Care For Low Back Pain Research Articles

A survey Based Analysis of Low Back Pain and Best Practice Care

The main symptom of low back pain is pain. Pain does not meet the definition of impairment or abnormality, but if the individual actively aggravates pain and avoids or reduces his/her activities, pain may lead to disability. Nonspecific low back pain appears to be caused primarily by disrupted function or painful musculoskeletal dysfunctions. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides the most comprehensive definition: A disability is defined as any restriction or lack (due to impairments) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or range considered normal for a human being (WHO 1980). Back pain disability involves both physical dysfunctions and illness behavior. Motor and physiological activity are always involved in behavior, and physiological processes always have behavioral manifestations. Using survey-based analysis, we attempted to discover the causes and associated problems of low back pain in this study.

A survey Based Analysis of Low Back Pain and Best Practice Care

A survey Based Analysis of Low Back Pain and Best Practice Care

BeatPain Utah: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial examining telehealth strategies to provide non-pharmacologic pain care for persons with chronic low back pain receiving care in federally qualified health centers

IntroductionAlthough evidence-based guidelines recommend non-pharmacologic treatments as first-line care for chronic low back pain (LBP), uptake has been limited, particularly in rural, low-income and ethnically diverse communities. The BeatPain study...

The Profile of Belgian Osteopaths: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

This study gives an update on the characteristics of Belgian osteopaths five years after the Benelux Osteosurvey. Additional new data were collected on their professional identity and views on the profession. All Belgian osteopaths who could be contacted (n = 1473) were invited to complete a voluntary, online-based, closed-ended survey distributed between May and September 2018. The survey, composed of 52 questions and seven sections, was formally translated from English to Dutch and French and adapted from the original version. Adult, self-defined osteopaths working in Belgium were eligible. Recruitment of participants was performed through all professional associations and the InterMutualistic Agency. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. The survey was completed by 332 osteopaths. Thirty-one per cent of the respondents were female. Almost all the respondents were self-employed (99.4%); half of them worked as part of a team (47.6%). Most respondents had a 5-year part-time training, and the majority had a previous academic degree, mainly in physical therapy (65.8%). According to respondents, most patients seek care for lumbar non-specific low back, pelvis and neck pain. Most respondents strongly define themselves as osteopaths and advertise themselves exclusively as osteopaths. This survey provided an update of the current characteristics of Belgian osteopathic practitioners and added new information on their professional identity and views on the profession. The information provided could contribute to the body of evidence used by stakeholders and policymakers in the future regulation of the profession in Belgium.

Reciprocity in Low Back Pain Care and its Role in Power Dynamics: A Give-And-Take Approach.

The shift toward patient-centered care in physical therapy fostered a deeper consideration of power-sharing in clinical interactions. Elements of reciprocity may enhance such power considerations between physical therapist and patients, but there has been little investigation into how reciprocity is enacted in physical therapy, its value, and how to improve it if required. This study investigates forms of reciprocity during physical therapist-patient interactions in low back pain (LBP) care with the aim of enhancing patient-centered approaches. The qualitative design involved: (1) ethnographic observations at a fee-for-service practice in Australia, and (2) reflexive discussions between researchers and participating clinicians. To understand reciprocity, the analysis drew from the concepts of "accepting'"(or"blocking") "offers" that have been previously applied to physical therapy interactions. The analysis is a sub-study using a larger dataset and analyses in which we partnered with physical therapists and people living with LBP. Forty-nine observations and 13 reflexive discussions were undertaken with 42 people with LBP and 10 physical therapists. Analysis developed 3 themes suggesting that forms of reciprocity depended on physical therapists accepting or blocking patients' offers, inviting patients to make an offer, and offering personal stories. These elements of reciprocity are relevant to power sharing during interactions and may impact patient-centered care. Our results suggest that attending to forms of reciprocity can help physical therapists shift power in clinical interactions. By inviting and accepting "offers," physical therapists may build collaborative interactions, support patients to guide the treatment narrative, and shift away from biomedically centered management approaches. Such recommendations create reciprocal environments that might enhance patient-centered care.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively). 27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

