Association of back pain with all-cause and cause-specific mortality among older men: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether more severe back pain phenotypes-persistent, frequent or disabling back pain-are associated with higher mortality among older men. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort, the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study, we evaluated mortality rates by back pain phenotype among 5215 older community-dwelling men (mean age, 73 years, SD = 5.6) from six U.S. sites. The primary back pain measure used baseline and year five back pain questionnaire data to characterize participants as having: no back pain; non-persistent back pain; infrequent persistent back pain; or frequent persistent back pain. Secondary measures of back pain from year five questionnaire included disabling back pain phenotypes. The main outcomes measured were all-cause and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: After the year five exam, during up to 18 years of follow-up (mean follow-up=10.3 years), there were 3513 deaths (1218 cardiovascular, 764 cancer, 1531 other). A higher proportion of men with frequent persistent back pain versus no back pain died (78% versus 69%; sociodemographic-adjusted HR = 1.27, 95%CI=1.11-1.45). No association was evident after further adjusting for health-related factors such as self-reported general health and comorbid chronic health conditions (fully-adjusted HR = 1.00; 95%CI=0.86-1.15). Results were similar for cardiovascular mortality and other mortality, but we observed no association of back pain with cancer mortality. Secondary back pain measures including back-related disability were associated with increased mortality risk that remained statistically significant in fully-adjusted models. CONCLUSION: While frequent persistent back pain was not independently associated with mortality in older men, additional secondary disabling back pain phenotypes were independently associated with increased mortality. Future investigations should evaluate whether improvements in disabling back pain effect general health and well-being or mortality.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Induced leg length inequality affects pelvis orientation during upright standing immediately following a sit-to-stand transfer: a pre-post measurement study.

BACKGROUND: Leg length inequality (LLI) greater than 20 mm has been associated with low back pain (LBP) and its correction is clinically recommended. Much less is known about the biomechanical effects that LLI below 15 mm has on pelvis orientation. METHODS: Twenty-two adult participants (8 female) aged between 18 and 30 years without LBP were enrolled in the study and completed a series of sit-to-stand trials with no heel-lift (0 mm baseline) and heel-lifts of varying heights (5, 9 and 12 mm) placed in their right shoe. Three-dimensional kinematic data were obtained from the lower extremities, pelvis and thorax. Additional kinematic data were obtained from the left and right sides of the pelvis. The global orientation of the whole pelvis and relative orientation between the left and right sides of the pelvis were obtained in upright standing immediately upon completion of the sit-to-stand movement. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to detect differences in sample means across the different levels of heel-lift (0, 5, 9, and 12 mm). The tests for within-subject effects determined overall significant differences between the means at the different levels of heel-lift induced LLI. Partial Eta-Squared was used to express the size for the main effect of heel-lift height. For each level of heel-lift, the estimated marginal mean and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) values of pelvis angles were illustrated graphically. RESULTS: Left frontal plane rotation of the pelvis increased (p = 0.001), that is, the left side of the pelvis was lower than the right side of the pelvis, and anterior tilt of the pelvis decreased (p = 0.020) with a heel-lift height (applied on the right) as low as 5 mm. A significant main effect of heel-lift was only observed for the norm of rotations about all three axes for relative-pelvis orientation (p = 0.034). Post-hoc analyses did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the heel-lifts and the 0 mm baseline (p≥0.072). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that correcting leg length inequality below the recommended threshold of 20 mm may influence pelvic orientation. Future work can investigate the effects of the altered orientations on spine loading and the clinical effects of corrections to minor leg length inequality.

Factors that influence scope of practice of the five largest health care professions in Australia: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: A well-functioning health system delivers quality services to all people when and where they need them. To help navigate the complex realm of patient care, it is essential that health care professions have a thorough understanding of their scope of practice. However, a lack of uniformity regarding scope of practice across the regulated health professions in Australia currently exists. This has led to ambiguity about what comprises scope of practice in some health care professions in the region. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to explore the literature on the factors that influence scope of practice of the five largest health care professions in Australia. METHODS: This study employed scoping review methodology to document the current state of the literature on factors that influence scope of practice of the five largest health care professions in Australia. The search was conducted using the following databases: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), MANTIS (Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System), MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS. Additional data sources were searched from Google and ProQuest. RESULTS: A total of 12 771 publications were identified from the literature search. Twenty-three documents fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Eight factors were identified across three professions (nursing & midwifery, pharmacy and physiotherapy) that influenced scope of practice: education, competency, professional identity, role confusion, legislation and regulatory policies, organisational structures, financial factors, and professional and personal factors. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will inform a range of stakeholders including the private and public arms of the healthcare system, educators, employers, funding bodies, policymakers and practitioners about the factors that influence scope of practice of health professions in Australia.

