The Management of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression in Routine Clinical Practice.

(1) Background: Whether clinical management of spinal metastatic disease (SMD) matches evidence-based recommendations is largely unknown. (2) Patients and Methods: A questionnaire was distributed through Spanish Medical Societies, exploring routine practice, interpretation of the SINS and ESCC scores and agreement with items in the Tokuhashi and SINS scales, and NICE guideline recommendations. Questionnaires were completed voluntarily and anonymously, without compensation. (3) Results: Eighty specialists participated in the study. A protocol for patients with SMD existed in 33.7% of the hospitals, a specific multidisciplinary board in 33.7%, 40% of radiological reports included the ESCC score, and a prognostic scoring method was used in 73.7%. While 77.5% of the participants were familiar with SINS, only 60% used it. The different SINS and ESCC scores were interpreted correctly by 57.5-70.0% and 30.0-37.5% of the participants, respectively. Over 70% agreed with the items included in the SINS and Tokuhashi scores and with the recommendations from the NICE guideline. Differences were found across private/public sectors, hospital complexity, number of years of experience, number of patients with SMD seen annually and especially across specialties. (4) Conclusions: Most specialists know and agree with features defining the gold standard treatment for patients with SCC, but many do not apply them.

The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Education for Preventing and Treating Non-Specific Low Back Pain in the Hispanic Cultural Setting: A Systematic Review.

A systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of education programs to prevent and treat low back pain (LBP) in the Hispanic cultural setting. Electronic and manual searches identified 1148 unique references. Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Back Pain Review Group. Education programs which were assessed focused on active management (3 studies), postural hygiene (7), exercise (4) and pain neurophysiology (1). Comparators were no intervention, usual care, exercise, other types of education, and different combinations of these procedures. Five RCTs had a low risk of bias. Results show that: (a) education programs in the school setting can transmit potentially useful knowledge for LBP prevention and (b) education programs for patients with LBP improve the outcomes of usual care, especially in terms of disability. Education on pain neurophysiology improves the results of education on exercise, and education on active management is more effective than "sham" education and education on postural hygiene. Future studies should assess the comparative or summatory effects of education on exercise, education on pain neurophysiology and education on active management, as well as explore their efficiency.

Physician-Related Variability in the Outcomes of an Invasive Treatment for Neck and Back Pain: A Multi-Level Analysis of Data Gathered in Routine Clinical Practice.

Neuro-reflexotherapy (NRT) is a proven effective, invasive treatment for neck and back pain. To assess physician-related variability in results, data from post-implementation surveillance of 9023 patients treated within the Spanish National Health Service by 12 physicians were analyzed. Separate multi-level logistic regression models were developed for spinal pain (SP), referred pain (RP), and disability. The models included all patient-related variables predicting response to NRT and physician-related variables. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the Median Odds Ratio (MOR) were calculated. Adjusted MOR (95% CI) was 1.70 (1.47; 2.09) for SP, 1.60 (1.38; 1.99) for RP, and 1.65 (1.42; 2.03) for disability. Adjusted ICC (95%CI) values were 0.08 (0.05; 0.15) for SP, 0.07 (0.03; 0.14) for RP, and 0.08 (0.04; 0.14) for disability. In the sensitivity analysis, in which the 6920 patients treated during the physicians' training period were excluded, adjusted MOR was 1.38 (1.17; 1.98) for SP, 1.37 (1.12; 2.31) for RP, and 1.25 (1.09; 1.79) for disability, while ICCs were 0.03 (0.01; 0.14) for SP, 0.03 (0.00; 0.19) for RP, and 0.02 (0.00; 0.10) for disability. In conclusion, the variability in results obtained by different NRT-certified specialists is reasonable. This suggests that current training standards are appropriate.

