Development of normalized quantitative measures of lumbar disc degeneration.

Background: Lumbar disc degeneration (DD) is widely regarded as a likely contributor to low back pain (LBP), but the association between DD and LBP is relatively weak. No known studies have normalized quantitative measures of DD severity relative to multiple variables such as age, height, and disc level. This study developed normalized quantitative measures (z-scores) of disc signal intensity (DSI) and disc height (DH) to rate relative severity of DD. Methods: Raw (unnormalized) quantitative measures of DSI and DH alongside potential normalization variables were acquired from MRI scans and clinical data of 76 patients. The associations between the raw quantitative measures and potential normalization variables were investigated to develop the normalized quantitative measures (z-scores) of DSI and DH. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the normalized measures to an experienced radiologist's subjective measures of relative severity of DSI and DH loss. Results: CSF signal intensity, age, and disc level were significantly associated with raw DSI (R 2 = 0.06, 0.25, and 0.09, respectively). Lumbar height and disc level were significantly associated with raw DH (R 2 = 0.13 and 0.31). Normalizing DSI and DH by these variables resulted in stronger relationships (R 2 = 0.39 and 0.37) than raw DSI and DH (R 2 = 0.24 and 0.31) with the radiologist's subjective measures. Normalized DSI and DH were both normally distributed (p = 0.32 and 0.12). Conclusions: Construct validity and the distributions suggested that normalized quantitative measures of DSI and DH are better than existing measures of DSI and DH at rating relative DD severity. Determining whether normalized quantitative measures are more predictive of clinical outcomes is important future research.

Predicting pain recovery in patients with acute low back pain: a study protocol for a broad validation of a prognosis prediction model.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of acute low back pain (LBP) is generally favourable; however, there is significant variability in the prognosis of these patients. A clinical prediction model to predict the likelihood of pain recovery at three time points for patients with acute LBP has recently been developed. The aim of this study is to conduct a broad validation test of this clinical prediction model, by testing its performance in a new sample of patients and a different setting. METHODS: The validation study with a prospective cohort design will recruit 420 patients with recent onset non-specific acute LBP, with moderate pain intensity, seeking care in the emergency departments of hospitals in São Paulo, Brazil. The primary outcome measure will be days to recovery from pain. The predicted probability of pain recovery for each individual will be computed based on predictions of the development model and this will be used to test the performance (calibration and discrimination) in the validation dataset. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will better inform about the performance of the clinical prediction model, helping both clinicians and patients. If the model's performance is acceptable, then future research should evaluate the impact of the prediction model, assessing whether it produces a change in clinicians' behaviour and/or an improvement in patient outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics were granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, #20310419.4.0000.0064. Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Examination of a Subgroup of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Likely to Benefit More From Pilates-Based Exercises Compared to an Educational Booklet.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether 2 previously published classification approaches, the updated treatment-based classification system and a Pilates subgroup defined by a preliminary clinical prediction rule, could identify patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from Pilates exercises compared to an educational booklet. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-two patients received advice and were randomly allocated to a group that received an educational booklet with no additional treatment (n = 74) or a group that received Pilates-based exercise treatment (n = 148) 2 or 3 times a week. At baseline, using a treatment-based classification system, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive movement control) or a poor prognosis. Similarly, using the Pilates clinical prediction rule, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive) or a poor prognosis (negative). The analysis was conducted using linear regression models to analyze the interaction between subgroup characteristics and treatment effect size, with changes in pain and disability from baseline to 6 weeks after randomization as dependent variables. RESULTS: None of the interaction terms for pain and disability were statistically significant. The treatment effect of Pilates versus an educational booklet was similar in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The treatment-based classification system and the Pilates clinical prediction rule did not differentiate subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain who were more or less likely to benefit more from Pilates compared to an educational booklet. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(4):189-197. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8839.

Effects of kinesiotaping on foot posture in participants with pronated foot: a quasi-randomised, double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether kinesiotaping improves excessive foot pronation compared with sham kinesiotaping. DESIGN: Quasi-randomised, double-blind study. SETTING: One primary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty participants were screened for inclusion. Sixty-eight participants with pronated feet [Foot Posture Index (FPI)≥ 6] were enrolled, and the follow-up rate was 100%. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated into one of two groups: an experimental kinesiotaping group (KT1) and a sham taping group (KT2). Measures were collected by a blinded assessor at baseline, and 1 minute, 10 minutes, 60 minutes and 24 hours after taping. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total FPI score, and the secondary outcome was rear-foot FPI score. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in total FPI score between kinesiotaping and sham taping at any time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences in rear-foot FPI score, apart from at 60-minute follow-up when the difference between groups was significant (P=0.04) but the effect size was very small (0.85 points on the rear-foot FPI score between -6 and +6). CONCLUSIONS: Kinesiotaping does not correct foot pronation compared with sham kinesiotaping in people with pronated feet.