Outpatient interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment programme for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a longitudinal cohort study.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcomes of an interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment (IMPT) for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) patients up until 12 months post-treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were gathered during routine clinical practice during a 3-year period (2019-2021) at six Dutch rehabilitation centres. Assessments included patient-reported outcome measures for multiple domains including disability, pain and fatigue. Longitudinal data were analysed using repeated-measures models and by quantifying responder rates. RESULTS: Included were 2309 patients with a mean age of 43.7 (SD 12.9) years, of which 73% female. All outcomes showed significant improvements at each timepoint. At discharge, large effect sizes were found for disability, average and worst pain, fatigue and health-related quality of life. Improvements were largely sustained at 12-months. Relatively large proportions of patients had clinically relevant improvements after treatment (pain-related disability: 60%; average pain: 52%; worst pain: 37.4%; work capacity: 50%; concentration: 50%; fatigue: 46%). Patients who received a treatment extension showed further improvements for all outcome measures, except average pain. CONCLUSIONS: At group level, all outcomes significantly improved with mainly large effect sizes. The results were mostly sustained. The proportion of patients showing clinically relevant improvements tends to be larger than previously reported for mixed CMP patients.

Chronic musculoskeletal pain can be very disabling and impacting participation and quality of life.Often several psychosocial factors contribute to the maintenance of pain and its evolving consequences.In this study, a 61 hours highly individualized interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment resulted in significant improvements with moderate to very large effect sizes for all important domains like pain, fatigue, disability, work capacity, and quality of life.Care providers as well as health insurers should acknowledge the interdisciplinary multimodal pain programme as an effective treatment in their clinical decision making.

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in rehabilitation of adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Choosing measurement tools for diagnostic, prognostic, or evaluative purposes in a chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) population is challenging for rehabilitation practice. Implementation of measurement tools for clinical practice is impaired by gaps in knowledge about measurement properties. OBJECTIVE: Identifying evidence about the measurement properties of tools frequently used in Dutch pain rehabilitation practice. METHODS: A mapping review was conducted of eligible studies that investigated reliability, validity, or responsiveness, and interpretability, as defined by the COSMIN taxonomy, of original versions or Dutch translations of predefined Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in a CMP population. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched in March 2021. Results were visually mapped. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included. The results show many knowledge gaps in both original and translated versions. In general, aspects of validity were most frequently reported. The Pain Disability Index, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were the most studied measurement tools. No results were found for the Checklist Individual Strength, Illness Perception Questionnaire, and Utrecht Coping List. CONCLUSION: Little evidence of the measurement properties of PROMs used in rehabilitation of patients with CMP in the Netherlands was found. PROMs need to be used and interpreted with caution in daily practice.

Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare.

Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.

Dutch Dataset Pain Rehabilitation in daily practice: Content, patient characteristics and reference data.

BACKGROUND: No core set of measurement tools exists to collect data within clinical practice. Such data could be useful as reference data to guide treatment decisions and to compare patient characteristics or treatment results within specific treatment settings. METHODS: The Dutch Dataset Pain Rehabilitation was developed which included the six domains of the IMMPACT core set and three new domains relevant in the field of rehabilitation (medical consumption, patient-specific goals and activities/participation). Between 2010 and 2013 the core set was implemented in 32 rehabilitation facilities throughout the Netherlands. RESULTS: A total of 8200 adult patients with chronic pain completed the core set at first consultation with the rehabilitation physician. Adult patients (18-90 years) suffering from a long history of pain (38% >5 years) were referred. Patients had high medical consumption and less than half were working. Although patients were referred with diagnosis of low back pain or neck or shoulder pain, a large group (85%) had multisite pain (39% 2-5 painful body regions; 46% >5 painful body regions). Scores on psychosocial questionnaires were high, indicating high case complexity of referred patients. Reference data for subgroups based on gender, pain severity, pain locations and on pain duration are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this clinical core set can be used to compare patient characteristics of patients of other treatment setting and/or scientific publications. As treatment success might depend on case complexity, which is high in the referred patients, the advantages of earlier referral to comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment were discussed. SIGNIFICANCE: A detailed description of case complexity of patients with chronic pain referred for pain rehabilitation. Insight in case complexity of patients within subgroups on the basis of gender, pain duration, pain severity and pain location. These descriptions can be used as reference data for daily practice in the field of pain rehabilitation and can be used to evaluate, monitor and improve rehabilitation care in care settings nationwide as well as internationally.

