Recurrence of an Episode of Low Back Pain: An Inception Cohort Study in Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine the 1-year estimate of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in a cohort of people presenting to emergency departments who have recently recovered from an episode of acute LBP in a middle-income country, (2) estimate a recurrence of LBP stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST), and (3) determine prognostic factors for the recurrence of LBP. DESIGN: Prospective inception cohort study. METHODS: We included 238 patients who presented to emergency departments with recent-onset nonspecific LBP in São Paulo, Brazil. The outcome was the recurrence of an episode of LBP, assessed using 2 definitions: (1) 12-month recall alone and (2) pain measurements at follow-up. Prognostic factors were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: Within 1 year, the estimated recurrence of an episode of LBP ranged from 35% (79/225 events) (first definition) to 44% (100/226 events) (second definition). When patients were stratified by the SBST, the estimate of recurrence ranged from 29% to 37% (21-27/73 events) for low-risk patients, from 33% to 39% (24-28/72 events) for medium-risk patients, and from 43% to 56% (34-45/80 events) for high-risk patients. Age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and disability were independent prognostic factors associated with LBP recurrence within 1 year. CONCLUSION: After recovering from a previous episode of acute LBP, 4 in every 10 patients experienced a recurrence within 1 year. This estimate varied depending on the classification used in the SBST. Within 1 year, age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and baseline disability were predictors of recurrence. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):484-492. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10775.

Management of acute low back pain in emergency departments in São Paulo, Brazil: a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe management strategies used in public emergency departments in a middle-income country for patients with acute non-specific low back pain. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A study with 600 patients with low back pain presenting in four public emergency departments from São Paulo, Brazil was conducted. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic tests, pharmacological interventions, and/or referral to other healthcare professionals were collected. Descriptive analyses were used to report all outcomes. RESULTS: Of all patients, 12.5% (n=75) underwent some diagnostic imaging tests. Medication was administered to 94.7% (n=568) of patients. The most common medications were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (71.3%; n=428), opioids (29%; n=174) and corticosteroids (22.5%; n=135). Only 7.5% (n=45) of patients were referred to another type of care. CONCLUSION: There is a need for research data on low back pain from middle-income countries. There was an acceptable rate of prescription for diagnostic imaging tests. However, there were high medication prescriptions and small rates of referrals to other healthcare services. Our findings indicate that there is still a need to implement best practices in the management of acute low back pain at public emergency departments in Brazil.

Profile of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Who Sought Emergency Departments: A Cross-sectional Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the profile of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) who sought emergency departments (EDs) in Brazilian public hospitals. We also described the profile of these patients according to the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP is the most common musculoskeletal condition worldwide and is one of the main complaints in EDs. There is a lack of evidence describing the profile of these patients from low- to middle-income countries. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study involving patients with a new episode of nonspecific acute LBP that was conducted between August 2014 and August 2016. Variables related to clinical, psychological, sociodemographic and work status characteristics were investigated through structured, in-person oral questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients were women (58%), with a median of eight points on pain intensity (measured on an 11-point scale) and 17 points on disability (measured on a 24-item questionnaire). With regards to the SBST evaluation, 295 (49.2%) patients were classified as being at high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis with a median pain intensity of nine points on pain intensity, 20 points on disability, and seven points on depression (measured on an 11-point scale). Despite this, the majority of the patients (74%) continued working normally without interference from LBP. CONCLUSION: Identifying the profile of patients seeking care in EDs can help to define effective management for LBP in low- and middle-income countries. Patients with nonspecific acute LBP who seek EDs in Brazil present high levels of pain intensity and disability. Most patients were classified as having a high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

A Responsiveness Analysis of the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool (SBST) screens patients with low back pain and directs them to different levels of physical therapy treatment. The SBST is also used to monitor changes in a range of modifiable prognostic factors. However, the current evidence on the responsiveness of the SBST is limited. OBJECTIVES: To test the responsiveness of the SBST at 6 weeks and 6 months. METHODS: This measurement property study is a secondary analysis of data from 2 previous studies that included 348 participants with nonspecific low back pain. All participants were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. To detect clinical changes, the SBST was compared to 3 one-dimensional constructs: global perceived effect, disability, and pain intensity. To assess responsiveness, we tested 15 specific predefined hypotheses based on correlation, effect size, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. If 75% or more of the hypotheses were accepted, then responsiveness was considered to be high. RESULTS: Most of the hypotheses were accepted. Testing the SBST as a continuous score, 85.7% and 87.5% of the hypotheses were accepted at 6 weeks and 6 months, respectively. For medium- and high-risk subgroups, 85.7% and 87.5% of the hypotheses were accepted at 6 weeks and 6 months. The low-risk subgroup had 42.9% of the hypotheses accepted at 6 weeks and 100% of the hypotheses accepted at 6 months. CONCLUSION: The SBST had high responsiveness at 6 weeks in subgroups of patients with a medium and high risk, and poor responsiveness in those with a low risk, of persistent disability. The SBST has high responsiveness in all SBST subgroups at 6 months. Clinicians can confidently use the SBST to measure changes over time in terms of subgroups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Longitudinal clinical measurement, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):725-735. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8776.

