Exploring the facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain treatment experienced by general practitioners: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend opioid deprescribing in patients on long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. This study aims to explore facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing among general practitioners in the Netherlands. In addition, this study aims to identify possibilities for improvement regarding opioid deprescribing in primary care. METHODS: Focus group discussions with Dutch General practitioners were held by two skilled moderators. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using MAXQDA software. Three independent reviewers searched for overarching themes using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Discussions were organized until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-two general practitioners participated in four focus group discussions. Five main themes emerged from the data: (1) patient-centred care; (2) ensuring proper pain management (3) dilemmas and hardships in dealing with opioid use disorder; (4) the competency gap; (5) needs and possibilities to improve opioid deprescribing in primary care. The first theme addresses the main facilitators in opioid tapering. The following three themes emerged as main barriers in opioid deprescribing. The fifth theme identified possibilities for change. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the importance of intrinsic motivation and a tailored approach to deprescribe opioids in patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. Identified barriers include struggles in pain management, challenges caused by opioid use disorder, insufficient capacities such as time constraints and lack of skills. Recommendations for improvement involve enhanced collaboration with healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, provision of practical tools and assurance of sufficient time. SIGNIFICANCE: This focus group study among 22 Dutch general practitioners elucidates the complexities of opioid deprescribing and reveals pivotal themes such as patient-centred care, pain management challenges, and competency gaps. The findings underscore the crucial role of intrinsic motivation and that of a tailored approach in opioid deprescribing, while demonstrating how a lack in effective pain treatments, practical capacities and challenges caused by opioid dependence, impede opioid deprescribing. By uncovering these complexities, this study aims to inform future deprescribing strategies.

Pragmatic Delphi study aimed at determining practical components for a tool designed to assist Dutch primary care-givers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, opioid prescriptions have increased in the Netherlands. The Dutch general practitioners' guideline on pain was recently updated and now aims to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk opioid use for non-cancer pain. The guideline, however, lacks practical measures for implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine practical components for a tool that should assist Dutch primary care prescribers and implements the recently updated guideline to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk use. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. The practical components for the tool were identified based on systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and Dutch primary care guidelines. Suggested components were divided into Part A, containing components designed to reduce opioid initiation and stimulate short-term use, and Part B, containing components designed to reduce opioid use among patients on long-term opioid treatment. During three rounds, a multidisciplinary panel of 21 experts assessed the content, usability, and feasibility of these components by adding, deleting, and adapting components until consensus was reached on the outlines of an opioid reduction tool. RESULTS: The resulting Part A consisted of six components, namely education, opioid decision tree, risk assessment, agreements on dosage and duration of use, guidance and follow-up, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The resulting Part B consisted of five components, namely education, patient identification, risk assessment, motivation, and tapering. CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic Delphi study, components for an opioid reduction tool for Dutch primary care-givers are identified. These components need further development, and the final tool should be tested in an implementation study.

[Is bone marrow edema a cause of low back pain? A possible role of bacteria]. / Is eindplaatoedeem van wervellichamen een oorzaak van lage-rugpijn?

Lumbar bone marrow edema, also known as Modic type-1 endplate change, has a prevalence of 43% in low back pain populations and 6% in general populations. Besides mechanical factors and genetic predisposition it has been hypothesized that lumbar bone marrow edema is caused by a latent infection of low-virulence anaerobic bacteria in degenerated lumbar intervertebral discs. The hypothesis is supported by the observation that the presence of Cutibacterium acnes is more frequently found in samples of disci with Modic-1 than in discs without and by the positive effects of antibiotics in patients with back pain and Modic-1 as shown in placebo-controlled RCT's. Opponents of the hypothesis argue that the findings of bacteria are most likely a result of contamination during harvesting the samples. We conclude that time has come to make a start in the Netherlands with treatment with antibiotics of a small group of well-selected patients in well-selected clinics.

Effectiveness of non-opioid interventions to reduce opioid withdrawal symptoms in patients with chronic pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dealing with the opioid crisis, medical doctors are keen to learn how to best treat opioid dependency in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Opioid replacement therapy is commonly used, but success rates vary widely. Since many patients still experience severe withdrawal symptoms, additional interventions are necessary. OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of withdrawal symptoms during opioid tapering or acute withdrawal in patients with long-term non-cancer pain. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in Embase.com, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Studies eligible for inclusion were (non-)randomized controlled trials in adults with long-term opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain. Included trials had to compare a non-opioid intervention to placebo, usual care, no treatment, or non-opioid drug and had to report on withdrawal symptoms as an outcome. Study quality was assessed with the 2.0 Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Evidence quality was rated following the GRADE approach. RESULTS: One trial (n = 21, some concerns regarding RoB) compared Varenicline to placebo. There was no statistically significant between-group reduction of withdrawal symptoms (moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from clinical trials on interventions reducing withdrawal symptoms is scarce. Based on one trial with a small sample size, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Meanwhile, doctors are in dire need for therapeutic options to tackle withdrawal symptoms while tapering patients with prescription opioid dependence. We hope this review draws attention to this unfortunate research gap so that future research can provide doctors with answers.

There is a global increase of patients depended on opioids prescribed by a doctor for chronic non-cancer pain. Tapering these drugs is challenging, especially since treatment options for withdrawal symptoms are lacking. We conducted a systematic review of controlled studies on interventions aimed at reducing withdrawal symptoms during opioid tapering in patients with long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. One trial could be included. No firm conclusions can be drawn from this one trial. Hence, this review demonstrates that to improve care for patients depended on opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, more high-quality research in this field is necessary.

Diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic imaging for lumbar disc herniation in adults with low back pain or sciatica is unknown; a systematic review.

Main text: We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients.For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach.We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions.

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Do Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Benefit From Low-Level Laser Therapy? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 8, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results of the 2 systematic reviews and 17 RCTs that were included. Strong evidence was found for the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy compared with placebo treatment in the very short term (0 to ≤5wk). After 5 weeks, the positive effects of low-level laser therapy on pain, function, or recovery diminished over time (moderate and conflicting evidence were found at 7- and 12-wk follow-up, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In the very short term, low-level laser therapy is more effective as a single intervention than placebo low-level laser therapy in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, after which the positive effects of low-level laser therapy tend to subside. Evidence in the midterm and long term is sparse.

Effectiveness of Conservative, Surgical, and Postsurgical Interventions for Trigger Finger, Dupuytren Disease, and De Quervain Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of conservative and (post)surgical interventions for trigger finger, Dupuytren disease, and De Quervain disease. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched to identify relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SELECTION: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results. Two reviews (trigger finger and De Quervain disease) and 37 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (trigger finger: n=8; Dupuytren disease: n=14, and De Quervain disease: n=15) were included. The trials reported on oral medication (Dupuytren disease), physiotherapy (De Quervain disease), injections and surgical treatment (trigger finger, Dupuytren disease, and De Quervain disease), and other conservative (De Qervain disease) and postsurgical treatment (Dupuytren disease). Moderate evidence was found for the effect of corticosteroid injection on the very short term for trigger finger, De Quervain disease, and for injections with collagenase (30d) when looking at all joints, and no evidence was found when looking at the PIP joint for Dupuytren disease. A thumb splint as additive to a corticosteroid injection seems to be effective (moderate evidence) for De Quervain disease (short term and midterm). For Dupuytren disease, use of a corticosteroid injection within a percutaneous needle aponeurotomy in the midterm and tamoxifen versus a placebo before or after a fasciectomy seems to promising (moderate evidence). We also found moderate evidence for splinting after Dupuytren surgery in the short term. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, more and more RCTs have been conducted to study treatment of the aforementioned hand disorders. However, more high-quality RCTs are still needed to further stimulate evidence-based practice for patients with trigger finger, Dupuytren disease, and De Quervain disease.

Effectiveness of Surgical and Postsurgical Interventions for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To present an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of surgical and postsurgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 8, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results. Four systematic reviews and 33 RCTs were included. Surgery versus nonsurgical interventions, timing of surgery, and various surgical techniques and postoperative interventions were studied. Corticosteroid injection was more effective than surgery (strong evidence, short-term). Surgery was more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy (moderate evidence, midterm and long-term). Manual therapy was more effective than surgical treatment (moderate evidence, short-term and midterm). Within surgery, corticosteroid irrigation of the median nerve before skin closure as additive to CTS release or the direct vision plus tunneling technique was more effective than standard open CTS release (moderate evidence, short-term). Furthermore, short was more effective than long bulky dressings, and a sensory retraining program was more effective than no program after surgery (moderate evidence, short-term). For all other interventions only conflicting, limited, or no evidence was found. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment seems to be more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy in the short-term, midterm, and/or long-term to treat CTS. However there is strong evidence that a local corticosteroid injection is more effective than surgery in the short-term, and moderate evidence that manual therapy is more effective than surgery in the short-term and midterm. There is no unequivocal evidence that suggests one surgical treatment is more effective than the other. Postsurgical, a short- (2-3 days) favored a long-duration (9-14 days) bulky dressing and a sensory retraining program seems to be more effective than no program in short-term. More research regarding the optimal timing of surgery for CTS is needed.

Most red flags for malignancy in low back pain guidelines lack empirical support: a systematic review.

Clinicians do not want to miss underlying serious pathology, but it is still unclear which red flags are relevant. We aimed to evaluate the origin and evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flags for malignancy for management of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. We performed a comprehensive overview and searched the literature using snowballing techniques and reference checking for evidence on red flags endorsed in clinical guidelines for identifying patients with higher likelihood of malignancy. We selected studies including people with LBP without any restriction on study design. We extracted data on prevalence and diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, we assessed the methodological quality of studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy. We identified 13 red flags endorsed in a total of 16 guidelines and 2 extra red flags not endorsed in any guideline. We included 33 publications varying from systematic reviews to case reports. The origin of many red flags was unclear or was sourced from case reports. The incidence of malignancy in patients presenting with LBP in primary care varied between 0% and 0.7%. Seven studies provided diagnostic accuracy data on red flags. We found 5 red flags with accuracy data from 2 or more studies, with 2 ("history of malignancy" and "strong clinical suspicion") considered informative. In conclusion, the origin and diagnostic accuracy of many red flags endorsed in guidelines are unclear. A "history of malignancy" and "strong clinical suspicion" are the only red flags with empirical evidence of acceptably high diagnostic accuracy.

Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The reference surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. Minimal invasive discectomy with tubular retractors is hypothesised to cause less tissue damage and result in lower blood loss, less postoperative pain and faster recovery. We previously reported our 1 and 2-year results, and found no better outcomes of tubular discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy. Until now, no studies on tubular discectomy have reported results with more than 2 years of follow-up. Studies with long-term follow-up are required to determine if clinical outcomes are sustained and to assess specific long-term outcomes such as reoperation rate and iatrogenic low back pain due to impaired spinal integrity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 5-year results of tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy. METHODS: The study was designed as a double-blind randomised controlled trial. 325 patients with a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were randomly allocated to tubular discectomy (166 patients) or conventional microdiscectomy (159 patients). Repeated standardised follow-up measurements were performed at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 26, 38, 52, 78, 104, 156, 208 and 260 weeks after randomisation. Main outcomes are the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica (RDQ), Visual Analogue Scale for leg pain and low back pain, self-perceived recovery and reoperation incidence. RESULTS: There was no clinically significant difference between tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy regarding the main clinical outcomes at any time point during the 5 years of follow-up. RDQ scores at 5 years were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.2) in the tubular discectomy group and 3.4 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.5) in the conventional microdiscectomy group. The mean difference of 0.9 (95% CI -0.6 to 2.2) was not significant. Mean differences for leg pain and back pain were 0.2 (95% CI -5.5 to 6.0) and 0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 6.7), respectively. 77% of patients allocated to conventional discectomy reported complete or near-complete recovery of symptoms compared with 74% of patients allocated to tubular discectomy (p=0.79). The reoperation rate was 18% in the tubular discectomy group and 13% in the conventional discectomy group (p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term functional and clinical outcome did not differ between patients allocated to tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy. Primary and secondary outcome measures did not support the hypothesised advantages of tubular discectomy over conventional microdiscectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51857546.