Development and content of the biopsychosocial primary care intervention 'Back on Track' for a subgroup of people with chronic low back pain.

Biopsychosocial interventions provided in multidisciplinary settings are promising for improving functional disability levels in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). These multidisciplinary biopsychosocial interventions mainly focus on cognitive-behavioural approaches that aim to change negative cognitions, emotions, behaviour, work and social factors. As some patients with CLBP treated in primary care settings also experience psychosocial factors that influence their level of disability, these patients may benefit from the provision of a biopsychosocial intervention in primary care. This paper will provide a detailed description of the development and content of the biopsychosocial primary care intervention 'Back on Track' for this specific subgroup of patients. The Back on Track intervention was developed based on available scientific evidence and clinical experience from multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation programmes, and its effectiveness is currently being tested. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02220543.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the difference in treatment effect, at 26 and 52 weeks after the start of treatment, between cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). DESIGN: Multicentre, randomized controlled trial of patients with CFS. Participants were randomly assigned to MRT or CBT. SETTING: Four rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: A total of 122 patients participated in the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were fatigue measured by the fatigue subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength and health-related quality of life measured by the Short-Form 36. Outcomes were assessed prior to treatment and at 26 and 52 weeks after treatment initiation. RESULTS: A total of 114 participants completed the assessment at 26 weeks, and 112 completed the assessment at 52 weeks. MRT was significantly more effective than CBT in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The estimated difference in fatigue between the two treatments was -3.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.07 to 2.03; P = 0.24] at 26 weeks and -5.69 (95% CI -10.62 to -0.76; P = 0.02) at 52 weeks. Patients showed an improvement in quality of life over time, but between-group differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that MRT is more effective in reducing long-term fatigue severity than CBT in patients with CFS. Although implementation in comparable populations can be recommended based on clinical effectiveness, it is advisable to analyse the cost-effectiveness and replicate these findings in another multicentre trial.

[Intraobserver reliability of the Handball-specific complex test (HBKT)]. / Intraobserverreliabilität des handballspezifischen Komplextests (HBKT).

BACKGROUND: There are clearly no complex and sports-specific tests in handball. So far, no specific complex test has been developed and verified for its intraobserver reliability (IR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the IR of the Handball-specific complex test (HBKT). METHODS: The HBKT was applied twice at an interval of two days to two teams of the German Third League (n = 30; age 25.7 ±â€Š3.9 years, range: 19 - 33 years). Within the HBKT, the stress parameters lactate and heart rate as well as the loading parameters time, throwing velocity and number of errors were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 23 % (3/13) of the stress parameters showed a high relative [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.75] and absolute [coefficient of variation (CV) ≤ 5 %] IR. On average, a sufficient absolute (∅CV = 11.3 %) and relative (∅ICC = 0.67) IR was observed. Without the parameters "missed throws" and "technical errors" in both rounds, the IR increased significantly (∅ICC: from 0.67 to 0.72 & ∅CV from 11.3 to 6.3 %). The heart rate was comparatively more reliable than lactate (∅ICC = 0.71 & ∅CV = 4.23 % vs. ∅ICC = 0.65 & ∅CV = 15.1 %). With respect to load parameters in round one, 50 % (5/10) showed a high IR; in round two, these values decreased to 40 % (4/10). The mean IR of the parameters in round one was higher than in round two (∅ICC = 0.71 & ∅CV = 12.2 % vs. ∅ICC = 0.60 & ∅CV = 14.3 %). Overall, there was an improvement of the athletes in most stress and load parameters from session one to session two. CONCLUSIONS: The HBKT can be attested with a sufficient intraobserver reliability. When the parameters "missed throws" and "technical errors" were excluded, the IR further increased significantly. Therefore, these parameters should be recorded in order to standardized the HBKT, but not be included in the statistical analysis. There are discrete adaptation and learning effects. For this reason, it is essential to familiarise trainers and players with the HBKT test procedure before the first measurement. Otherwise training effects can be easily overrated. Moreover, the test concept of HBKT can be used as a blueprint for the development of sport-specific tests in other team sports (e. g., soccer, basketball). For example, we generated a complex soccer-specific field test 1 based on the HBKT.

