The association between physical intervention use and treatment outcomes in patients participating in an online and psychologically informed pain management program.

BACKGROUND: The availability of multidisciplinary care for the management of chronic pain is uncommon outside specialist clinics. The current study aims to determine the physical intervention use of patients participating in an online psychological pain management program and whether exposure to physical interventions in these patients alters treatment outcomes compared to patients who do not access physical interventions. METHODS: Data were obtained from two previously published randomised control trials of an online psychological pain management program. Physical intervention exposure (category: None, 1-3, 4+ sessions) was assessed at baseline, post-treatment and at 3-month follow-up. Primary outcomes included depression, anxiety, pain intensity and pain-related disability. Generalised estimating equation models were used to compare treatment outcomes between those with different physical intervention frequencies and period of exposure. We assessed whether changes in primary outcomes differed (moderated) depending on the period and category of physical intervention exposure. RESULTS: N = 1,074 patients completed the baseline questionnaire across both RCTs, of whom 470 (44%) reported physical intervention use at baseline, 383 (38%) at post-treatment and 363 (42%) at 3-month follow-up. On average, there were moderate-large reductions from baseline to post-treatment with respect to all outcomes (Cohen's d = 0.36-0.82). In all outcomes, the interaction of time by physical intervention exposure was statistically non-significant. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients who participated in a psychologically informed pain management program were establishing, continuing, or stopping additional physical interventions. The frequency and period of exposure to physical interventions did not appear moderate treatment outcomes.

DiTA: helping you search for evidence of diagnostic test accuracy in physical therapy.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapists use diagnostic tests in a variety of settings. Choosing the best diagnostic test to apply in a particular situation can be difficult. The choice of diagnostic test should be informed, at least in part, by evidence of test accuracy. Finding evidence of diagnostic test accuracy has, until recently, been challenging. Ideally, there would exist a database that comprehensively indexes evidence on diagnostic tests relevant to physical therapy practice, is free to access, and is easy to use. OBJECTIVE: This Masterclass will describe the DiTA (Diagnostic Test Accuracy) database (dita.org.au) including its development and search interface, and provide advice on how to search and retrieve records. DISCUSSION: DiTA indexes more than 2400 primary studies and systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy relevant to physical therapy practice. Users can search DiTA using text fields and dropdown lists to find evidence of diagnostic test accuracy. The database is freely accessible on the internet. Since its launch, DiTA has been accessed from almost every country in the world, the largest number of searches having been conducted from Brazil.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of low back pain is common and a substantial contributor to the disease and economic burden of low back pain. Exercise is recommended to prevent recurrence, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an accessible and low-cost intervention, such as walking, is yet to be established. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised controlled trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112). FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149-295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89-140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Evaluating the STarTBack stratified treatment approach for low back pain: exploring study-level factors potentially explaining differences in results of studies - a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results. DESIGN: A literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. OUTCOME MEASURES: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). METHODS: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. RESULTS: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Swimming for low back pain: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend exercise for treatment of chronic low back pain and prevention, but the amount and quality of evidence for different exercise modes is highly variable. Swimming is commonly recommended by health professionals, but the extent and quality of research supporting its relationship with back pain is not clear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to map the extent, characteristics and findings of research investigating the relationship between swimming and low back pain. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHOD: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORT Discus) were searched from inception to February 2023. We included primary studies and reviews that reported an association between swimming and low back pain. Hydrotherapy studies were excluded. RESULTS: 3093 articles were identified, and 44 studies included. Only one randomised controlled trial and one longitudinal cohort study were included. Most studies were cross-sectional (37/44; 84.1%), included competitive athletes (23/39; 59.0%), and did not primarily focus on the association between swimming and low back pain in the aims (41/44; 93.2%). Instead, most data available were largely incidentally collected or a secondary outcome. The reported associations between swimming and low back pain were highly variable regardless of whether the comparison was to other sports (odds ratio: 0.17 to 17.92) or no sport (odds ratio: 0.54 to 3.01). CONCLUSION: Most available literature investigating swimming and low back pain is cross-sectional in design. We did not identify any clear pattern of association between swimming and low back pain, based on the available literature.

