interactions, and work. Theme 3 outlined aspects of exercise programs that were considered important for people with fluctuating pain, including how to foster a sense of "progress," set realistic expectations, and support patients to establish exercise routines that can adapt to fluctuating pain. Theme 4 discussed participants' desire for social connection. Patients want exercise programs for LBP prevention, which are highly individualised, provide meaningful explanations of exercises, and help them maintain exercise in the long-term. Clinicians should discuss with patients the transition from a focus on treatment to the prevention of LBP. This provides greater opportunity to adjust goals and expectations and provide relevant education. Balancing the need for individualised care against affordability presents an ongoing challenge.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a long-term health condition with an unpredictable pattern of symptomatic episodes, remission, and recurrence. Recently published systematic reviews suggest that exercise is the most effective intervention for preventing recurrences of LBP in persons that have recovered. Similar programs may also be effective in preventing flare-ups in persistent LBP. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of the Back to Living Well program (Physical activity + Education + Self-management) developed to prevent recurrence or flare-ups of LBP. The study evaluated feasibility in terms of recruitment rate, adherence, satisfaction with the exercise and education sessions, and the data collection procedures. We also aimed to evaluate barriers and facilitators to the engagement in the program. Methods Seventeen participants with non-specific LBP recently discharged from care from physiotherapy, chiropractors or physician care (< 3 months) were referred to the study by health care providers or community advertisements between December 2018 and February 2019. Participants underwent a 12-week (1 session/week) individualized, group-based exercise in the community and 4 sessions (30 min each) of education. All participants completed an action plan weekly for 12 weeks and wore an activity monitor for 6 months. All participants responded to weekly pain measures and completed study questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, attrition rates and satisfaction. At the end of the intervention, participants completed an end-of-program survey. Results Twenty-nine participants were screened for eligibility; 20 were deemed eligible, while 17 were included over a 2-month period meeting our feasibility targets. In total, 16 completed follow-up study questionnaires at 3 months, and 15 completed the 6-month follow-up. Fourteen participants responded to weekly messages, while 3 participants reported not having a mobile device or Internet access. In total, 15 participants responded to our end-of-program survey. Average age was 54.9 (11.7); 9 were female (53%), and the mean duration of LBP was 62.9 (69.7) months. All satisfaction responses in relation to the exercise program, education program and data collection procedures reached our threshold of 70% out of 100%. Reported barriers to engagement in the program included fear of injury, lack of motivation and travel. Facilitators included proximity to home, low cost, flexible schedule and friendly location. Conclusion The results show the program is feasible in terms of recruitment, low attrition, and patient satisfaction. Participants highlighted the excellent, relevant education program and the positive, personalized exercise. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention within a fully powered randomized controlled trial. Trial registration NCT03328689

To assess whether an exercise and education program was more effective than an education booklet for preventing recurrence of low back pain (LBP).Randomized controlled trial.Participants aged 18 years or older who had recovered from an episode of LBP within the previous week were recruited from primary care practices and the community. Participants were randomized to receive either 12 weeks of exercise and education (8 supervised exercise sessions and 3 one-on-one sessions) or a control (education booklet). The primary outcome was time to recurrence of LBP during the 1-year follow-up. Times to recurrence of LBP leading to activity limitation, care seeking, and work absence were secondary outcomes. Data were analyzed with Cox regression using intention-to-treat principles.We planned to include 160 participants but included 111 (exercise and education, n = 57; educational booklet, n = 54). At the end of the study period, data completeness was 84.2%. Thirty-six (63%) participants in the exercise and education group and 31 (57%) participants in the control group had a recurrence of LBP. There was no statistically significant difference in time to recurrence of pain between groups (hazard ratio = 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.7, 1.8). There was no statistically significant effect for any of the secondary outcomes.Among people recently recovered from LBP, exercise and education may not meaningfully reduce risk of recurrence compared to providing an educational booklet.