Percutaneous laser disc decompression versus conventional microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica: Two-year results of a randomised controlled trial.

Background Percutaneous laser disc decompression is a minimally invasive treatment, for lumbar disc herniation and might serve as an alternative to surgical management of sciatica. In a randomised trial with two-year follow-up we assessed the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous laser disc decompression compared to conventional surgery. Materials and methods This multicentre randomised prospective trial with a non-inferiority design, was carried out according to an intent-to-treat protocol with full institutional review board approval. One hundred and fifteen eligible surgical candidates, with sciatica from a disc herniation smaller than one-third of the spinal canal, were randomly allocated to percutaneous laser disc decompression ( n = 55) or conventional surgery ( n = 57). The main outcome measures for this trial were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for sciatica, visual analogue scores for back and leg pain and the patient's report of perceived recovery. Results The primary outcome measures showed no significant difference or clinically relevant difference between the two groups at two-year follow-up. The re-operation rate was 21% in the surgery group, which is relatively high, and with an even higher 52% in the percutaneous laser disc decompression group. Conclusion At two-year follow-up, a strategy of percutaneous laser disc decompression, followed by surgery if needed, resulted in non-inferior outcomes compared to a strategy of microdiscectomy. Although the rate of reoperation in the percutaneous laser disc decompression group was higher than expected, surgery could be avoided in 48% of those patients that were originally candidates for surgery. Percutaneous laser disc decompression, as a non-surgical method, could have a place in the treatment arsenal of sciatica caused by contained herniated discs.

Trial of Pregabalin for Acute and Chronic Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica can be disabling, and evidence regarding medical treatments is limited. Pregabalin is effective in the treatment of some types of neuropathic pain. This study examined whether pregabalin may reduce the intensity of sciatica. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either pregabalin at a dose of 150 mg per day that was adjusted to a maximum dose of 600 mg per day or matching placebo for up to 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the leg-pain intensity score on a 10-point scale (with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) at week 8; the leg-pain intensity score was also evaluated at week 52, a secondary time point for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the extent of disability, back-pain intensity, and quality-of-life measures at prespecified time points over the course of 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients underwent randomization, of whom 108 received pregabalin and 101 received placebo; after randomization, 2 patients in the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses. At week 8, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.7 in the pregabalin group and 3.1 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 1.2; P=0.19). At week 52, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.4 in the pregabalin group and 3.0 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 1.0; P=0.46). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to any secondary outcome at either week 8 or week 52. A total of 227 adverse events were reported in the pregabalin group and 124 in the placebo group. Dizziness was more common in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pregabalin did not significantly reduce the intensity of leg pain associated with sciatica and did not significantly improve other outcomes, as compared with placebo, over the course of 8 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRECISE Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12613000530729 .).