Adverse childhood experience is associated with an increased risk of reporting chronic pain in adulthood: a stystematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been shown to negatively affect health in adulthood. Estimates of associations between ACEs and chronic painful conditions are lacking.Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate associations between exposure to ACEs and chronic pain and pain-related disability in adults.Methods: We searched 10 electronic databases from inception to February 2023. We included observational studies assessing associations between direct ACEs (childhood sexual, physical, emotional abuse, or neglect) alone or in combination with indirect ACEs (witnessing domestic violence, household mental illness), and adult chronic pain (≥3 months duration) and pain-related disability (daily activities limited by chronic pain). Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias. Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled adjusted odds ratios [aOR]. Tau square [T2], 95% prediction intervals [95%PI] and I2 expressed the amount of heterogeneity, and meta-regressions and subgroup meta-analyses investigated sources of heterogeneity (PROSPERO: CRD42020150230).Results: We identified 85 studies including 826,452 adults of which 57 studies were included in meta-analyses. Study quality was generally good or fair (n = 70). The odds of reporting chronic pain in adulthood were significantly higher among individuals exposed to a direct ACE (aOR, 1.45, 95%CI, 1.38-1.53). Individuals reporting childhood physical abuse were significantly more likely to report both chronic pain (aOR, 1.50, 95CI, 1.39-1.64) and pain-related disability (1.46, 95CI, 1.03-2.08) during adulthood. Exposure to any ACEs alone or combined with indirect ACEs significantly increase the odds of adult chronic painful conditions (aOR, 1.53, 95%CI, 1.42-1.65) and pain-related disability (aOR, 1.29; 95%CI, 1.01-1.66). The risk of chronic pain in adulthood significantly increased from one ACE (aOR, 1.29, 95%CI, 1.22-1.37) to four or more ACEs (1.95, 95%CI, 1.73-2.19).Conclusions: Single and cumulative ACEs are significantly associated with reporting of chronic pain and pain-related disability as an adult.

Previous meta-analyses highlighted the negative impact of adverse childhood experiences on physical, psychological, and behavioural health across the lifespan.We found exposure to any direct adverse childhood experience, i.e. childhood sexual, physical, emotional abuse, or neglect alone or combined, increased the risk of reporting chronic pain and pain-related disability in adulthood.The risk of reporting chronic painful disorders increased with increasing numbers of adverse childhood experiences.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

What Factors Do Clinicians, Coaches, and Athletes Perceive Are Associated With Recovery From Low Back Pain in Elite Athletes? A Concept Mapping Study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify factors that elite sport clinicians, coaches, and athletes perceive are associated with low back pain (LBP) recovery. DESIGN: Concept mapping methodology. METHOD: Participants brainstormed, sorted (thematically), and rated (5-point Likert scales: importance and feasibility) statements in response to the prompt, "What factors are associated with the recovery of an elite athlete from low back pain?" Data cleaning, analysis (multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics), and visual representation (cluster map and Go-Zone graph) were conducted following concept mapping guidelines. RESULTS: Participants (brainstorming, n = 56; sorting, n = 34; and rating, n = 33) comprised 75% clinicians, 15% coaches, and 10% athletes and represented 13 countries and 17 sports. Eighty-two unique and relevant statements were brainstormed. Sorting resulted in 6 LBP recovery-related themes: (1) coach and clinician relationships, (2) inter-disciplinary team factors, (3) athlete psychological factors, (4) athlete rehabilitation journey, (5) athlete non-modifiable risk factors, and (6) athlete physical factors. Participants rated important recovery factors as follows: athlete empowerment and psychology, coach-athlete and athlete-clinician relationships, care team communication, return-to-sport planning, and identifying red flags. CONCLUSION: Factors perceived as important to LBP recovery in elite athletes align with the biopsychosocial model of community LBP management. Clinicians should consider that an athlete's psychology, relationships, care team communication, and rehabilitation plan may be as important to their LBP recovery as the formulation of a diagnosis or the medications or exercises prescribed. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11982.

Single-group studies in leading physical therapy journals commonly make inappropriate conclusions regarding treatment effect modifiers. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics that identify patients who respond differently to certain interventions are called treatment effect modifiers. Some studies inappropriately report the presence of treatment effect modifiers without adequate study designs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate what proportion of single-group studies published in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers, and to assess whether the proportion varies over time or between journals. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of studies published in eight leading physical therapy journals since 2000. Eligible studies were single-group studies (e.g., cohort study or secondary analysis of treatment arm of randomised controlled trial) that investigated any condition, treatment or outcome. Studies that suggested participants with certain baseline characteristics responded better/or worse to the treatment, were considered to have reported inappropriately. Studies reporting that participants with certain baseline characteristics had improved outcomes but did not state it was due to the treatment were considered to have reported appropriately. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was compared over time and between journals. RESULTS: Of the 145 included studies, 73 (50.3%) were categorised as inappropriately reporting treatment effect modifiers. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was highest in the most recent period, 2018 - 2022 (59.6%) and 2006 - 2011 (55.6%). The proportion of inappropriate reporting varied substantially between journals from 0% (Journal of Physiotherapy) to 91.7% (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion (50.3%) of single-arm studies in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers. This inappropriate reporting risks misleading clinicians when selecting interventions for individual patients.

Physiotherapists should apply health coaching techniques and incorporate accountability to foster adherence to a walking program for low back pain: a qualitative study.

QUESTIONS: What motivates individuals to start a walking program for the prevention of low back pain? What strategies optimise short-term and long-term adherence to a walking program? What strategies can physiotherapists incorporate into clinical practice to facilitate commencement of and adherence to a walking program? DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two adults recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain who participated in a 6-month, progressive and individualised walking program that was prescribed by a physiotherapist trained in health coaching. METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups conducted online following completion of the walking program. Interview questions explored: primary motivations for starting a walking program, identification of which elements were useful in optimising adherence to the program, and identification of the barriers to and facilitators of engagement with the program. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. Theme one identified that strong motivators to start a walking program were anticipated improvements in low back pain management and the added general health benefits of a more active lifestyle. Theme two identified that fear of high-impact exercises led to avoidance; however, walking was considered a safe exercise option. Theme three identified accountability, enjoyment of exercise and health benefits were critical to adherence. CONCLUSION: Participants recently recovered from low back pain reflected positively on a physiotherapist-prescribed walking program. Participants described what elements of the program were crucial to starting exercise and optimising adherence. These findings have informed a list of practical recommendations for physiotherapists to improve patient commencement and adherence to exercise.

Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer.

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.

Low back pain of disc, sacroiliac joint, or facet joint origin: a diagnostic accuracy systematic review.

Background: The accuracy of diagnostic tests available in primary care to identify the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint as the source of low back pain is uncertain. Methods: Systematic review of diagnostic tests available in primary care. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched between March 2006 and 25th January 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Pooling was performed for homogenous studies. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) ≥2 and negative likelihood ratios (-LR) ≤0.5 were considered informative. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020169828). Findings: We included 62 studies: 35 investigated the disc, 14 the facet joint, 11 the sacroiliac joint, and 2 investigated all three structures in patients with persistent low back pain. For risk of bias, the domain 'reference standard' scored worst, however approximately half the studies were of low risk of bias for every other domain. For the disc, pooling demonstrated MRI findings of disc degeneration and annular fissure resulted in informative +LRs: 2.53 (95% CI: 1.57-4.07) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.02-4.10) and -LRs: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.24) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.10-0.55) respectively. Pooled results for Modic type 1, Modic type 2, and HIZ on MRI, and centralisation phenomenon yielded informative +LRs: 10.00 (95% CI: 4.20-23.82), 8.03 (95% CI: 3.23-19.97), 3.10 (95% CI: 2.27-4.25), and 3.06 (95% CI: 1.44-6.50) respectively, but uninformative -LRs: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96), 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.77), and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.84) respectively. For the facet joint, pooling demonstrated facet joint uptake on SPECT resulted in informative +LRs: 2.80 (95% CI: 1.82-4.31) and -LRs: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25-0.77). For the sacroiliac joint, a combination of pain provocation tests and absence of midline low back pain resulted in informative +LRs of 2.41 (95% CI: 1.89-3.07) and 2.44 (95% CI: 1.50-3.98) and -LRs of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12-1.01) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21-0.47) respectively. Radionuclide imaging yielded an informative +LR 7.33 (95% CI: 1.42-37.80) but an uninformative -LR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.41-1.34). Interpretation: There are informative diagnostic tests for the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint (only one test). The evidence suggests a diagnosis may be possible for some patients with low back pain, potentially guiding targeted and specific treatment approaches. Funding: There was no funding for this study.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive, individualised walking and education program for prevention of low back pain recurrence in adults: statistical analysis plan for the WalkBack randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise for the prevention of low back pain recurrences is recommended, but under-researched. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking program for preventing low back pain recurrence remains unknown. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the WalkBack trial. METHODS: WalkBack is a prospectively registered, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month progressive and individualised walking and education program (intervention) for the prevention of low back pain recurrences, compared to a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome is days to the first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting low back pain. Key secondary outcomes include days to any recurrence of low back pain, days to a care-seeking recurrence of low back pain, disability level, health-related quality of life, costs associated with low back pain and adverse events. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 12 months. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Cox regression is planned to assess the effects for the outcomes of time to activity-limiting, minimal and care-seeking recurrence. Hazard ratios and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. The effect of the intervention on continuous outcomes will be estimated with repeated-measure linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal perspective for recurrence prevented (yes/no) and quality-adjusted life years. The proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using Fisher's exact test. DISCUSSION: The WalkBack trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking intervention to prevent low back pain recurrences. This statistical analysis plan provides transparency on the analysis of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: WalkBack - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive individualised walking and education program for the prevention of a recurrence of low back pain. ACTRN12619001134112 . Date Registered: 14/08/2019.