Clinimetric Properties of the Brief Fatigue Inventory Applied to Oncological Patients Hospitalized for Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The clinimetric properties of the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were not previously assessed in oncological patients hospitalized for chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of the construct, ceiling and floor effects, and responsiveness of the BFI administered to oncological patients hospitalized for chemotherapy. METHODS: This test-retest study included 100 oncological patients hospitalized for chemotherapy. The clinimetric properties tested were as follows: internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC2,1] and 95% CI), agreement (standard error of measurement and minimum difference changed [MDC90%]), validity of the construct (Pearson's correlation [r] with the Piper Fatigue Scale), responsiveness (effect size [ES] and correlation), and ceiling and floor effects (minimum and maximum score frequencies). The BFI was applied on the first day of chemotherapy and 48 hours and 15 days after the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The BFI presented adequate values of internal consistency (α Cronbach = 0.94), substantial reliability [ICC2,1 (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.81 to 0.91)] and very good agreement (standard error of measurement = 1% and MDC90% = -0.37). The BFI had a positive and strong correlation with the Piper Fatigue Scale (r = 0.84; P < 0.001). Internal responsiveness was considered moderate (ES = 0.5), and external responsiveness was absent. A floor effect was present (35%). CONCLUSION: BFI applied to oncological patients hospitalized for chemotherapy replicates its original version with adequate reliability, validity, and internal responsiveness. However, in this population, the BFI showed a floor effect.

Can demographic and anthropometric characteristics predict clinical improvement in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain?

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential prognostic factors that may predict clinical improvement of patients treated with different physical therapy interventions in the short-term. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. A total of 616 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain treated with interventions commonly used by physical therapists were included. These patients were selected from five randomized controlled trials. Multivariate linear regression models were used to verify if sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and marital status), anthropometric variables (height, body mass, and body mass index), or duration of low back pain, pain intensity at baseline, and disability at baseline could be associated with clinical outcomes of pain intensity and disability four weeks after baseline. RESULTS: The predictive variables for pain intensity were age (ß=0.01 points, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.03, p=0.03) and pain intensity at baseline (ß=0.23 points, 95% CI=0.13 to 0.33, p=0.00), with an explained variability of 4.6%. Similarly, the predictive variables for disability after four weeks were age (ß=0.03 points, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.06, p=0.01) and disability at baseline (ß=0.71 points, 95% CI=0.65 to 0.78, p=0.00), with an explained variability of 42.1%. CONCLUSION: Only age, pain at baseline and disability at baseline influenced the pain intensity and disability after four weeks of treatment. The beta coefficient for age was statistically significant, but the magnitude of this association was very small and not clinically important.

The use of STarT BACK Screening Tool in emergency departments for patients with acute low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: (1) To analyse the clinical utility of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) in emergency departments by describing changes in classification over time and; (2) to identify what would be the best time to use the SBST to predict long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) seeking emergency care. METHODS: A 6 months prospective inception cohort study was conducted. 200 participants with LBP seeking emergency medical treatment were included. Pain intensity, disability and SBST were collected at baseline, 6 and 26 weeks. Categories of improvement, clinical worsening, and stability were created to calculate the changes in the SBST subgroups. Linear regression models were built to analyse the predictive ability of SBST when applied at baseline, 6 weeks as well as changes in the subgroup from baseline to 6 weeks. These models were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: 45% of patients were classified as high risk of chronicity at baseline. Most patients classified as medium (86.7%) or high (52.4%) risk changed their risk subgroup after 6 weeks and most of them improved. The SBST improved the prediction for all outcomes when applied at 6 weeks (R2 = 22.1% for disability and R2 = 15.6% for pain intensity), but not at baseline. CONCLUSION: Most of patients seeking care in emergency departments with a new episode of acute LBP improved after 6 weeks. The use of SBST to guide initial treatment and to predict clinical outcomes are most indicated when the instrument is applied after 6 weeks after presentation to emergency care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

Evaluation of cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the procedures of translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires. METHODS: Searches were conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SciELO using the keywords: "Questionnaires," "Quality of life," and "Breast cancer." The studies were analyzed in terms of methodological quality according to the guidelines for the procedure of cross-cultural adaptation and the quality criteria for measurement properties of questionnaires. RESULTS: We found 24 eligible studies. Most of the articles assessed the translation and measurement properties of the instrument EORTC QLQ-BR23. Description about translation and cross-cultural adaptation was incomplete in 11 studies. Translation and back translation were the most tested phases, and synthesis of the translation was the most omitted phase in the articles. Information on assessing measurement properties was provided incompletely in 23 articles. Internal consistency was the most tested property in all of the eligible articles, but none of them provided information on agreement. Construct validity was adequately tested in only three studies that used the FACT-B and QLQ-BR23. Eight articles provided information on reliability; however, only four found positive classification. Responsiveness was tested in four articles, and ceiling and floor effects were tested in only three articles. None of the instruments showed fully adequate quality. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence on cross-cultural adaptations and measurement properties; therefore, it is recommended that caution be exercised when using breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires that have been translated, adapted, and tested.