Primary Investigation of Low Back Pain among Saudi Arabians: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent disease that affects all ages and is a symptom that induces immobility. Patients’ beliefs may influence LBP management, and adjusting detrimental beliefs is required to improve treatment outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence of LBP within the Saudi population and beliefs regarding LBP, physical activity, rest, imaging, and medication. People with LBP were targeted with a questionnaire containing sections on demographic information and the validated Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ), in addition to questions regarding imaging, physical activity, rest and medication. A total of 651 responses were received, 559 of them (86%) experienced LBP. The most common age group was those aged 18–21 (n = 221), 80% from females. The average BBQ score was 27.8 (SD = 5.58). The majority of the respondents held the following beliefs, which are contrary to the best available evidence: back pain must be rested (77.1%) and X-rays or scans are required to gain the best medical care for LBP (73.2%). The Saudi population holds unhelpful beliefs that may affect their quality of life. Healthcare professionals working with patients with LBP have an important role in changing detrimental beliefs and behaviors about the condition.

The ubiquity of uncertainty in low back pain care

Despite clinicians being important actors in the context of uncertainty, their experiences navigating uncertainty remain largely unexplored. Drawing on a theory-driven post-qualitative approach, we used Mol's logic of choice/care as a lens through which we made sense of interviews with 22 clinicians who work with patients who experience low back pain (LBP). Our analysis suggests that uncertainty is ubiquitous in LBP care and not limited to particular domains. Clinicians navigated uncertainty when considering patients' personal and social contexts; making therapeutic decisions; navigating emotions and mental health; communicating with, and educating, patients, among others. These uncertainties are intertwined with clinical aspects such as treatment choices and evidence-based education about LBP. At times, clinicians resolved these uncertainties by producing certainty at the cost of attending to human aspects of care. We argue that epistemic shifts, theorisation and practical engagement with theory in training, research and clinical practice may prompt clinicians to embrace uncertainty and enact the logic of care.

Moderators and Nonspecific Predictors of Treatment Benefits in a Randomized Trial of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy vs Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain

Both mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP), but little is known regarding who might benefit more from one than the other. Using data from a randomized trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with CLBP (N = 297), we examined baseline characteristics that moderated treatment effects or were associated with improvement regardless of treatment. Outcomes included 8-week function (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire), pain bothersomeness (0–10 numerical rating scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). There were differences in the effects of CBT versus MBSR on pain based on participant gender (P = .03) and baseline depressive symptoms (P = .01), but the only statistically significant moderator after Bonferroni correction was the nonjudging dimension of mindfulness. Scores on this measure moderated the effects of CBT versus MBSR on both function (P = .001) and pain (P = .04). Pain control beliefs (P <.001) and lower anxiety (P < .001) predicted improvement regardless of treatment. Replication of these findings is needed to guide treatment decision-making for CLBP. Trial RegistrationThe trial and analysis plan were preregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01467843). PerspectiveAlthough few potential moderators and nonspecific predictors of benefits from CBT or MBSR for CLBP were statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons, these findings suggest potentially fruitful directions for confirmatory research while providing reassurance that patients could reasonably expect to benefit from either treatment.

What’s the problem of low back pain represented to be? An analysis of discourse of the Australian context

Purpose Low back pain (LBP) directives provide information about how LBP should be managed, communicated and navigated in complex health systems, making them an important form of policy. This study aimed to examine how LBP is problematised (represented) in Australian directives. Materials and methods We employed an analysis of discourse of LBP directives drawing on Bacchi’s “What’s the problem represented to be?” policy problematisation approach. Results Our analysis suggests that LBP is problematised as a symptom that tends to improve when individuals take responsibility for themselves, but may require care at times. The way in which LBP is represented in the directives excludes important aspects, such as the uncertainties of scientific knowledge, paradigms other than (post)positivist, multimorbidity, social and structural determinants of health. Conclusion LBP directives may benefit from problematisations of LBP that consider the ongoing nature of LBP and broader contextual factors that impact on both LBP outcomes and care, beyond individual responsibility. Consideration of a wider range of paradigms and expanded evidence base may also be beneficial, as these are likely to enable individuals, clinicians and the Australian healthcare system to address LBP while dealing with its complexities, enabling real-world changes to lessen the LBP burden. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Healthcare professionals who work with people who experience low back pain (LBP) may benefit from critically reflecting about discourses embedded in policy directives. Healthcare professionals may consider engaging in policy changes processes to expand the discourses on which LBP policy directives rely. Healthcare professionals’ ability to enact policy recommendations may be enhanced by consideration of the fluctuating nature of LBP, uncertainties, multimorbidity and determinants of health.