How common is imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? Systematic review and meta-analysis of over 4 million imaging requests across 21 years.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Observational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system. RESULTS: 45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: One in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041987.

Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. RESULTS: 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.

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.

What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain?

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is often categorised as acute, subacute or chronic by focusing on the duration of the current episode. However, more than twenty years ago this concept was challenged by a recognition that LBP is often an episodic condition. This episodic nature also means that the course of LBP is not well described by an overall population mean. Therefore, studies have investigated if specific LBP trajectories could be identified which better reflect individuals' course patterns. Following a pioneering study into LBP trajectories published by Dunn et al. in 2006, a number of subsequent studies have also identified LBP trajectories and it is timely to provide an overview of their findings and discuss how insights into these trajectories may be helpful for improving our understanding of LBP and its clinical management. DISCUSSION: LBP trajectories in adults have been identified by data driven approaches in ten cohorts, and these have consistently demonstrated that different trajectory patterns exist. Despite some differences between studies, common trajectories have been identified across settings and countries, which have associations with a number of patient characteristics from different health domains. One study has demonstrated that in many people such trajectories are stable over several years. LBP trajectories seem to be recognisable by patients, and appealing to clinicians, and we discuss their potential usefulness as prognostic factors, effect moderators, and as a tool to support communication with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Investigations of trajectories underpin the notion that differentiation between acute and chronic LBP is overly simplistic, and we believe it is time to shift from this paradigm to one that focuses on trajectories over time. We suggest that trajectory patterns may represent practical phenotypes of LBP that could improve the clinical dialogue with patients, and might have a potential for supporting clinical decision making, but their usefulness is still underexplored.

Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the best red flags to indicate the possibility of fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain in primary, secondary, or tertiary care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Older age, prolonged corticosteroid use, severe trauma, and presence of a contusion or abrasion increase the likelihood of spinal fracture (likelihood was higher with multiple red flags); a history of malignancy increases the likelihood of spinal malignancy.

Factors that influence the scope of practice of the chiropractic profession in Australia: a thematic analysis.

Scope of practice has been defined as the activities that an individual health care practitioner is allowed to undertake within a specific profession. The chiropractic profession in Australia does not currently have a documented scope of practice. Informed discussions around scope of practice are hampered by a paucity of literature in this area. Acknowledging this void in the literature, we chose to investigate the factors that influence scope of practice of the chiropractic profession. A knowledge of the factors will facilitate discussion on the topic and help the profession to work towards establishing a scope of practice.Aim The aim of this study was to identify the factors that influence scope of practice of chiropractic in Australia from the perspective of 4 stakeholder groups within the profession.Methods This study employed semi-structured, online-interviews. Open-ended questions, guided by a flexible interview protocol, and augmented by supplemental questions, probes and comments, were used to gather data on the research question. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results Six factors that influenced scope of practice of chiropractic were identified in this study: education, evidence (research-derived and practice-based), political influence, community expectations, entrepreneurial business models, and geographical location.Conclusion Knowledge of the factors that influence scope of practice of chiropractic in Australia is important for establishing a scope of practice for the profession. This knowledge is also of value to a range of stakeholders including patients, health care providers (within and outside the profession), professional associations, and policymakers.

Prospective Back Pain Trajectories or Retrospective Recall-Which Tells Us Most About the Patient?

In patients with low back pain (LBP), a visually identified retrospective pain trajectory often mismatches with a trajectory derived from prospective repeated measures. To gain insight into the clinical relevance of the 2 trajectory types, we investigated which showed a higher association with clinical outcomes. Participants were 724 adults seeking care for LBP in Danish chiropractic primary care. They answered weekly short-message-services on pain intensity and frequency over 52 weeks, which we translated into 8 trajectory classes. After 52 weeks, participants selected a retrospective visual pain trajectory from the same 8 trajectory classes. Clinical outcomes included disability, back/leg pain intensity, back beliefs, and work ability. The patient-selected pain trajectory classes were more strongly associated with clinical outcomes than the short-message-service trajectory classes at baseline, at follow-up, and with outcome changes between baseline and follow-up. This held across all 5 clinical outcomes, with the strongest associations observed at week 52 and the weakest at baseline. Patients' retrospective assessment of their LBP is more strongly associated with their clinical status than their prospective assessments translated into trajectory classes. This suggests that retrospective assessments of pain trajectories may provide valuable information not captured by prospective assessments. Researchers collecting prospective pain data should know that the captured pain trajectories are not strongly reflected in patients' perceptions of clinical status. Patients' retrospective assessments seem to offer an interpretation of their pain course that is likely more clinically relevant in understanding the perceived impact of their condition than trajectories based on repeated measures. PERSPECTIVE: Prospective pain data inadequately reflect patients' clinical status. Retrospective assessments provide a more clinically valuable understanding of the impact of their condition.

Stressful life events and low back pain in older men: A cross-sectional and prospective analysis using data from the MrOS study.

BACKGROUND: Stressful life events, such as loss of a partner, loss of a pet or financial problems, are more common with increasing age and may impact the experience of pain. The aim of the current study is to determine the cross-sectional and prospective association between stressful life events and low back pain reporting in the Osteoporotic Fracture in Men Study, a cohort of older men aged ≥65 years. METHODS: At a study visit (March 2005-May 2006), 5149 men reported whether they had experienced a stressful life event or low back pain in the prior 12 months. Following that visit, data on low back pain patients were gathered through triannual questionnaires every 4 months for 1 year. Multivariable logistic regression analyses estimated the association of stressful life events with recent past low back pain or future low back pain. RESULTS: N = 2930, (57%) men reported at least one stressful life event. The presence of a stressful life event was associated with greater odds of any low back pain (OR = 1.42 [1.26-1.59]) and activity-limiting low back pain (OR = 1.74 [1.50-2.01]) in the same period and of any low back pain (OR = 1.56 [1.39-1.74]) and frequent low back pain (OR = 1.80 [1.55-2.08]) in the following year. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of men, the presence of stressful life events increased the likelihood of reporting past and future low back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Stressful life events such as accident or illness to a partner are common in later life and may impact the experience of pain. We present cross-sectional and prospective data highlighting a consistent association between stressful life events and low back pain in older men. Further, there is evidence to suggest that this relationship is upregulated by an individual's living situation. This information may be used to strengthen a biopsychosocial perspective of an individual's pain experience.

Trajectories of arm recovery early after stroke: an exploratory study using latent class growth analysis.

AIM: To investigate trajectories of recovery of motor arm function after stroke during inpatient rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were available from 74 consecutively-admitted stroke survivors receiving inpatient rehabilitation from an inception cohort study. Heterogeneity of arm recovery in the first 4-weeks was investigated using latent class analysis and weekly Box and Block Test (BBT) scores. Optimal number of clusters were determined; characterised and cluster associated factors explored. RESULTS: A 4-cluster model was identified, including 19 participants with low baseline arm function and minimal recovery ('LOWstart/LOWprogress', 26%), 15 with moderate function and low recovery ('MODstart/LOWprogress', 20%), 15 with low function and high recovery ('LOWstart/HIGHprogress', 20%), and 25 with moderate function and recovery ('MODstart/MODprogress', 34%). Compared to LOWstart/LOWprogress: LOWstart/HIGHprogress presented earlier post-stroke (ß, 95%CI) (-4.81 days, -8.94 to -0.69); MODstart/MODprogress had lower modified Rankin Scale scores (-0.74, -1.15 to -0.32); and MODstart/LOWprogress, LOWstart/HIGHprogress and MODstart/MODprogress had higher admission BBT (23.58, 18.82 to 28.34; 4.85, 0.85 to 9.61; 28.02, 23.82 to 32.21), Upper Limb-Motor Assessment Scale (9.60, 7.24 to 11.97; 3.34, 0.97 to 5.70; 10.86, 8.77 to 12.94), Action Research Arm Test (31.09, 22.86 to 39.33; 12.69, 4.46 to 20.93; 38.01, 30.76 to 45.27), and Manual Muscle Test scores (10.64, 7.07 to 14.21; 6.24, 2.67 to 9.81; 11.87, 8.72 to 15.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found unique patterns of arm recovery with distinct characteristics for each cluster. Better understanding of patterns of arm recovery can guide future models and intervention development.KEY MESSAGESArm recovery early after stroke follows four distinct trajectories that relate to time post stroke, initial stroke severity and baseline level of motor arm function.Identification of recovery patterns gives insight into the uniqueness of individual's recovery.This study offers a novel approach on which to build and develop future models of arm recovery.