Metastatic Versus Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures on MRI: A Blinded, Multicenter, and Multispecialty Observer Agreement Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: MRI is assumed to be valid for distinguishing metastatic vertebral fractures (MVFs) from osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study assessed (1) concordance between the image-based diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference (biopsy or follow-up of >6 months), (2) interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings and the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, and (3) whether disclosing a patient's history of cancer leads to variations in diagnosis, concordance, or agreement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included clinical data and imaging from 203 patients with confirmed MVF or OVF provided to 25 clinicians (neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists). From January 2018 through October 2018, the clinicians interpreted images in conditions as close as possible to routine practice. Each specialist assessed data twice, with a minimum 6-week interval, blinded to assessments made by other clinicians and to their own previous assessments. The kappa statistic was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings, diagnosis (MVF vs OVF), and concordance with the reference. Subgroup analyses were based on clinicians' specialty, years of experience, and complexity of the hospital where they worked. RESULTS: For diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement was fair, whereas intraobserver agreement was substantial. Only the latter improved to almost perfect when a patient's history of cancer was disclosed. Interobserver agreement for key imaging findings was fair or moderate, whereas intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings was moderate or substantial. Concordance between the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference was moderate. Results were similar regardless of clinicians' specialty, experience, and hospital category. CONCLUSIONS: When MRI is used to distinguish MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement and concordance with the reference were moderate. These results cast doubt on the reliability of basing such a diagnosis on MRI in routine practice.

Predicting the evolution of neck pain episodes in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to develop models for predicting the evolution of a neck pain (NP) episode. METHODS: Three thousand two hundred twenty-five acute and chronic patients seeking care for NP, were recruited consecutively in 47 health care centers. Data on 37 variables were gathered, including gender, age, employment status, duration of pain, intensity of NP and pain referred down to the arm (AP), disability, history of neck surgery, diagnostic procedures undertaken, imaging findings, clinical diagnosis, and treatments used. Three separate multivariable logistic regression models were developed for predicting a clinically relevant improvement in NP, AP and disability at 3 months. RESULTS: Three thousand one (93.5%%) patients attended follow-up. For all the models calibration was good. The area under the ROC curve was ≥0.717 for pain and 0.664 for disability. Factors associated with a better prognosis were: a) For all the outcomes: pain being acute (vs. chronic) and having received neuro-reflexotherapy. b) For NP: nonspecific pain (vs. pain caused by disc herniation or spinal stenosis), no signs of disc degeneration on imaging, staying at work, and being female. c) For AP: nonspecific NP and no signs of disc degeneration on imaging. d) For disability: staying at work and no signs of facet joint degeneration on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective registry can be used for developing valid predictive models to quantify the odds that a given patient with NP will experience a clinically relevant improvement.

Efficacy, Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost-effectiveness of Epidural Adhesiolysis for Treating Failed Back Surgery Syndrome. A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) has a profound impact on patients' quality of life and represents a major clinical challenge and a significant economic burden for society. Adhesiolysis is used as a treatment to eliminate perineural/epidural adhesions in patients with chronic pain attributed to FBSS. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of epidural adhesiolysis compared with other procedures for treating FBSS. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted. The electronic databases Medline/PreMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Plus, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, SCOPUS, Science Citation Index, and PEDRO were consulted through April 2017. Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of the studies and to assess their methodological quality. RESULTS: Ten reports were included. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on efficacy or cost-effectiveness were found. Three reports (corresponding to two RCTs, N = 212) suggested that adhesiolysis was effective, especially for pain and disability. However, both studies presented serious methodological flaws. In addition to RCTs, seven observational studies with high risk of bias reported data on effectiveness and safety. Fifty-eight adverse events were reported among 130 patients undergoing endoscopic adhesiolysis, and 19 among the 110 undergoing percutaneous adhesiolysis. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adhesiolysis for treating FBSS is nonexistent, whereas evidence on its effectiveness and safety is insufficient. Incorporating data from observational studies did not improve the quality of the evidence on effectiveness.