The functional lumbar index: Validation of a novel clinical assessment tool for individuals with low back pain

Study designRetrospective Diagnostic Cohort Study. Level of evidenceLevel 3b. ObjectivesTo examine the concurrent and predictive validity of a novel clinical assessment tool, the Functional Lumbar Index (FLI). BackgroundLumbar surgeries have increased exponentially in the past decade, adding to healthcare costs without improving outcomes. Limitations in clinicians’ abilities to identify those individuals who are most likely to benefit from surgery may be enhanced with an effective physical assessment tool. MethodsThe FLI was assessed on 291 individuals (179 conservative and 113 pre-surgical) seeking care for low-back pain (LBP) over a 2.5-year period. The FLI consists of several physical performance tests (PPT) with a novel criterion-based scoring system. Pearson correlations and Poisson regression analysis were used to establish concurrent and predictive validity at alpha = 0.05. ResultsThe subscale FLI components showed good to excellent inter-rater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient values as follows: front plank = .993, right side plank = .824, left side plank .861, Sorensen = 0.836, overhead squat = 0.937. A statistically significant, moderate negative correlation was observed between FLI and modified Oswestry Disability Index (r = −0.540, p < .001). Regression analysis showed the FLI as the only significant predictor (p = .004) of failed conservative management for individuals with LBP. An ROC curve showed significant group prediction of the FLI with an AUC of 0.788 (p < .001) and cut-off score of 7.5. ConclusionThe FLI is a reliable and valid measure for predicting failed conservative care management in patients with LBP. Clinicians are encouraged to use the FLI as part of their physical assessment when screening individuals with LBP who might need surgical intervention. Further research is needed to determine validity of the FLI in other patient populations. Public trial registryN/A.

Patients’ self-reported medical care for low back pain: a nationwide population-based study

ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of medical care-seeking among adults with low back pain (LBP) and to characterise and compare use of diagnostic procedures and medical management between primary and secondary...

Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations (STarT MSK): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.

Risk-based stratified care shows clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness versus usual primary care for non-specific low back pain but is untested for other common musculoskeletal disorders. We aimed to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care risk stratification (using Keele's STarT MSK Tool and risk-matched treatments) versus usual care for the five most common musculoskeletal presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multi-site pain). In this cluster-randomised, controlled trial in UK primary care with embedded qualitative and health economic studies we recruited patients from 24 general practices in the West Midlands region of England. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older whose general practitioner (GP) confirmed a consultation for a musculoskeletal presentation. General practices that consented to participate via a representative of the cluster were randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention or usual care, using stratified block randomisation. Researchers involved in data collection, outcome data entry, and statistical analysis were masked at both the cluster and individual participant level. Participating patients were told the study was examining GP treatment of common aches and pains and were not aware they were in a randomised trial. GPs in practices allocated to the intervention group were supported to deliver risk-based stratified care using a bespoke computer-based template, including the risk-stratification tool, and risk-matched treatment options for patients at low, medium, or high risk of poor disability or pain outcomes. There were 15 risk-matched treatment options. In the usual care group, patients with musculoskeletal pain consulting their GP received treatment as usual, typically including advice and education, medication, referral for investigations or tests, or referral to other services. The primary outcome was time-averaged pain intensity over 6 months. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15366334. Between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 104 GPs from 24 practices (12 per study group) identified 2494 patients with musculoskeletal pain. 1211 (49%) participants consented to questionnaires (534 in the intervention group and 677 in the usual care group), with 1070 (88%) completing the follow-up questionnaire at 6 months. We found no significant difference in time-averaged pain intensity (mean(SD) mean 4·4 [SD 2·3] in the intervention group vs 4·6 [2·5] in the control group; adjusted mean difference -0·16, 95% CI -0·65 to 0·34) or in standardised function score (mean -0·06 [SD 0·94] in the intervention group vs 0·05 [1·04]; adjusted mean difference -0·07, 95% CI -0·22 to 0·08). No serious adverse events or adverse events were reported. Risk stratification received positive patient and clinician feedback. Risk stratification for patients in primary care with common musculoskeletal presentations did not lead to significant improvements in pain or function, although some aspects of GP decision making were affected, and GP and patients had positive experiences. The costs of risk-based stratified care were similar to usual care, and such a strategy only offers marginal changes in cost-effectiveness outcomes. The clinical implications from this trial are largely inconclusive. National Institute for Health Research.