Do Visual Pain Trajectories Reflect the Actual Course of Low Back Pain? A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Different trajectories of low back pain (LBP) have been identified prospectively using repeated measures. For these trajectories to inform clinical practice, they must be available in the clinical consultation. Therefore, identified LBP trajectories have been translated into visual pain trajectories (VPTs) that allow people with LBP, at the time of consult, to reflect upon their pain experience and identify the VPT that best categorizes their pain course. We have limited knowledge regarding the extent to which a chosen VPT reflects the prospectively experienced trajectory. Thus, we explored the distribution of pain intensity and pain pattern characteristics (from prospective pain trajectory data) within the retrospectively chosen VPT classes. We enrolled patients with LBP from Danish chiropractic practice. Using SMS, participants (n = 719) scored their pain weekly on an 11-point numerical rating scale for 52 weeks. At week 52, participants identified 1 of 8 VPTs that reflected their perceived back pain trajectory during the preceding year. We found that the chosen VPTs reflected pain intensity, but that pain patterns (episodic, fluctuating, and persistent) were not systematically recognized, and the experienced course varied substantially amongst participants within the same VPT. The VPTs are related to some aspects of the experienced LBP course but are not a proxy for the SMS-measured trajectories. Reasons for apparent mismatches between the experienced course of LBP and VPT recall warrant further investigation. PERSPECTIVE: Self-reported back pain trajectories reflected pain intensities obtained through weekly SMS tracking over a year, but participants' recall did not reflect the pain patterns (episodes and fluctuations) discovered prospectively. Clinicians can use self-reported pain trajectories to facilitate a dialog about pain experience, but not as a proxy for prospective measures.

A new version of a measurement for presence and impact of pain in children and adolescents - Presence and impact of pain in Kids (PIP-KIDS) questionnaire: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties into Brazilian-Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents is prevalent and responsible for high levels of disability. Instruments to measure the presence and impact of pain in this population are needed. OBJECTIVE: To translate, cross-culturally adapt, then test the measurement properties (structural validity, reliability and construct validity) of a questionnaire (Presence and Impact of Pain in Kids (PIP-Kids) questionnaire) to measure the presence and impact of pain in children and adolescents. DESIGN: Measurement properties study. METHODS: We conducted a measurement properties study. We translated and culturally adapted the PIP-Kids questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese. The structural validity was measured by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Reliability was measured by Kappa Coefficient. Measurement error was measured by the percentage of agreement. Construct validity was measured by Spearman Correlation. RESULTS/FINDINGS: We included 656 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the translation and cross-cultural adaptation no changes to wording were necessary. Structural validity confirmed two domains. Reliability by Kappa Coefficient ranges from 0.20 to 0.68. Measurement error by the percentage of agreement ranged from 60.2 to 92%. Construct validity was confirmed with 80.5% in accordance with prior hypotheses. CONCLUSION: The PIP-Kids questionnaire translation and cross-cultural adaptation were adequate. The PIP-Kids questionnaire also has adequate structural validity with two dimensions (presence and impact), fair reliability, good agreement, and adequate construct validity.

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: a cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010-2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014-2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. RESULTS: Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62-63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62-68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77-0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56-0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71-0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54-0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35-0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58-0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16-0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06-0.44). CONCLUSION: In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

Temporal stability of self-reported visual back pain trajectories.

ABSTRACT: Low back pain (LBP) follows different pain trajectories, and patients seem to recognize their trajectory. This allows self-reported visual pain trajectories (SRVTs) to support patient-provider communication. Pain trajectories appear stable over time for many patients, but the evidence is sparse. Our objectives were to investigate the (1) temporal stability of SRVTs over 1 year concerning pain intensity and course patterns and (2) association of transitions between SRVTs and changes in pain and disability. This study used data from 2 prospective primary care cohorts: the Danish Chiropractic LBP Cohort (n = 1323) and the GLA:D Back cohort (n = 1135). Participants identified one of the 8 SRVTs at baseline and 12-month follow-up, each asking about LBP trajectories the preceding year. Trajectories were described using 2 subscales (intensity and pattern). Temporal stability was quantified by "stability odds ratios" (ORs), depicting the likelihood of staying in the same SRVT after 12 months compared with baseline, and by "preference ORs," depicting the likelihood of choosing a specific alternative SRVT at follow-up. Both ORs compare the observed proportion with the chance level. Finally, we examined associations between transitioning to a different trajectory and changes in clinical outcomes. Approximately 30% stayed in the same SRVT. The stability ORs were all >1. The preference ORs indicated that transitions occurred mainly to similar SRVTs differing in only 1 subscale. Transitions to less or more intense SRVTs were associated with changes in clinical outcomes in the expected direction. Despite distinctly different SRVTs identified, individuals reported relatively stable LBP phenotypes but with potential for change.

Factors that influence scope of practice of the chiropractic profession in Australia: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization describes chiropractic as a health profession that treats the musculoskeletal system and the effects of that system on the function of the nervous system and general health. Notwithstanding such descriptions, scope of practice remains a contentious issue in Australia chiropractic with various authors defining it differently. To date, the peak governing body, the Chiropractic Board of Australia, has focused on title protection rather than defining a scope of practice for the profession. A well-defined scope of practice is important, as it helps to identify what is acceptable in the profession and the role chiropractic has in the broader healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to explore the literature on the factors that influence scope of practice of chiropractic in Australia. METHODS: This study employed scoping review methodology to document the current state of the literature on factors that influence scope of practice of the chiropractic profession in Australia. RESULTS: A total of 1270 articles were identified from the literature search. Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Four factors that influence scope of practice were identified: education, professional identity, patient safety, and organisational structure. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will inform future discussions around establishing a framework for a more comprehensive scope of practice for the chiropractic profession in Australia. Such a framework has the potential to benefit patient safety, professional identity, public perception, education, and regulation of the profession.

The available evidence on the effectiveness of 10 common approaches to the management of non-specific low back pain: An evidence map.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low back pain is common and remains one of the leading causes of disability globally. This study aimed to develop an evidence map of the quantity of available evidence assessing approaches to manage low back pain, to identify potential redundancies or gaps in the synthesized data, and guide future research focus. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched to March 2022 for systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of 10 guideline-recommended approaches to manage low back pain. For each management strategy, the number of systematic reviews, date of publication, eligibility criteria and included primary trials were extracted and descriptive data presented. RESULTS: Substantial evidence, including both systematic reviews and primary trials, was available for each management approach except for patient reassurance. The quantity of available evidence has continued to increase over time. Cochrane reviews have been performed for all 10 treatments, except reassurance of the benign nature of low back pain; however, many of the Cochrane reviews were performed prior to 2015. Substantial heterogeneity in the eligibility criteria between systematic reviews exists; however, some age ranges (children and older adults), clinical settings (emergency), and conditions (radiculopathy) were infrequently assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Based on systematic reviews, there is a large body of evidence assessing the effectiveness of common approaches to manage low back pain. Justification of the need for further systematic reviews and primary trials should consider the available evidence and is essential to avoid potential research redundancy when investigating effective management of low back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Substantial evidence (systematic reviews and primary trials) exists for 10 approaches to manage low back pain. The quantity of available evidence has continued to increase over time. The quantity and large heterogeneity of inclusion criteria in available systematic reviews may influence conflicting recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Justification of the need for further systematic reviews and primary trials is essential to avoid potential research redundancy.