Validity and Reproducibility of the STarT Back Tool (Dutch Version) in Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to translate and to investigate the reliability and validity of the STarT Back screening tool (SBT) in the primary care setting among patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: The SBT was formally translated into Dutch following a multistep approach for forward and backward translation. General practitioners and physical therapists included patients with LBP. METHODS: Patients completed a baseline questionnaire and a follow-up at 3 days and 3 months. The construct validity was calculated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. The reproducibility was assessed using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using relative risk ratios for persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analyzed using floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: In total, 184 patients were included; 52.2% were categorized in the "low-risk" subgroup, 38.0% "medium-risk," and 9.8% "high-risk." For the construct validity we found, as expected, a moderate to high Pearson's correlation for questions 3 to 9 and a low correlation for questions 1 and 2 with their respective reference questionnaires. The reproducibility had a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.65 and the specific agreement of 82.4% for "low-risk," 53.3% for "medium-risk," and 33.3% for "high-risk." For the predictive validity for persisting disability we found a relative risk ratio for "medium-risk" of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-3.1) and 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4-4.9) for "high-risk" compared with "low-risk." For the content validity, we found that no floor and ceiling effects were present. LIMITATIONS: There was a relatively small sample size for the retest reliability study. Patients were not compared between physical therapist and GP, as there were not enough patients in both groups. For practical reasons, the patients filled out the baseline questionnaire after receiving the first treatment/consultation; however, the questionnaire is intended to be filled in before the first consultation/treatment. CONCLUSION: The SBT has been successfully translated into Dutch. The psychometric analysis showed acceptable results and, therefore, the SBT is a valid screening tool for patients with LBP in Dutch primary care.

Back Complaints in the Elders in Brazil and the Netherlands: a cross-sectional comparison.

Background: although back pain is most prevalent in older adults, there is a paucity of studies investigating back pain in older people. Our objective was to characterize and compare Brazilian and Dutch older adults presenting to primary care with a new episode of back pain. We also aimed to investigate whether socio-demographic characteristics were associated with pain severity and disability. Methods: we sourced data on 602 Brazilian and 675 Dutch participants aged ≥55 years with a new episode of back pain from the Back Complaints in the Elders consortium. We analyzed country differences in participants' characteristics, and associations between socio-demographic/clinical characteristics and pain severity and pain-related disability. Results: the two populations differed in most characteristics. More Dutch participants were smokers, heavy drinkers, and reported back stiffness. More Brazilian participants were less educated, had higher prevalence of comorbidities; higher levels of pain intensity, disability and psychological distress. When controlling for the effect of country, being female and having altered quality of sleep were associated with higher pain intensity. Altered quality of sleep, having two or more comorbidities and physical inactivity were associated with higher disability. Higher educational levels were negatively associated with both pain and disability outcomes. Conclusions: back pain is disabling in the older population. Our country comparison has shown that country of residence is an important determinant of higher disability and pain in older people with back pain. Irrespective of country, women with poor sleep quality, comorbidities, low education and who are physically inactive report more severe symptoms.

Knee osteoarthritis in traumatic knee symptoms in general practice: 6-year cohort study.

AIM: To identify degenerative knee abnormalities using MRI and radiography 6 years after knee trauma, their relation with persistent knee symptoms and baseline prognostic factors. METHODS: Adults (18-65 years) with incident traumatic knee symptoms visiting their general practitioner were followed up for 6 years and underwent baseline MRI and 6-year follow-up MRI and radiography. Logistic regression was used to analyse associations between various degenerative abnormalities on 6-year MRI and radiography, persistent knee symptoms and baseline prognostic factors for knee osteoarthritis (OA) on 6-year MRI. RESULTS: On 6-year radiography, 60% of patients showed no OA, 28% showed OA with Kellgren&Lawrence (K&L) grade 1 and 13% showed with K&L grade 2. On 6-year MRI, 55% of patients showed cartilage defect(s), 45% showed osteophyte(s), 36% showed subchondral cyst(s), 40% showed bone marrow oedema, 21% showed meniscal subluxation, 83% showed meniscal degeneration,11% showed effusion and 11% showed a Baker's cyst. Of these, most were significantly related with 6-year radiographic K&L grade, while only lateral cartilage defect(s), medial osteophyte(s) and medial meniscal subluxation were significantly related with persistent knee symptoms. 32% of patients showed new onset or progressive knee OA on 6-year MRI, for which age, history of non-traumatic knee symptoms and bone marrow oedema at baseline were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Degenerative knee abnormalities on MRI are related to the K&L score; however, not all abnormalities are reflected in clinical outcome. Age, history of non-traumatic knee symptoms and bone marrow oedema predict knee OA 6 years after knee trauma, present in 32% of the patients.

Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital charges for lumbar spinal stenosis have increased significantly worldwide in recent times, with great variation in the costs and rates of different surgical procedures. There have also been significant increases in the rate of complex fusion and the use of spinal spacer implants compared to that of traditional decompression surgery, even though the former is known to incur costs up to three times higher. Moreover, the superiority of these new surgical procedures over traditional decompression surgery is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of surgery in the management of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and the comparative effectiveness between commonly performed surgical techniques to treat this condition on patient-related outcomes. We also aimed to investigate the safety of these surgical interventions by including perioperative surgical data and reoperation rates. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors performed electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS and three trials registries from their inception to 16 June 2016. Authors also conducted citation tracking on the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included only randomised controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of surgery compared with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery, or with another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion and performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment, using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group criteria. Reviewers also extracted demographics, surgery details, and types of outcomes to describe the characteristics of included studies. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function or disability status, quality of life, and recovery. The secondary outcomes included measurements related to surgery, such as perioperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and costs. We grouped trials according to the types of surgical interventions being compared and categorised follow-up times as short-term when less than 12 months and long-term when 12 months or more. Pain and disability scores were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled data using the random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 24 randomised controlled trials (reported in 39 published research articles or abstracts) in this review. The trials included 2352 participants with lumbar spinal stenosis with symptoms of neurogenic claudication. None of the included trials compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Therefore, all included studies compared two or more surgical techniques. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias for the blinding of care provider domain, and most of the trials failed to adequately conceal the randomisation process, blind the participants or use intention-to-treat analysis. Five trials compared the effects of fusion in addition to decompression surgery. Our results showed no significant differences in pain relief at long-term (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to 6.74). Similarly, we found no between-group differences in disability reduction in the long-term (MD 3.26, 95% CI -6.12 to 12.63). Participants who received decompression alone had significantly less perioperative blood loss (MD -0.52 L, 95% CI -0.70 L to -0.34 L) and required shorter operations (MD -107.94 minutes, 95% CI -161.65 minutes to -54.23 minutes) compared with those treated with decompression plus fusion, though we found no difference in the number of reoperations (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.92). Another three trials investigated the effects of interspinous process spacer devices compared with conventional bony decompression. These spacer devices resulted in similar reductions in pain (MD -0.55, 95% CI -8.08 to 6.99) and disability (MD 1.25, 95% CI -4.48 to 6.98). The spacer devices required longer operation time (MD 39.11 minutes, 95% CI 19.43 minutes to 58.78 minutes) and were associated with higher risk of reoperation (RR 3.95, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.37), but we found no difference in perioperative blood loss (MD 144.00 mL, 95% CI -209.74 mL to 497.74 mL). Two trials compared interspinous spacer devices with decompression plus fusion. Although we found no difference in pain relief (MD 5.35, 95% CI -1.18 to 11.88), the spacer devices revealed a small but significant effect in disability reduction (MD 5.72, 95% CI 1.28 to 10.15). They were also superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of operation time (MD 78.91 minutes, 95% CI 30.16 minutes to 127.65 minutes) and perioperative blood loss (MD 238.90 mL, 95% CI 182.66 mL to 295.14 mL), however, there was no difference in rate of reoperation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.51). Overall there were no differences for the primary or secondary outcomes when different types of surgical decompression techniques were compared among each other. The quality of evidence varied from 'very low quality' to 'high quality'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Cochrane review show a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, as to date no trials have compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery are feasible and needed in the field of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results demonstrate that at present, decompression plus fusion and interspinous process spacers have not been shown to be superior to conventional decompression alone. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed in this field to confirm our results.

Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. METHOD: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. RESULTS: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture ('major or significant trauma' and 'use of steroids or immunosuppressors') and two for malignancy ('history of cancer' and 'unintentional weight loss'). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking.

Prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with sciatica.

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of MRI variables to predict outcome in patients with herniated disc-related sciatica, and whether MRI could facilitate the decision making between early surgery and prolonged conservative care in these patients. METHODS A prospective observational evaluation of patients enrolled in a randomized trial with 1-year follow-up was completed. A total of 283 patients with sciatica who had a radiologically confirmed disc herniation were randomized either to surgery or to prolonged conservative care with surgery if needed. Outcome measures were recovery and leg pain severity. Recovery was registered on a 7-point Likert scale. Complete/near complete recovery was considered a satisfactory outcome. Leg pain severity was measured on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale. Multiple MRI characteristics of the degenerated disc herniation were independently scored by 3 spine experts. Cox models were used to study the influence of MRI variables on rate of recovery, and linear mixed models were used to determine the predictive value of MRI variables for leg pain severity during follow-up. The interaction of each MRI predictor with treatment allocation was tested. There were no study-specific conflicts of interest. RESULTS Baseline MRI variables associated with less leg pain severity were the reader's assessment of presence of nerve root compression (p < 0.001), and assessment of extrusion compared with protrusion of the disc herniation (p = 0.006). Both variables tended to be associated, but not significantly, with satisfactory outcome during follow-up (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.24, and HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.96-1.61, respectively). The size of disc herniation at baseline was not associated with outcome. There was no significant change in the effects between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS MRI assessment of the presence of nerve root compression and extrusion of a herniated disc at baseline was associated with less leg pain during 1-year follow-up, irrespective of a surgical or conservative treatment. MRI findings seem not to be helpful in determining which patients might fare better with early surgery compared with a strategy of prolonged conservative care. Clinical trial registration no.: ISRCTN26872154 ( controlled-trials.com ).

Prevalence and "Red Flags" Regarding Specified Causes of Back Pain in Older Adults Presenting in General Practice.

BACKGROUND: In a small proportion of patients experiencing unspecified back pain, a specified underlying pathology is present. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to identify the prevalence of physician-specified causes of back pain and (2) to assess associations between "red flags" and vertebral fractures, as diagnosed by the patients' general practitioner (GP), in older adults with back pain. METHODS: The Back Complaints in the Elders (BACE) study is a prospective cohort study. Patients (aged >55 years) with back pain were included when consulting their GP. A questionnaire was administered and a physical examination and heel bone densitometry were performed, and the results determined back pain and patient characteristics, including red flags. Participants received a radiograph, and reports were sent to their GP. The final diagnoses established at 1 year were collected from the GP's patient registry. RESULTS: Of the 669 participants included, 6% were diagnosed with a serious underlying pathology during the 1-year follow-up. Most of these participants (n=33, 5%) were diagnosed with a vertebral fracture. Multivariable regression analysis showed that age of ≥75 years, trauma, osteoporosis, a back pain intensity score of ≥7, and thoracic pain were associated with a higher chance of getting the diagnosis of a vertebral fracture. Of these variables, trauma showed the highest positive predictive value for vertebral fracture of 0.25 (95% confidence interval=0.09, 0.41) and a positive likelihood ratio of 6.2 (95% confidence interval=2.8, 13.5). A diagnostic prediction model including the 5 red flags did not increase these values. LIMITATIONS: Low prevalence of vertebral fractures could have led to findings by chance. CONCLUSIONS: In these older adults with back pain presenting in general practice, 6% were diagnosed with serious pathology, mainly a vertebral fracture (5%). Four red flags were associated with the presence of vertebral fracture.