Four Variables Were Sufficient for Low Back Pain: Determining Which Patient-Reported Tools Pain and Disability Improvements.

OBJECTIVE: To predict 30- and 180-day improvements in disability and pain for patients seeking physical therapy care for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort. METHODS: Baseline assessment was completed by 259 patients with chief complaint of LBP, and the assessment includes psychosocial measures (Keele STarT Back Screening [SBST] and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag [OSPRO-YF] tools), the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Review of Symptoms (OSPRO-ROS) and the Review of Symptoms Plus (OSPRO-ROS+) tools, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and the National Institute of Health Chronic Pain Criteria (NIH-CP). Using the Modified Low Back Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) as primary outcomes, statistical analysis determined multiple sets of predictor variables with similar model performance. RESULTS: The parsimonious "best model" for prediction of the 180-day MDQ change included 3 predictors (Admit MDQ, NIH-CP, and OSPRO ROS+) because it had the lowest penalized goodness-of-fit statistic (BIC = -35.21) and the highest explained variance (R2 = 0.295). The parsimonious "best model" for 180-day NPRS change included 2 variables (Admit NPRS and OSPRO-ROS+) with the lowest penalized goodness-of-fit statistic (BIC = -18.2) and the highest explained variance (R2 = 0.190). CONCLUSION: There were many model options with similar statistical performance when using established measures to predict MDQ and NPRS outcomes. A potential variable set for a standard predictive model that balances statistical performance with pragmatic considerations included the OSPRO-ROS+, OSPRO-YF, NIH-CP definition, and admit MDQ and NPRS scores. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(10):685-693. Epub: 12 August 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11018.

Developing a needs-based integrative service delivery model to deliver best practice care for chronic nonspecific low back pain

Evidence suggests an integrative, biopsychosocial approach to managing chronic nonspecific low back pain (CLBP) may help address the complex, unmet healthcare needs of people living with CLBP. Notwithstanding, the translation of this approach into primary care settings has been largely overlooked. This study aimed to develop, and reach consensus on, a needs-based integrative service delivery model to provide best practice care for people living with CLBP in a primary care context. The study comprised four stages: (a) translate practice guidelines into competencies; (b) map competencies onto healthcare occupations; (c) align competencies/occupations to an integrative health care framework; and (d) operationalise the framework by defining a high-level clinical pathway. A modified nominal group technique, comprising seven experts from different disciplinary backgrounds, reviewed and provided feedback on the outputs of each stage of the study. Facilitated discussions were undertaken to reach consensus on each output. Practice guidelines were translated into ten competencies, which were mapped to 25 distinct occupations. The competencies/occupations aligned with all 22 elements of the integrative healthcare framework, which were used to develop a high-level, four-stage clinical pathway. Following minor amendments, the nominal group reached consensus on all outputs of the study. This research used a novel design to develop a needs-based integrative service delivery model to facilitate the translation of an integrative, biopsychosocial approach for CLBP management into primary care. The next step of this research will be to test the acceptability and feasibility of the model in a primary care setting.

Comparison of attitudes and beliefs of physical therapists and primary care physicians regarding low back pain management: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The first-line contact for patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) can potentially change the disease course. The beliefs and attitudes of healthcare providers (HCPs) can influence LBP management. Although referring patients with LBP to physical therapy is common, the first-line contact for patients with LBP in Saudi Arabia is the primary care physician (PCP). Physical therapy will soon be integrated into primary care; therefore, it is rational to compare physical therapists’ (PTs) beliefs and attitudes regarding LBP with those of PCPs.OBJECTIVE: We compared PCPs’ and PTs’ attitudes and beliefs regarding LBP management.METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional, voluntary response sample research design using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS). Participants were PTs and PCPs practicing in Saudi Arabia.RESULTS:In total, 153 participants completed the PABS (111 PTs and 52 PCPs). PCPs demonstrated significantly higher PABS biomedical subscale scores than did the PTs.CONCLUSIONS: HCPs in Saudi Arabia should receive additional training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach to managing LBP. In this study, the HCPs’ treatment recommendations may not correspond with contemporary clinical guidelines. Research to facilitate the implementation of optimal professional education and training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach is an urgent priority.