Some magnetic resonance imaging findings may predict future low back pain and disability: a systematic review.

QUESTIONS: Do magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings predict future low back pain (LBP), associated disability and global recovery in people with current LBP? Do MRI findings predict these outcomes in people with no current LBP? Do MRI findings predict these outcomes in a mixed sample of people with and without current LBP? DESIGN: This review is an update of a previous systematic review investigating the relationship between lumbar spine MRI findings and future LBP. PARTICIPANTS: People with or without LBP with lumbar MRI scans. OUTCOME MEASURES: MRI findings, pain and disability. RESULTS: Of the included studies, 28 reported on participants with current LBP, eight reported on participants with no LBP and four reported on a mixed sample. Most results were based on single studies and did not demonstrate clear relationships between MRI findings and future LBP. In populations with current LBP, pooling demonstrated that the presence of Modic type 1 changes alone or Modic type 1 and 2 changes were associated with slightly worse pain or disability outcomes in the short term, and the presence of disc degeneration was associated with worse pain and disability outcomes in the long term. In populations with current LBP, pooling demonstrated no evidence of an association between the presence of nerve root compression and disability outcomes in the short term, and no evidence of an association between the presence of disc height reduction, disc herniation, spinal stenosis, high-intensity zone and clinical outcomes in the long term. In populations with no LBP, pooling demonstrated that the presence of disc degeneration may increase the likelihood of experiencing pain in the long term. In mixed populations, no pooling was possible; however, single studies demonstrated that Modic type 1, 2 or 3 changes and disc herniation were each associated with worse pain in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that some MRI findings may have weak associations with future LBP; however, larger high-quality studies are needed to resolve uncertainty. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021252919.

Prognosis of a new episode of low-back pain in a community inception cohort.

BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) enrol people presenting for care, rather than all people who have an episode of LBP. We aimed to describe the prognosis of an acute episode of LBP in a community inception cohort. METHODS: We used data from two previous studies investigating recurrence of LBP. Participants without current LBP were contacted monthly to assess if they had experienced a new episode of LBP. 366 participants reporting a new episode of LBP were included in the current study. The primary outcome was duration of the new episode of LBP. Secondary outcomes were average and worst pain during the episode and the proportion of participants seeking care. RESULTS: The median duration of the episode was 5 days (95% CI 3.99 to 6.02). The cumulative probability of recovery was 70.0% (95% CI 65.3 to 74.7) before 1 week, 86.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 89.6) before 3 weeks, 90.9% (95% CI 88.0 to 93.8) before 6 weeks, and 93.5% (95% CI 90.8 to 96.0) before 12 weeks. The mean average pain intensity was 3.7 (SD ± 1.5), and the mean worst pain intensity was 5.6 (SD ± 1.9). The proportion of patients who sought care was 39.5% (95% CI 33.9 to 46.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study found most episodes of LBP recover rapidly and more quickly than typically reported for clinical populations. The worst pain during the episode was typically moderate despite the rapid recovery for most people. Approximately 40% of the participants who experienced an episode of LBP sought care. SIGNIFICANCE: This study describes the prognosis of an acute episode of LBP in a community inception cohort. This study found the majority of episodes of LBP, in community-dwelling adults, recover rapidly (median of 5 days) and more quickly than typically reported for clinical populations. The community should be reassured about the favourable prognosis of acute LBP.

Feasibility of testing the effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to reduce imaging for low back pain: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 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.

Physiotherapists have some hesitations and unmet needs regarding delivery of exercise programs for low back pain prevention in adults: A qualitative interview study.

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.