A novel physical functioning test to complement subjective questionnaires in chronic low back pain assessments.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lifting disability commonly affects patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and may not correlate with the existing lifting-related physical assessment tests, such as the loaded forward reach (LFR) test. PURPOSE: The Lift and Place (LAP) test was developed to assess lifting disability in CLBP based on known risk factors. The LAP test was compared with established physical assessment test, including the LFR test and self-reported disability questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This cross-sectional study measured self-reported disability questionnaires along with LAP and other physical assessment test results PATIENT SAMPLE: Eighty three CLBP and 82 asymptomatic participants aged 18 to 55 with normal BMI according to WHO classification. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Trunk Extensor Endurance test, 5 Repetition Sit-To-Stand test, LAP and LFR test. METHODS: Physical assessment test scores were compared between the two groups. The correlation of assessment test scores with ODI and RMDQ in patients with CLBP was calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) of each assessment tests. Assessment tests, ODI, and RMDQ were measured twice for CLBP patients on separate days to calculate the test-retest intraclass correlation (ICC) reliability. Two researchers scored the assessment tests independently to calculate the inter-rater ICC. RESULTS: Patients with CLBP were slower in the LAP test (CLBP vs asymptomatic: 21.6±4.9 s vs 18.6±3.6 s) and had shorter reach in the LFR test (CLBP vs asymptomatic: 33.6±6.0 cm vs 36.3±6.6 cm). The LAP was correlated with both ODI (r=0.418) and RMDQ (r=0.390), while the LFR was not. In the ROC analysis, the LAP and LFR bore AUCs of 0.685 and 0.379, respectively. Their test-retest ICCs were 0.913 and 0.858, and their inter-rater ICCs were 0.997 and 0.969, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LAP test demonstrated higher reliability and significant correlation with the ODI and RMDQ, indicating its potential as performance assessment for lifting disability in CLBP. Further studies should investigate the use of LAP and other physical assessments for rapid CLBP screening.

Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = -1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-2.30, -1.01] in pain reduction; MD = -7.94, 95% CI [-10.29, -5.59] in ODI; MD = -3.21, 95% CI [-4.83, -1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = -2.44, 95% CI [-3.10, -1.79] in NPRS; MD = -8.32, 95% CI [-13.43, -3.22] in ODI; and MD = -3.58, 95% CI [-5.13, -2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk.