A classification-based approach to low back pain in primary care - protocol for a benchmarking controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend a biopsychosocial framework for low back pain (LBP) management and the avoidance of inappropriate imaging. In clinical practice, care strategies are often inconsistent with evidence and guidelines, even though LBP is the most common disabling health condition worldwide. Unhelpful beliefs, attitudes and inappropriate imaging are common. LBP is understood to be a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon with many known multidimensional risk factors (symptom- and lifestyle-related, psychological and social) for persistent or prolonged disability, which should be identified and addressed by treatment. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was developed for early identification of individual risk factors of LBP to enable targeted care. Stratified care according SBT has been shown to improve the effectiveness of care in a primary care setting. A biopsychosocially-oriented patient education booklet, which includes imaging guidelines and information, is one possible way to increase patients' understanding of LBP and to reduce inappropriate imaging. Premeditated pathways, education of professionals, written material, and electronic patient registry support in health care organizations could help implement evidence-based care. METHODS: We will use a Benchmarking Controlled Trial (BCT) design in our study. We will prospectively collect data from three health care regions before and after the implementation of a classification-based approach to LBP in primary care. The primary outcome will be change in PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) (short form 20a) over 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: The implementation of a classification-based biopsychosocial approach can potentially improve the care of LBP patients, reduce inappropriate imaging without increasing health-care costs, and decrease indirect costs by reducing work disability. Using the BCT we will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the improvement strategy for the entire care pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN,ISRCTN13273552, retrospectively registered 13/05/2019.

Emergency Physician Opioid Prescribing and Risk of Long-term Use in the Veterans Health Administration: an Observational Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment by high-opioid prescribing physicians in the emergency department (ED) is associated with higher rates of long-term opioid use among Medicare beneficiaries. However, it is unclear if this result is true in other high-risk populations such as Veterans. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of exposure to high-opioid prescribing physicians on long-term opioid use for opioid-naïve Veterans. DESIGN: Observational study using Veterans Health Administration (VA) encounter and prescription data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Veterans with an index ED visit at any VA facility in 2012 and without opioid prescriptions in the prior 6 months in the VA system ("opioid naïve"). MEASUREMENTS: We assigned patients to emergency physicians and categorized physicians into within-hospital quartiles based on their opioid prescribing rates. Our primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months of days supplied in the 12 months subsequent to the ED visit. We compared rates of long-term opioid use among patients treated by high versus low quartile prescribers, adjusting for patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and ED diagnoses. RESULTS: We identified 57,738 and 86,393 opioid-naïve Veterans managed by 362 and 440 low and high quartile prescribers, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar across groups. ED opioid prescribing rates varied more than threefold between the low and high quartile prescribers within hospitals (6.4% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.001). The frequency of long-term opioid use was higher among Veterans treated by high versus low quartile prescribers, though above the threshold for statistical significance (1.39% vs. 1.26%; adjusted OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.997-1.24, p = 0.056). In subgroup analyses, there were significant associations for patients with back pain (adjusted OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.04) and for those with a history of depression (adjusted OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.08-1.51, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: ED physician opioid prescribing varied by over 300% within facility, with a statistically non-significant increased rate of long-term use among opioid-naïve Veterans exposed to the highest intensity prescribers.

Risk classification of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific low back pain is characterized by a wide range of possible triggering and conserving factors, and initial screening needs to scope widely with multilevel addressment of possible factors contributing to the pain experience. Screening tools for classification of patients have been developed to support clinicians. The primary aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT Back) against the more comprehensive Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ), in a Norwegian sample of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain. Secondary aims were to assess risk classification of the patients, as indicated by both instruments, and to compare pain and work characteristics between patients in the different STarT Back risk categories. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional survey among patients with low back pain referred to outpatient secondary care assessment at Trondheim University Hospital, Norway. Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Pearson's r and a Bland-Altman plot were used to assess criterion validity of STarT Back against ÖMPSQ. Furthermore, linear regression was used to estimate mean differences with 95% CI in pain and work related variables between the risk groups defined by the STarT Back tool. RESULTS: A total of 182 persons participated in the study. The Pearsons correlation coefficient for correspondence between scores on ÖMPSQ and STarT Back was 0.76. The Kappa value for classification agreement between the instruments was 0.35. Risk group classification according to STarT Back allocated 34.1% of the patients in the low risk group, 42.3% in the medium risk, and 23.6% in the high risk group. According to ÖMPSQ, 24.7% of the participants were allocated in the low risk group, 28.6% in the medium risk, and 46.7% in the high risk group. Patients classified with high risk according to Start Back showed a higher score on pain and work related characteristics as measured by ÖMPSQ. CONCLUSION: The correlation between score on the screening tools was good, while the classification agreement between the screening instruments was low. Screening for work factors may be important in patients referred to multidisciplinary management in secondary care.

Negative pain management index scores do not necessarily indicate inadequate pain management: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The Pain Management Index (PMI) is widely used in the assessment of pain management, and negative scores are traditionally considered to indicate inadequate pain management. However, it is not known whether negative PMI scores are always problematic. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we examined the data of 1156 patients with cancer and pain who were hospitalized in a cancer care hospital in Japan from July 2012 to January 2015 and compared the proportion of patients with PI across various PMI scores in this cohort. We further evaluated the predictive validity of PMI scores for PI using different cutoffs. This study aimed to examine the association between PMI scores and the proportion of patients whose pain interferes with their daily lives (i.e., pain interference [PI]). RESULTS: We found that lower PMI scores were generally associated with a higher percentage of patients with PI. A smaller proportion of patients with PMI scores of - 1 (567/1550, 36.6%) reported PI compared with those with PMI scores of 0 (788/1505, 52.4%). The sensitivities of PMI scores < - 1 and < 0 for predicting PI were 0.16 and 0.37 and the corresponding specificities were 0.95 and 0.71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that PMI scores are inversely associated with the proportion of patients with PI. However, PMI scores of - 1 do not always indicate inadequate pain management; pain management should therefore be evaluated from multiple perspectives.

Latent class analysis derived subgroups of low back pain patients - do they have prognostic capacity?

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. One statistical technique that is increasingly being used is Latent Class Analysis as it performs subgrouping based on pattern recognition with high accuracy. Previously, we developed two novel suggestions for subgrouping patients with low back pain based on Latent Class Analysis of patient baseline characteristics (patient history and physical examination), which resulted in 7 subgroups when using a single-stage analysis, and 9 subgroups when using a two-stage approach. However, their prognostic capacity was unexplored. This study (i) determined whether the subgrouping approaches were associated with the future outcomes of pain intensity, pain frequency and disability, (ii) assessed whether one of these two approaches was more strongly or more consistently associated with these outcomes, and (iii) assessed the performance of the novel subgroupings as compared to the following variables: two existing subgrouping tools (STarT Back Tool and Quebec Task Force classification), four baseline characteristics and a group of previously identified domain-specific patient categorisations (collectively, the 'comparator variables'). METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study of 928 patients consulting for low back pain in primary care. The associations between each subgroup approach and outcomes at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months, and with weekly SMS responses were tested in linear regression models, and their prognostic capacity (variance explained) was compared to that of the comparator variables listed above. RESULTS: The two previously identified subgroupings were similarly associated with all outcomes. The prognostic capacity of both subgroupings was better than that of the comparator variables, except for participants' recovery beliefs and the domain-specific categorisations, but was still limited. The explained variance ranged from 4.3%-6.9% for pain intensity and from 6.8%-20.3% for disability, and highest at the 2 weeks follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Latent Class-derived subgroups provided additional prognostic information when compared to a range of variables, but the improvements were not substantial enough to warrant further development into a new prognostic tool. Further research could investigate if these novel subgrouping approaches may help to improve existing tools that subgroup low back pain patients.

Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization. METHODS: A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.

[Patients with pain in outpatient care. A nationwide cross-sectional survey with path model]. / Schmerz bei Patienten in der ambulanten Pflege. Eine bundesweite Querschnittsstudie mit Pfadmodell.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge on the degree of pain and pain-related impairments in home care clients. This study was carried out to provide data on the prevalence of pain and pain-related impairments in home care patients and to investigate the impact on activities of daily living and on classification into the three levels of care as defined by the statutory German long-term care insurance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2012 a representative cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted among clients of 100 German home care services. The stepwise sampling procedure included a random selection of 9 home care services in each of the 16 federal states and a randomized sampling among the clients of the participating home care services. The total sample consisted of 878 home care clients (inclusion criteria ≥ 18 years). The subjective pain intensity was measured using an 11-step Likert scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (most severe pain). Pain-related impairments were rated on a 6-step Likert scale (0 = no impairments to 5 = complete impairment) assessing the level of independence in household chores, mobility, personal hygiene, dressing and social participation. Furthermore, multimorbidity (number of diagnoses) and level of care according to the current classification in the German long-term care insurance were registered. The predictive significance of latent variables was determined by structural equation modelling. RESULTS: Of the subjects surveyed 68.5 % (n = 672) reported suffering from pain. The average intensity of pain was 2.9 (standard deviation SD 2.8) and pain-related impairments had the greatest effect on mobility (78.2 %). Path analysis revealed that a higher degree of pain-related impairments (ß = + 0.31) and a higher number of diagnoses (ß = + 0.19) were associated with classification to higher levels of care as defined in the German long-term care insurance. However, stronger pain and higher age were related to a classification to a lower level of care (ß = - 0.21). No relevant gender differences were identified except for the finding that old age in women had no significant effect on the classification to the level of care, whereas in men both old age and pain intensity did have an impact. CONCLUSION: Even though the majority of home care clients in this representative study suffered from pain, the degree of pain intensity only becomes an issue in home care if it concurs with impairments in daily living and a corresponding classification to higher levels of care dependency. These findings suggest that pain and pain management should receive more attention in home care, irrespective of observable impairments in daily living. In practice, nurses in home care services should regularly assess the level of pain intensity among home care clients and the results of these regular pain assessments should be taken into account for the identification of individual care needs.

[Pain in hospital: Assessing the pain situation in Austrian patients]. / Schmerz im Krankenhaus: Erfassung der Schmerzsituation österreichischer Patienten.

BACKGROUND: In a survey of all adult inpatients at the Wilhelminen Hospital in Vienna and the Klagenfurt Clinic on Lake Wörthersee, data on pain prevalence, the most frequent sites of pain, pain intensity, pain type, effect of pain on patients, pain evaluation on the various wards, pain precipitating factors, and patient satisfaction were collected. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All inpatients > 18 years were questioned using a questionnaire developed by the investigators at the Department for Anesthesia, Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine at the Wilhelminen Hospital. RESULTS: A pain prevalence of 45.7% was found at the Wilhelminen Hospital and of 40.8% at the Klagenfurt Clinic. Women reported pain significantly more often than men. No significant difference was found between surgical and conservative treatment wards in terms of pain prevalence. Patients on conservative treatment wards reported significantly higher current pain intensity than those in surgical departments. The most common areas of pain were joints and bones. A score >3 in the ID pain questionnaire was reached by 8.8% (Wilhelminen Hospital) and 4.0% (Klagenfurt Clinic) of participants. Pain influenced mood, mobility, and nighttime sleep, and was intensified by the daily clinical routine. CONCLUSION: Overall, it was demonstrated that the majority of patients at both hospitals were satisfied with the pain management. However, pain management in conservative treatment disciplines must not be neglected. More intense current pain, a worse quality of life, and a trend toward lower patient satisfaction indicate that analgesic treatment in nonsurgical disciplines should be optimized.

Validation of the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-4, a simplified severity scale for assessing skin lesions of atopic dermatitis in dogs.

BACKGROUND: Severity scales are used to grade skin lesions in clinical trials for treatment of dogs with atopic dermatitis (AD). At this time, only two scales have been validated, namely the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-3 and the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Lesion Index (CADLI). However, the high number of assessed sites makes the CADESI-3 impractical. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a fourth version of the CADESI that is simpler and quicker to administer. METHODS: Body sites, lesions and severity grades were revised by members of the International Committee on Allergic Diseases of Animals (ICADA). The newly designed CADESI-4 was tested for its validity (i.e. content, construct and criterion), reliability (i.e. inter- and intra-observer reliability and internal consistency), responsiveness (i.e. sensitivity to change) and time to administer. Disease severity benchmarks were chosen using receiver operating characteristic methodology. RESULTS: The CADESI-4 was simplified in comparison to its previous version to comprise 20 body sites typically affected in atopic dogs. Three lesions (erythema, lichenification and alopecia/excoriation) were scored from 0 to 3 at each site. The CADESI-4 had satisfactory validity, reliability and sensitivity to change. On average, the time to administer a CADESI-4 was one-third that of a CADESI-3. Proposed benchmarks for mild, moderate and severe AD skin lesions are 10, 35 and 60, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The CADESI-4 is simpler to use and quicker to administer than its previous version. The ICADA recommends the CADESI-4 instead of the CADESI-3 to score skin lesions of AD in dogs enrolled in clinical trials.

International spinal cord injury pain classification: part I. Background and description. March 6-7, 2009.

STUDY DESIGN: Discussion of issues and development of consensus. OBJECTIVE: Present the background, purpose, development process, format and definitions of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification. METHODS: An international group of spinal cord injury (SCI) and pain experts deliberated over 2 days, and then via e-mail communication developed a consensus classification of pain after SCI. The classification was reviewed by members of several professional organizations and their feedback was incorporated. The classification then underwent validation by an international group of clinicians with minimal exposure to the classification, using case study vignettes. Based upon the results of this study, further revisions were made to the ISCIP Classification. RESULTS: An overall structure and terminology has been developed and partially validated as a merger of and improvement on previously published SCI pain classifications, combined with basic definitions proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain and pain characteristics described in published empiric studies of pain. The classification is designed to be comprehensive and to include pains that are directly related to the SCI pathology as well as pains that are common after SCI but are not necessarily mechanistically related to the SCI itself. CONCLUSIONS: The format and definitions presented should help experienced and non-experienced clinicians as well as clinical researchers classify pain after SCI.

International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification: Part 2. Initial validation using vignettes.

STUDY DESIGN: International validation study using self-administered surveys. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the utility and reliability of the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) Classification as used by clinicians. METHODS: Seventy-five clinical vignettes (case histories) were prepared by the members of the ISCIP Classification group and assigned to a category by consensus. Vignettes were incorporated into an Internet survey distributed to clinicians. Clinicians were asked, for each vignette, to decide on the number of pain components present and to classify each using the ISCIP Classification. RESULTS: The average respondent had 86% of the questions on the number of pain components correct. The overall correctness in determining whether pain was nociceptive was 79%, whereas the correctness in determining whether pain was neuropathic was 77%. Correctness in determining if pain was musculoskeletal was 84%, whereas for visceral pain, neuropathic at-level spinal cord injury (SCI) and below-level SCI pain it was 85%, 57% and 73%, respectively. Using strict criteria, the overall correctness in determining pain type was 68% (versus an expected 95%), but with maximally relaxed criteria, it increased to 85%. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of use of the ISCIP Classification by clinicians (who received minimal training in its use) using a clinical vignette approach is moderate. Some subtypes of pain proved challenging to classify. The ISCIP should be tested for reliability by applying it to real persons with pain after SCI. Based on the results of this validation process, the instructions accompanying the ISCIP Classification for classifying subtypes of pain have been clarified.

Development and validation of the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Lesion Index, a scale for the rapid scoring of lesion severity in canine atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The third iteration of the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI-03) is the only tool rigorously validated for canine atopic dermatitis (CAD) lesion scoring. The CADESI-03 requires 248 evaluations, limiting its widespread use. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study was to develop and validate a practical method of grading CAD lesions that requires scoring only the frequently affected body regions. ANIMALS: Fifty-seven privately owned atopic dogs were used in the study. METHODS: The Canine Atopic Dermatitis Lesion Index (CADLI) was evaluated in an open, multicentre reliability study. Validity was assessed with expert opinion (content validity) and comparison of CADLI with existing disease severity measures (construct and criterion validity). Reliability was evaluated by analysing repeated observations of each dog. Convenience was assessed in terms of the time required to complete the scale. RESULTS: The CADLI scores correlated with overall assessment scores (r = 0.60, P < 0.001, linear mixed model) and pruritus severity scores (r = 0.53, P < 0.001, linear mixed model), establishing construct validity. The CADLI was strongly correlated with CADESI-03 (r = 0.84, P < 0.001, linear mixed model), establishing criterion validity. The CADLI values obtained by two observers correlated very strongly (r = 0.91, P < 0.001), as did the repeat values for the same observer (r = 0.98, P < 0.001). The mean time to complete the CADLI was less than that required for CADESI-03 (1.9 and 12.6 min, respectively), a highly significant difference (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The CADLI was found to be an effective measure of CAD lesion severity, strongly correlating with CADESI-03. The convenience of CADLI makes it suitable for use in both clinical research and practice.

[Different headache forms of chapter 4 of the International Headache Classification]. / Verschiedenartige Kopfschmerzformen des Kapitels 4 der Internationalen Kopfschmerzklassifikation.

Chapter 4 of the International Classification of Headaches contains a group of clinically very heterogeneous primary headache forms. Little is known about the pathogenesis of these headache types and therapy is usually based on isolated case reports and uncontrolled studies. The forms include primary stabbing headache, primary cough headache, primary exertional headache, primary headache associated with sexual activity, hypnic headache, primary thunderclap headache, hemicrania continua and the new daily persistent headache. Some of these headache forms may be of a symptomatic nature and require careful examination, imaging and further tests. Primary and secondary headache forms must be carefully distinguished.

Agreement and correlation between the self-report leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions neuropathic pain screening tools in subjects with low back-related leg pain.

OBJECTIVE: The self-report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) neuropathic pain screening tools have been shown to be reliable, valid, and able to differentiate neuropathic pain from inflammatory or mixed pain syndromes. However, no studies have compared these tools to determine whether their outcomes are similar. This study evaluated agreement and correlation between the S-LANSS and DN4 in the identification of neuropathic pain in subjects with low back-related leg pain. METHODS: This observational study compared S-LANSS and DN4 scores in 45 patients with low back-related leg pain. The S-LANSS and DN4 cutoff scores of 12 and 4, respectively, were used to classify subjects as positive or negative for the presence of neuropathic pain for each screening tool. The κ statistic was used to determine whether there was agreement in classification of neuropathic pain between the 2 screening tools. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between scores of the 2 screening tools. RESULTS: Neuropathic pain was identified in 15 subjects (33%) using the S-LANSS and in 19 subjects (42%) using the DN4. Agreement on neuropathic pain classification was fair, with a κ value of 0.34. There was moderate to good correlation (r = 0.62; P < .001) between scores obtained from the 2 tools. CONCLUSIONS: The finding of fair agreement suggests that despite the moderate to good correlation between scores, the cutoff points for the classification of neuropathic pain of the 2 tools may not be congruent.

Differences in pain, function and coping in Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroups of chronic back pain: a one-group pretest-posttest study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-specific back pain are not a homogeneous group but heterogeneous with regard to their bio-psycho-social impairments. This study examined a sample of 173 highly disabled patients with chronic back pain to find out how the three subgroups based on the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) differed in their response to an inpatient pain management program. METHODS: Subgroup classification was conducted by cluster analysis using MPI subscale scores at entry into the program. At program entry and at discharge after four weeks, participants completed the MPI, the MOS Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Pairwise analyses of the score changes of the mentioned outcomes of the three MPI subgroups were performed using the Mann-Whitney-U-test for significance. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified three MPI subgroups in this highly disabled sample: a dysfunctional, interpersonally distressed and an adaptive copers subgroup. The dysfunctional subgroup (29% of the sample) showed the highest level of depression in SF-36 mental health (33.4 ± 13.9), the interpersonally distressed subgroup (35% of the sample) a modest level of depression (46.8 ± 20.4), and the adaptive copers subgroup (32% of the sample) the lowest level of depression (57.8 ± 19.1). Significant differences in pain reduction and improvement of mental health and coping were observed across the three MPI subgroups, i.e. the effect sizes for MPI pain reduction were: 0.84 (0.44-1.24) for the dysfunctional subgroup, 1.22 (0.86-1.58) for the adaptive copers subgroup, and 0.53 (0.24-0.81) for the interpersonally distressed subgroup (p = 0.006 for pairwise comparison). Significant score changes between subgroups concerning activities and physical functioning could not be identified. CONCLUSIONS: MPI subgroup classification showed significant differences in score changes for pain, mental health and coping. These findings underscore the importance of assessing individual differences to understand how patients adjust to chronic back pain.

Association between directional preference and centralization in patients with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort. OBJECTIVES: Primary aims were to determine (1) baseline prevalence of directional preference (DP) or no directional preference (no-DP) observed for patients with low back pain whose symptoms centralized (CEN), did not centralize (non-CEN), or could not be classified (NC), and (2) to determine if classifying patients at intake by DP or no-DP combined with CEN, non-CEN, or NC predicted functional status and pain intensity at discharge from rehabilitation. BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests that patient response classification criteria DP or CEN improve outcomes, previous studies did not delineate relations between DP and CEN findings and outcomes. METHODS: Eight therapists classified patients using standardized definitions for DP and CEN. Prevalence rates for DP and no-DP and CEN,non-CEN, and NC were calculated. Ordinary least-squares multivariate regression models assessed whether multilevel classification combining DP and CEN (DP/CEN, DP/non-CEN, DP/NC, no-DP/non-CEN, and no-DP/NC categories) predicted discharge functional status (scale range, 0 to 100, with higher values representing better function) or pain intensity (scale range, 0 to 10, with higher values representing more pain). RESULTS: Overall prevalence of DP and CEN was 60% and 41%, respectively. For those with DP, prevalence rates for DP/CEN, DP/non-CEN, and DP/NC were 65%, 27%, and 8%, respectively. The amount of variance explained (R2 values) for function and pain models was 0.50 and 0.39, respectively. Compared to patients classified as DP/CEN, patients classified as DP/non-CEN or no-DP/non-CEN reported 7.7 and 11.6 functional status units less at discharge (P<.001), respectively, and patients classified as no-DP/non-CEN reported 1.7 pain units more at discharge (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that classification by pain pattern and DP can improve a therapist's ability to provide a short-term prognosis for function and pain outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1b-.

[Success of treatment in higher stages of pain chronification as well? An evaluation of the Mainz pain staging system based on the QUAST-analysis sample]. / Behandlungserfolg auch bei höherer Schmerzchronifizierung? Eine Auswertung des Mainzer Stadienmodells auf Basis der QUAST-Analysestichprobe.

BACKGROUND: More than 10 years ago Gerbershagen gave a pessimistic prognosis for treatment success in patients with higher stages of pain chronification. To date only few studies concerning this statement exist and the results are inconsistent. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic validity of the Mainz pain staging system (MPSS) in a large multicenter sample. It was assessed whether effects of treatment in patients with higher stages of pain chronification are less than those in other patients. Of further interest was whether treatment success is related to different outcome measures. METHODS: A total of 1,461 patients with the pain syndromes headache, neuropathic pain, back pain or algiomuscular pain and arthralgia were enrolled in the analysis. They were selected from the QUAST analysis sample which includes patients from 19 cooperating pain clinics. All patients had completed the German pain questionnaire prior to pain treatment and these data were compared with the last available questionnaire during the course of treatment. Outcome measures were pain intensity, psychological disability scores and patient global impression of success (PGIS). RESULTS: Analysis showed a significant improvement of all outcome measures in every MPSS stage. The greatest improvement was noted for pain intensity whereas outcome variables regarding mental health revealed the lowest improvement. Compared with patients with low pain chronification, changes in pain intensity were smaller for patients with the highest MPSS stage III but even in these patients the strength of effect was more than 0.80. About 50% of all patients showed a reduction of pain intensity of 2 or more points on an 11 point numerical rating scale and 46.6% of patients with a MPSS stage III showed this improvement. Importantly, PGIS was independent of the stage of chronification. Nearly 45% of all patients evaluated the treatment success as good or very good. CONCLUSIONS: According to the view of the patients, treatment in specialized pain centres is successful even in the highest stage of pain chronification. This notwithstanding, success of treatment must not be confounded with the efficacy of an intervention. It has to be noted that the results of the current study do not allow conclusions regarding efficacy of treatment.

Rehabilitation results in patients with cervical spine problems.

The aim of the study is the effectiveness of a multi-week inpatient rehabilitation treatment with holistic complex conservative therapy for cervical present complaints using the Lawlis scores. A major part of the conservative treatment is represented by physical, physical therapy and sports therapy exercise programs. 77 patients with cervical spine disorders were treated 01-10-2006 to 30-09-2009 in rehabilitation clinic with a complex conservative treatment measures. The analysis was performed using a questionnaire, a clinical investigation, and a radiological examination of the cervical spine. At the beginning and end of the intervention subjective scores for symptoms complaints NRS scale and assessment of treatment results by the doctor after a 4-point rating scale were collected. The average age was 53.7 years at the time of treatment. Of these, 43 patients (56%) females and 34 (44%) were male. Of 77 patients 27 (35%) patients were the results excellent, 31 (40%) patients good, 8 (11%) patients satisfactory, 11 (14%) patients bad. Of 77 patients 66 (85.7%) patients were satisfied with rehabilitation treatment, 11 (14.3%) patients dissatisfied. The subjective assessment of the complaints numerical rating scale (NRS scale) improved significantly (p<0.001) from 8.5 to 2.4 points after treatment. An objective evaluation by the attending physician based on various clinical parameters was assessed in 75% of the cases as good or very good. Conservative treatment of cervical disorders included a variety of treatments available. A major part of the conservative treatment is represented by physical, physical therapy and sports therapy exercise programs. The primary goal of treatment is to eliminate pain or pain reduction. This can be achieved inter alia through Root detumescence and promotion of the venous flow. The success of each treatment varies from patient to patient. The study shows that the complex described here, conservative therapy, is a very good method for the treatment of cervical spine disorders in post-traumatic, degenerative and disc-related spinal disorders. The primary goal of treatment is to achieve freedom from pain was achieved as easily as the subjective assessment of the complaints proved using the NRS scale. Also the high patient satisfaction (86%) suggests that the complex conservative therapy can be a satisfactory choice as a treatment method.

Evaluation of a new spine classification system, does it accurately predict treatment?

STUDY DESIGN: The Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score (TLISS) was introduced as a novel classifications system. Its aim was to simplify classification of thoracolumbar fractures, grade their severity in an ordinal manner as a guide to management. This study attempted to validate the TLISS as a guide to management. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the TLISS as a tool for guiding management of thoracolumbar fractures using the outcomes of 97 previously treated spinal fracture. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The TLISS was proposed as a tool for guidance of the management of thoracolumbar fractures to aid the surgeon in choosing management. METHOD: Ninety-seven sequential traumatic thoracolumbar fractures were retrospectively reviewed for their management and outcomes. The presenting clinical information had all personal identifiers removed and the fractures were reevaluated by the treating physician using the TLISS. Eighty-one patients had received management that agreed with the suggested management of the TLISS. Nine patients had a score of 4. Seven patients received management that disagreed with the TLISS. Variables affecting the management that differed from the management suggested by the TLISS were identified in each patient and assessed. RESULT: Of the 97 patients identified, 81 had received management that agreed with the suggested management of the TLISS. Of the 16 remaining patients, 3 patients scored a 3 or less and received an operation, 1 of which, failed conservative management. Four scored a 5 or more and were managed conservatively, none with known failure. Nine patients scored the ambiguous score of 4. Of these, 4 were managed operatively and 5 nonoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: As a management tool, the TLISS seems to consistently suggest treatment consistent with past treatment recommendations. Multilevel contiguous fractures and extension injuries in the ankylosed thoracic spine appear to be the most consistent exceptions to the TLISS guidelines.

Comparing quantification of pain severity by verbal rating and numeric rating scales.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have reported widely varying correlations among the 3 main instruments used to quantify pain severity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), both at the level of groups and at the level of individuals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of reports of pain severity using a VRS and a NRS in a spinal cord injury (SCI) sample. METHODS: Data were taken from a longitudinal observational study. Patients were 168 individuals with new traumatic SCI admitted for inpatient rehabilitation who completed the VRS and NRS multiple times, each time for multiple pains as appropriate. RESULTS: For 1114 ratings of pain, VRS and corresponding NRS ratings were correlated weakly (Spearman correlation, rho = 0.38). For 36 individuals with at least 10 completions of paired VRS and NRS, rho ranged from -0.55 to 0.76. Variation in NRS rating for each VRS adjective was reduced by about 25% when between-patient variation was eliminated. Mean NRS ratings by VRS adjective, for patients who had used each of at least 2 adjectives at least 5 times each, showed large differences in mean NRS scores between individuals using the same VRS adjective. CONCLUSION: There are considerable differences between individuals in how NRS and VRS are used; there also seem to be individuals whose understanding of the meaning of the VRS adjectives is completely different from what was assumed by the creators of this VRS. Both VRS and NRS data must be used with extreme caution by SCI clinicians and researchers.