Agreement in Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) is a devastating medical emergency. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the 6-point ESCC scoring system and the identification of the spinal level presenting ESCC. METHODS: Clinical data and imaging from 90 patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases were provided to 83 specialists from 44 hospitals. The spinal levels presenting metastases and the ESCC scores for each case were calculated twice by each clinician, with a minimum of 6 weeks' interval. Clinicians were blinded to assessments made by other specialists and their own previous assessment. Fleiss kappa (κ) statistic was used to assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Subgroup analyses were performed according to clinicians' specialty (medical oncology, neurosurgery, radiology, orthopedic surgery, and radiation oncology), years of experience, and type of hospital. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver agreement on the location of ESCC was substantial (κ>0.61). Intraobserver agreement on the ESCC score was "excellent" (κ=0.82), whereas interobserver agreement was substantial (κ=0.64). Overall agreement with the tumor board classification was substantial (κ=0.71). Results were similar across specialties, years of experience and hospital category. CONCLUSIONS: The ESCC score can help improve communication among clinicians involved in oncology care.

Spine Instability Neoplastic Score: agreement across different medical and surgical specialties.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal instability is an acknowledged complication of spinal metastases; in spite of recent suggested criteria, it is not clearly defined in the literature. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess intra and interobserver agreement when using the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) by all physicians involved in its management. STUDY DESIGN: Independent multicenter reliability study for the recently created SINS, undertaken with a panel of medical oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists, was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases and magnetic resonance imaging, reviewed at the multidisciplinary tumor board of our institution, were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for SINS score agreement. Fleiss kappa statistic was used to assess agreement on the location of the most affected vertebral level; agreement on the SINS category ("stable," "potentially stable," or "unstable"); and overall agreement with the classification established by tumor board. METHODS: Clinical data and imaging were provided to 83 specialists in 44 hospitals across 14 Spanish regions. No assessment criteria were pre-established. Each clinician assessed the SINS score twice, with a minimum 6-week interval. Clinicians were blinded to assessments made by other specialists and to their own previous assessment. Subgroup analyses were performed by clinicians' specialty, experience (≤7, 8-13, ≥14 years), and hospital category (four levels according to size and complexity). This study was supported by Kovacs Foundation. RESULTS: Intra and interobserver agreement on the location of the most affected levels was "almost perfect" (κ>0.94). Intra-observer agreement on the SINS score was "excellent" (ICC=0.77), whereas interobserver agreement was "moderate" (ICC=0.55). Intra-observer agreement in SINS category was "substantial" (k=0.61), whereas interobserver agreement was "moderate" (k=0.42). Overall agreement with the tumor board classification was "substantial" (κ=0.61). Results were similar across specialties, years of experience, and hospital category. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement on the assessment of metastatic spine instability is moderate. The SINS can help improve communication among clinicians in oncology care.

Agreement in the assessment of metastatic spine disease using scoring systems.

PURPOSE: To assess variability in the use of Tomita and modified Bauer scores in spine metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data and imaging from 90 patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases, were provided to 83 specialists from 44 hospitals. Spinal levels involved and the Tomita and modified Bauer scores for each case were determined twice by each clinician, with a minimum of 6-week interval. Clinicians were blinded to every evaluation. Kappa statistic was used to assess intra and inter-observer agreement. Subgroup analyses were performed according to clinicians' specialty (medical oncology, neurosurgery, radiology, orthopedic surgery and radiation oncology), years of experience (⩽7, 8-13, ⩾14), and type of hospital (four levels). RESULTS: For metastases identification, intra-observer agreement was "substantial" (0.600.80) at the other levels. Inter-observer agreement was "almost perfect" at lumbar spine, and "substantial" at the other levels. Intra-observer agreement for the Tomita and Bauer scores was almost perfect. Inter-observer agreement was almost perfect for the Tomita score and substantial for the Bauer one. Results were similar across specialties, years of experience and type of hospital. CONCLUSION: Agreement in the assessment of metastatic spine disease is high. These scoring systems can improve communication among clinicians involved in oncology care.

Post-implementation surveillance of a non-pharmacological health technology within a national health service.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe 8-year results from post-implementation surveillance of neuroreflexotherapy (NRT), a health technology proven effective for treating neck and back pain. METHODS: Post-implementation surveillance included all patients undergoing NRT across five regions within the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS). Validated methods were used to assess pain, disability, adverse events, use of health resources, and patient satisfaction. Logistic regression models were developed to identify the variables associated with the risk of a pain episode requiring more than one NRT intervention. The number of relapses among discharged patients during the 8-year period was calculated. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2012, 9,023 patients (median age: 53 years), presenting 11,384 subacute (25.2 percent) and chronic (74.8 percent), neck or back pain episodes, were discharged after receiving NRT. Spinal pain improved in 89 percent of cases, 83 percent abandoned drugs, and 0.02 percent required spine surgery. The only adverse event was skin discomfort (8.0 percent of patients). Number of patient complaints was 0, and answers to a standardized questionnaire reflected a high degree of satisfaction (response rate: 76.7 percent). Of the pain episodes, 18.9 percent required more than one NRT intervention; logistic regression models identified the variables associated with this. Over the 8-year period, the proportion of discharged patients referred for treatment due to relapse at the same level for neck, thoracic, and low back pain, was 16.4 percent, 6.5 percent, and 14.5 percent respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Post-marketing surveillance for a non-pharmacological technology is feasible within the SNHS. These results support generalizing NRT across the entire SNHS under the current validated application conditions.

Disc degeneration and chronic low back pain: an association which becomes nonsignificant when endplate changes and disc contour are taken into account.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the association between severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP). METHODS: A case-control study was conducted with 304 subjects, aged 35-50, recruited in routine clinical practice across six hospitals; 240 cases (chronic LBP patients with a median pain duration of 46 months) and 64 controls (asymptomatic subjects without any lifetime history of significant LBP). The following variables were assessed once, using previously validated methods: gender, age, body mass index (BMI), lifetime smoking exposure, degree of physical activity, severity of LBP, disability, and findings on magnetic resonance (MRI) (disc degeneration, Modic changes (MC), disc protrusion/hernia, annular tears, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis). Radiologists who interpreted MRI were blinded to the subjects' characteristics. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the association between severe DD and chronic LBP, adjusting for gender, age, BMI, physical activity, MC, disc protrusion/hernia, and spinal stenosis. RESULTS: Severe DD at ≥1 level was found in 46.9 % of the controls and 65.8 % of the cases. Crude odds ratio (95 % CI), for suffering chronic LBP when having severe DD, was 2.06 (1.05; 4.06). After adjusting for "MC" and "disc protrusion/hernia," it was 1.81 (0.81; 4.05). CONCLUSIONS: The association between severe DD and LBP ceases to be significant when adjusted for MC and disc protrusion/hernia. These results do not support that DD as a major cause of chronic LBP.

Predicting outcomes of neuroreflexotherapy in patients with subacute or chronic neck or low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In the context of shared decision-making, a valid estimation of the probability that a given patient will improve after a specific treatment is valuable. PURPOSE: To develop models that predict the improvement of spinal pain, referred pain, and disability in patients with subacute or chronic neck or low back pain undergoing a conservative treatment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of data from a prospective registry in routine practice. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients who had been discharged after receiving a conservative treatment within the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) (n=8,778). OUTCOME MEASURES: Spinal pain, referred pain, and disability were assessed before the conservative treatment and at discharge by the use of previously validated methods. METHODS: Improvement in spinal pain, referred pain, and disability was defined as a reduction in score greater than the minimal clinically important change. A predictive model that included demographic, clinical, and work-related variables was developed for each outcome using multivariate logistic regression. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputation. Discrimination and calibration were assessed for each model. The models were validated by bootstrap, and nomograms were developed. RESULTS: The following variables showed a predictive value in the three models: baseline scores for pain and disability, pain duration, having undergone X-ray, having undergone spine surgery, and receiving financial assistance for neck or low back pain. Discrimination of the three models ranged from slight to moderate, and calibration was good. CONCLUSIONS: A registry in routine practice can be used to develop models that estimate the probability of improvement for each individual patient undergoing a specific form of treatment. Generalizing this approach to other treatments can be valuable for shared decision making.

The use of risk sharing tools for post adoption surveillance of a non pharmacological technology in routine practice: results after one year.

BACKGROUND: To report results obtained by combining risk sharing tools with post-adoption surveillance mechanisms in order to control quality of care and implement a value-based reimbursement scheme for Neuro-reflexotherapy (NRT), a non-pharmacological treatment proven effective for neck pain (NP), thoracic pain (TP) and low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Pre-post prospective cohort study in routine clinical practice, carried out in primary care centers in the Spanish National Health Service in the Balearic Islands (Ib-Salut). Eight-hundred and seventy-one subacute and chronic NP, TP and LBP patients treated in Ib-Salut, who underwent NRT during 2011. A shared risk contract (SRC) was developed, where payments for NRT were linked to results on patients' clinical evolution, reduction in medication and proportion of patients undergoing spinal surgery. Main outcome measures were local pain (NP, TP or LBP), referred pain, LBP-related disability and NP-related disability, measured using previously validated instruments at referral and 3 months later, use of medication assessed at referral and discharge, and rates of spinal surgery prescription after undergoing NRT. RESULTS: Median improvements at discharge corresponded to 57.1% of baseline value for local pain, 75.0% for referred pain, 53.8% for LBP-related disability and 45.0% for NP-related disability. Patients taking medication at discharge represented 29.0% of those taking it at referral. The proportion of patients in whom spinal surgery was prescribed after undergoing NRT was 0%. These results were consistent with those from previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and studies in routine practice, and complied with the standards set in the SRC. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and effective to enhance post adoption surveillance methods with risk sharing tools to improve quality control and support value-based reimbursement decisions for NRT. The feasibility of generalising this approach to other settings and to other non-pharmacological treatments should be explored.

Appropriateness of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the minimum percentage of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (LSMRI) which are inappropriately prescribed in routine practice. METHODS: LSMRI performed prospectively on 602 patients in 12 Radiology Services across 6 regions in Spain, were classified as "appropriate", "uncertain" or "inappropriate" based on the indication criteria established by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the American College of Physicians and Radiology, and current evidence-based clinical guidelines. Studies on patients reporting at least one "red flag" were classified as "appropriate". A logistic regression model was developed to identify factors associated with a higher likelihood of inappropriate LSMRI, including gender, reporting of referred pain, health care setting (private/public), and specialty of prescribing physician. Before performing the LSMRI, the radiologists also assessed the appropriateness of the prescription. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of LSMRI were appropriate, 1.3% uncertain and 10.6% inappropriate. The agreement of radiologists' assessment with this classification was substantial (k=0.62). The odds that LSMRI prescriptions were inappropriate were higher for patients without referred pain [OR (CI 95%): 13.75 (6.72; 28.16)], seen in private practice [2.25 (1.20; 4.22)], by orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons or primary care physicians [2.50 (1.15; 5.56)]. CONCLUSION: Efficiency of LSMRI could be improved in routine practice, without worsening clinical outcomes.

Predicting the evolution of low back pain patients in routine clinical practice: results from a registry within the Spanish National Health Service.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) is a tax-funded public organization that provides free health care to every resident in Spain. PURPOSE: To develop models for predicting the evolution of low back pain (LBP) in routine clinical practice within SNHS. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a prospective registry in routine clinical practice, in 17 centers across SNHS. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patient sample includes 4,477 acute and chronic LBP patients treated in primary and hospital care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and disability, measured through validated instruments. METHODS: Patients treated for LBP were assessed at baseline and 3 months later. Data gathered were the following: sex, age, employment status, duration of pain, severity of LBP, pain down to the leg (LP) and disability, history of lumbar surgery, diagnostic procedures undertaken, imaging findings, and treatments used throughout the study period. Three separate multivariate logistic regression models were developed for predicting a clinically relevant improvement in LBP, LP, and disability at 3 months. RESULTS: In total, 4,261 patients (95.2%) attended follow-up. For all the models, calibration was reasonable and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was ≥0.640. For LBP, LP, and disability, factors associated with a higher probability of improvement at 3 months were the following: not having undergone lumbar surgery, higher baseline scores for the corresponding variable, lower ones for the rest, and being treated with neuroreflexotherapy. Additional factors were the following: for LBP, shorter pain duration; for LP, not undergoing electromyography; and for disability, shorter pain duration, not being diagnosed with disc degeneration, and being treated with muscle relaxants and not opioids. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective registry can be used for developing predictive models to quantify the odds that a given LBP patient will experience a clinically relevant improvement. This may empower patients for an informed shared decision making.