Guideline-concordant utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in adults receiving chiropractic manipulative therapy vs other care for radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

BackgroundLumbar magnetic resonance imaging (LMRI) is often performed early in the course of care, which can be discordant with guidelines for non-serious low back pain. Our primary hypothesis was that adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for incident radicular low back pain (rLBP) would have reduced odds of early LMRI over 6-weeks’ follow-up compared to those receiving other care (a range of medical care, excluding CSMT). As a secondary hypothesis, CSMT recipients were also expected to have reduced odds of LMRI over 6-months’ and 1-years’ follow-up.MethodsA national 84-million-patient health records database including large academic healthcare organizations (TriNetX) was queried for adults age 20–70 with rLBP newly-diagnosed between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2022. Receipt or non-receipt of CSMT determined cohort allocation. Patients with prior lumbar imaging and serious pathology within 90 days of diagnosis were excluded. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with LMRI utilization (e.g., demographics). Odds ratios (ORs) of LMRI over 6-weeks’, 6-months’, and 1-years’ follow-up after rLBP diagnosis were calculated.ResultsAfter matching, there were 12,353 patients per cohort (mean age 50 years, 56% female), with a small but statistically significant reduction in odds of early LMRI in the CSMT compared to other care cohort over 6-weeks’ follow-up (9%, 10%, OR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.81–0.96] P = 0.0046). There was a small but statistically significant increase in odds of LMRI among patients in the CSMT relative to the other care cohort over 6-months’ (12%, 11%, OR [95% CI] 1.10 [1.02–1.19], P < 0.0174) and 1-years’ follow-up (14%, 12%, OR [95% CI] 1.21 [1.13–1.31], P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThese results suggest that patients receiving CSMT for newly-diagnosed rLBP are less likely to receive early LMRI than patients receiving other care. However, CSMT recipients have a small increase in odds of LMRI over the long-term. Both cohorts in this study had a relatively low rate of early LMRI, possibly because the data were derived from academic healthcare organizations. The relationship of these findings to other patient care outcomes and cost should be explored in a future randomized controlled trial.RegistrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/t9myp). Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05462-y.

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP). Head-to-head clinimetric comparison. Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up. Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):457-469. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10802.

Delivering Value Through Equitable Care for Low Back Pain: A Renewed Call to Action.

Equitable care for low back pain (LBP) is key to ensuring the value and sustainability of services delivered by physical therapists. In this Viewpoint, we discuss how social determinants of health, implicit provider biases, structural characteristics of the health care system, and health care policies contribute to disparate care for many individuals with LBP. We aim to increase awareness of equity as a key component of value in physical therapy and highlight steps physical therapists can take to improve equitable LBP care. This "call to action" underscores the need to study, demonstrate, and advance equitable care for LBP by physical therapists to improve outcomes for patients and ensure the growth and sustainability of the physical therapy profession. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):414-418. Epub: 17 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10815.

Artificial Intelligence and Computer Aided Diagnosis in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Low Back Pain (LBP) is currently the first cause of disability in the world, with a significant socioeconomic burden. Diagnosis and treatment of LBP often involve a multidisciplinary, individualized approach consisting of several outcome measures and imaging data along with emerging technologies. The increased amount of data generated in this process has led to the development of methods related to artificial intelligence (AI), and to computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) in particular, which aim to assist and improve the diagnosis and treatment of LBP. In this manuscript, we have systematically reviewed the available literature on the use of CAD in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic LBP. A systematic research of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases was performed. The search strategy was set as the combinations of the following keywords: “Artificial Intelligence”, “Machine Learning”, “Deep Learning”, “Neural Network”, “Computer Aided Diagnosis”, “Low Back Pain”, “Lumbar”, “Intervertebral Disc Degeneration”, “Spine Surgery”, etc. The search returned a total of 1536 articles. After duplication removal and evaluation of the abstracts, 1386 were excluded, whereas 93 papers were excluded after full-text examination, taking the number of eligible articles to 57. The main applications of CAD in LBP included classification and regression. Classification is used to identify or categorize a disease, whereas regression is used to produce a numerical output as a quantitative evaluation of some measure. The best performing systems were developed to diagnose degenerative changes of the spine from imaging data, with average accuracy rates >80%. However, notable outcomes were also reported for CAD tools executing different tasks including analysis of clinical, biomechanical, electrophysiological, and functional imaging data. Further studies are needed to better define the role of CAD in LBP care.