Prevention is a fundamental tenet of medicine but has been largely ignored in low back pain (LBP), where clinical care and research have focused on the treatment of those currently experiencing an episode of LBP. For example, while a recent review of LBP prevention included 40 trials,1 there are several thousand trials evaluating treatments for LBP. Clinical practice guidelines are largely silent on the issue of prevention of LBP, providing little guidance to clinicians. It is now recognised that LBP is typically an episodic condition, with many people having a symptom trajectory that includes periods of recovery interspersed with frequent recurrences or ongoing low levels of pain with flare-ups.2 Much of the LBP burden, therefore, results from recurrences and flare-ups. Given this, we believe that the rationale and evidence for a greater focus on secondary or tertiary prevention are overwhelming. In this editorial, we outline recommendations for shaping future LBP prevention research to ensure the best use of research resources. Preventing a first-ever LBP episode (primary …

Background Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely considered a successful intervention for osteoarthritis and other degenerative knee diseases. This study addresses the need for a high-quality meta-analysis that outlines the clinical course of pain and function post-TKA. Methods The review included prospective cohort studies assessing pain or function of patients undergoing primary TKA at baseline (preoperatively) and at least 2 additional time points including one at least 12 months postoperatively. Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The time course of recovery of pain and function was modeled using fractional polynomial meta-regression. Results In total, 191 studies with 59,667 patients were included, most with low risk of bias. The variance-weighted mean pain score (/100, 0 = no pain) was 64.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.2-67.7) preoperatively, 24.1 (95% CI 20.3-27.9) at 3 months, 20.4 (95% CI 16.7-24.0) at 6 months, and 16.9 (95%CI 13.6-20.3) at 12 months, and remained low (10.1; 95% CI 4.8-15.4) at 10 years postoperatively. The variance-weighted mean function score (/100, 0 = worst function) was 47.1 (95% CI 45.7-48.4) preoperatively, 72.8 (95% CI 71.3-74.4) at 3 months, 76.3 (95% CI 74.7-77.8) at 6 months, and 78.1 (95%CI 76.4-79.7) at 12 months. Function scores were good (79.7; 95% CI 77.9-81.5) at 10 years postoperatively. Conclusion Patients undergoing primary TKA can expect a large and rapid but incomplete recovery of pain and function in the first postoperative year. At 10 years, the gains in pain scores may still remain while there is an improvement in function.

Study Design. Systematic with meta-analysis Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection in reducing leg pain and disability in patients with sciatica. Summary of Background Data. Conservative treatments, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, are typically the first treatment options for sciatica but the evidence to support their use is limited. The overall quality of evidence found by previous systematic reviews varies between moderate and high, which suggests that future trials may change the conclusions. New placebo-controlled randomized trials have been published recently which highlights the importance of an updated systematic review. Methods. The searches were performed without language restrictions in the following databases from 2012 to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other NonIndexed Citations, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and trial registers. We included placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with sciatica. The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were adverse events, overall pain, and back pain intensity. We grouped similar trials according to outcome measures and their respective follow-up time points. Short-term follow-up (>2 weeks but 3 months) was considered the primary follow-up time point due to the expected mechanism of action of epidural corticosteroid injection. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and conducted the analyses using random effects. Results. We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) providing data for a total of 2470 participants with sciatica, an increase of six trials when compared to the previous review. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably more effective than placebo in reducing short-term leg pain (MD 4.93, 95% CI 8.77 to 1.09 on a 0–100 scale), short-term disability (MD 4.18, 95% CI: 6.04 to 2.17 on a 0–100 scale) and may be slightly more effective in reducing short-term overall pain (MD 9.35, 95% CI 14.05 to 4.65 on a 0–100 scale). There were mostly minor adverse events (i.e., without hospitalization) after epidural corticosteroid injections and placebo injections without difference between groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91–1.42). The quality of evidence was at best moderate mostly due to problems with trial design and inconsistency. Conclusion. A review of 25 placebo-controlled trials provides moderate-quality evidence that epidural corticosteroid injections are effective, although the effects are small and short-term. There is uncertainty on safety due to very low-quality evidence.