The prognostic value of catastrophizing for predicting the clinical evolution of low back pain patients: a study in routine clinical practice within the Spanish National Health Service.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Experimental studies suggest that catastrophizing may worsen the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) and LBP-related disability and increase the risk of chronicity. PURPOSE: To assess the prognostic value of baseline catastrophizing for predicting the clinical evolution of LBP patients in routine clinical practice and the association between the evolution of pain and catastrophizing. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective study in routine clinical practice of the Spanish National Health Service. PATIENT SAMPLE: One thousand four hundred twenty-two acute and chronic adult LBP patients treated in primary and hospital care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, disability, and catastrophizing measured through validated instruments. METHODS: Patients were managed according to routine clinical practice. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3 months later. Logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between baseline catastrophizing score and the improvement of LBP and disability, adjusting for baseline LBP and leg pain (LP) severity, disability, duration of the pain episode, workers' compensation coverage, radiological findings, failed back surgery, and diagnostic procedures and treatments undertaken throughout the study. Another model was developed to estimate the association between the evolution of LBP and the change in catastrophizing, adjusting for the same possible confounders plus the evolution of LP and disability. Models were repeated excluding the treatments undergone after the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Regression models showed that the degree of baseline catastrophizing does not predict the evolution of LBP and disability. Conversely, as the degree of pain improvement increases, so does the odds ratio for improvement in catastrophizing, ranging from three (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.00-4.50; p<.001) for improvements in pain between 1.1 and 4 visual analog scale (VAS) points, to 7.3 (95% CI, 3.49-15.36; p<.001) for improvements in pain more than 6.1 VAS points. Similar results were obtained when treatments were excluded from the models. CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice, assessing the baseline score for catastrophizing does not help clinicians to predict the evolution of LBP and disability at 3 months.

Prevalence and factors associated with low back pain and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: a multicenter study conducted in the Spanish National Health Service.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional, multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of low back pain (LBP), leg pain (LP), and pelvic girdle pain (PGP) in pregnant Spanish women and to identify the factors associated with a higher risk. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies on the prevalence and risk factors for LBP and PGP have shown inconsistent results. METHODS: Sixty-one clinicians across 5 regions in Spain recruited 1158 women with a median (interquartile range) pregnancy of 35 (range, 31-38) weeks. Validated methods were used to gather data on the prevalence of LBP, LP, and PGP, anthropometric and sociodemographic characteristics, history of LBP, obstetrical history, physical activity before and during pregnancy, mattress and sleep characteristics, disability, anxiety, and depression. Separate multiple logistic regression models were developed to identify the variables associated with LBP, LP, and PGP. RESULTS: The 4-week prevalence of LBP, LP, and PGP was 71.3%, 46.2%, and 64.7%, respectively. Main factors associated with a higher likelihood of reporting pain for LBP were history of LBP related and unrelated to previous pregnancy and postpartum, pain augmenting with time spent in bed, and anxiety. Previous lumbar surgery was associated with a lower risk. The factors associated with a higher likelihood of reporting LP were reporting LBP, lower academic level, younger age, depression, a lower number of hours of sleep per day, and a higher BMI, and for PGP were higher score for depression, a higher body mass index, and a more advanced stage of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with a higher risk vary between LBP and PGP. History of LBP, related or not to previous pregnancy or postpartum, LBP surgery, and anxiety were the factors more strongly associated with pregnancy-related LBP. When these variables are taken into account, obstetrical data from current or previous pregnancies and other variables do not show a significant association with LBP. Stage of pregnancy and depression were associated with PGP.