Background: The prognosis of acute low back pain is generally favourable in terms of pain and disability; however, outcomes vary substantially between individual patients. Clinical prediction models help in estimating the likelihood of an outcome at a certain time point. There are existing clinical prediction models focused on prognosis for patients with low back pain. To date, there is only one previous systematic review summarising the discrimination of validated clinical prediction models to identify the prognosis in patients with low back pain of less than 3 months duration. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing developed and/or validated clinical prediction models on prognosis of patients with low back pain of less than 3 months duration, and to summarise their performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases will be searched, from the inception of these databases until January 2020. Eligibility criteria will be: (1) prognostic model development studies with or without external validation, or prognostic external validation studies with or without model updating; (2) with adults aged 18 or over, with ‘recent onset’ low back pain (i.e. less than 3 months duration), with or without leg pain; (3) outcomes of pain, disability, sick leave or days absent from work or return to work status, and self-reported recovery; and (4) study with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks duration. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool, and the overall quality of evidence will be rated using the Hierarchy of Evidence for Clinical Prediction Rules. Discussion: This systematic review will identify, appraise, and summarize evidence on the performance of existing prediction models for prognosis of low back pain, and may help clinicians to choose the best option of prediction model to better inform patients about their likely prognosis. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO reference number CRD42020160988

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

Background Imaging is overused in the management of low back pain and effective interventions to decrease use have not been developed. An intervention, incorporating a low back pain management booklet and practitioner training session, to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain has been developed based on theories of behaviour change. This study aimed to explore general medical practitioner experiences using the low back pain management booklet in clinical practice to 1) determine the adoption, feasibility of use, and appropriateness of the booklet; and 2) identify implementation strategies to address barriers to use.Methods Fourteen general medical practitioners were recruited and trained to use the booklet with low back pain patients over a minimum five-month period. Quantitative data on use of the booklet were collected and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were collected in general medical practitioner interviews and thematically analysed. Barriers to use were identified and mapped to suitable implementation strategies using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Results The 14 general medical practitioners used the booklet with 73 patients. General medical practitioners thought using the booklet helped improve patient management and helped reduce pressure to refer for non-indicated imaging. Facilitators for using the booklet included patient’s requesting imaging and lower practitioner confidence in managing low back pain. Barriers included accessible storage and remembering to use the booklet. Implementation strategies were identified to increase adoption and feasibility of use, including development of a digital version of the booklet.Conclusions General medical practitioners reported that the low back pain management booklet was useful for clinical practice, particularly with patients requesting imaging. Barriers to use were identified and implementation strategies to address these barriers will be incorporated into future effectiveness studies. This study forms one of a series of studies to develop and test an intervention to reduce non-indicated imaging for low back pain; a successful intervention would decrease healthcare costs and improve patient management.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain (LBP), where impact is measured by LBP intensity and associated disability.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and The Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 22 October 2018.Eligibility criteriaRCTs evaluating any intervention aiming to prevent future impact of LBP, reporting an outcome measure of LBP intensity and/or disability measured at least 3 months post-randomisation, and the intervention group must be compared with a group that received no intervention/placebo or minimal intervention. Trials restricting recruitment to participants with current LBP were excluded.Results27 published reports of 25 different trials including a total of 8341 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled results, from three RCTs (612 participants), found moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme can prevent future LBP intensity (mean difference (MD) −4.50; 95% CI −7.26 to −1.74), and from 4 RCTs (471 participants) that an exercise and education programme can prevent future disability due to LBP (MD −6.28; 95% CI −9.51 to −3.06). It is uncertain whether prevention programmes improve future quality of life (QoL) and workability due to the overall low-quality and very low-quality available evidence.ConclusionsThis review provides moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme, and a programme combining exercise and education, are effective to reduce future LBP intensity and associated disability. It is uncertain whether prevention programmes can improve future QoL and workability. Further high-quality RCTs evaluating prevention programmes aiming to reduce future impact of LBP are needed.