Behavioral-graded activity compared with usual care after first-time disk surgery: considerations of the design of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To present the design of a trial on the effectiveness of a behavioral-graded activity model. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing first-time lumbar disk surgery who still have low-back pain at the 6-week neurosurgical consultation. INTERVENTIONS: A patient-tailored behavioral-graded activity program that is based on operant therapy. The key elements of this program are baseline measurements, goal-setting, and time-contingency. This program is compared with usual care in physiotherapy, which is pain-contingent. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures are the patient's global impression of the effect and their functional status. Secondary measures are kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, pain, main complaint, range of motion, and relapses. The direct and indirect costs will also be assessed. The effect measures are rated before randomization and 3, 6, and 12 months later. DISCUSSION: Several trials have been conducted on the effectiveness of behavioral treatments. Subjects were always patients with chronic low-back pain. In this trial, we apply such a treatment in patients after first-time disk surgery in a primary care setting.

A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Activities and their importance for daily living vary widely between patients. Patient-specific measurement of functional status means that the evaluation is focused on activities that an individual patient selected as main complaints. OBJECTIVE: To develop and to evaluate a patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort of 150 patients was measured at baseline and 12 weeks later. METHODS: The feasibility of the patient-specific approach was evaluated in patients with nonspecific low back pain. We used effect size statistics to evaluate responsiveness in terms of sensitivity to change and specificity to change. RESULTS: The selection procedure for the main complaint was feasible but labor intensive. The patient-specific approach was able to detect changes in complaints that were highly relevant for the patients. The patient-specific approach appeared to be more sensitive to change but less specific to change compared with other instruments. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this study it would be valuable to apply the patient-specific approach in future studies, also with the aim of further evaluation. In the meantime a number of practical problems of the method need to be resolved.

Efficacy of traction for nonspecific low back pain. 12-week and 6-month results of a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of motorized continuous traction for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The available studies on the efficacy of lumbar traction do not allow clear conclusions because of severe methodologic flaws. The current trial aimed to overcome these shortcomings. METHODS: Patients with at least 6 weeks of nonspecific low back pain were selected. High-dose traction was compared with sham (or low-dose) traction. Sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that becomes tighter in the back during traction. This was experienced as if real traction were exerted. The patients and the outcome assessor were unaware of treatment allocation. Outcome measures were: patient's global perceived effect, severity of main complaints, functional status, pain, range of motion, work absence, and medical treatment. Results for the outcome measures at 12 weeks and 6 months after randomization are presented. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one patients were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment methods. Intention-to-treat analysis of the 12-week and 6-month results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups on all outcome measures: all 95% confidence intervals included the value zero. The number of patients lost to follow-up study was very low. Other analyses showed the same results. CONCLUSIONS: Most common flaws of earlier studies on traction therapy could be overcome. This trial did not support the claim that traction is efficacious for patients with low back pain.

Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

This study compares the responsiveness of three instruments of functional status: two disease-specific questionnaires (Oswestry and Roland Disability Questionnaires), and a patient-specific method (severity of the main complaint). We compared changes over time of functional status instruments with pain rated on a visual analog scale. Two strategies for evaluating the responsiveness in terms of sensitivity to change and specificity to change were used: effect size statistics and receiver-operating characteristic method. We chose global perceived effect as external criterion. A cohort of 81 patients with non-specific low back pain for at least 6 weeks assessed these measures before and after 5 weeks of treatment. According to the external criterion 38 patients improved. The results of both strategies were the same. All instruments were able to discriminate between improvement and non-improvement. The effect size statistics of the instruments were higher in the improved group than in the non-improved group. For each instrument the receiver-operating characteristic curves showed some discriminative ability. The curves for the Roland Questionnaire and pain were closer to the upper left than the curves for the other instruments. The sensitivity to change of the rating of Oswestry Questionnaire was lower than that of the other instruments. The main complaint was not very specific to change. The two strategies for evaluating the responsiveness were very useful and appeared to complement each other.

Efficacy of traction for non-specific low back pain: a randomised clinical trial.

Previous trials to assess the efficacy of lumbar traction for back pain have been methodologically flawed. To avoid these shortcomings, we conducted a randomised controlled trial in which high-dose traction was compared with sham traction. The sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that tightens in the back during traction. To the patient, the experience is that of traction. The patients and outcome assessor were blinded for the assigned treatment. 151 patients with at least six weeks of non-specific low back pain were randomised. Intention to treat analysis showed no differences between the groups on all outcome measures (patients' global perceived effect, severity of main complaints, functional status and pain); all 95% confidence intervals included the value zero. The number of withdrawals from treatment, loss to follow-up, and protocol deviations was low. Consequently, the per-protocol analysis showed results similar to the intention to treat analysis. Subgroup analyses did not show any group for which traction might seem promising. Our data do not support the claim that traction is effective for patients with low back pain.

Strength training in patients with myotonic dystrophy and hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial.

A randomized clinical trial on the effects of strength training was performed in myotonic dystrophy (MyD) patients and patients with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy (HMSN). Training and most measurement tools involved the proximal lower extremity muscles. The participants trained 3 times a week for 24 weeks with weights adapted to their force. Strength was evaluated by isokinetically measured knee torque. Fatiguability was assessed by the time an isometric contraction could be sustained. Functional performance was measured by timed motor performance and by questionnaires on functional performance. Serum myoglobin (Mb) levels were determined to detect changes in muscle fiber membrane permeability. The MyD group included 33 participants, and the HMSN group included 29 participants. Within each diagnostic group, patients were individually matched and subsequently randomized for treatment allocation. In the MyD patients, none of the measurement techniques showed any training effect. Neither were there signs of deterioration caused by the training. In the HMSN group, knee torques increased. Timed motor performance did not change, although the questionnaires showed an improvement on items related to upper-leg function. Mb levels did not change significantly as a result of the training. In conclusion, the MyD group showed neither positive nor negative effects of the training protocol, whereas the training produced a moderate increase in strength and leg-related functional performance in the HMSN group.

Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires.

STUDY DESIGN: This study was a literature review of the quality of four disease-specific functional status questionnaires for patients with low back pain: Oswestry; Million; Roland; and Waddell disability questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: The questionnaires were evaluated in terms of general description, scale structure, reliability, validity, responsiveness, and clinical research applications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Functional status is an outcome of great interest for clinical trials of low back pain. METHODS: A computer-aided search was conducted of articles published between 1981 and 1993 and references given in selected relevant publications. Articles were selected if at least one of the four functional status questionnaires was used or if the authors gave relevant information about the methodology of these questionnaires. RESULTS: There was not enough information available about the criteria of item selection used for the development of the questionnaires. The test-retest reproducibility of the questionnaires seemed satisfactory. The Oswestry and Roland disability questionnaires have been used and evaluated more frequently than the Million and Waddell. Therefore, we can be more certain about the validity and responsiveness of the former pair of questionnaires. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a gold standard, direct comparisons of evaluative functional status questionnaires in a single patient group are needed. Through direct comparisons, comparative validity and responsiveness can be assessed. Functional status measures are not currently used in many settings in which they would be valuable. It is important to encourage their wider use in clinical trials. Additional research is needed to compare and improve the existing questionnaires.

The efficacy of traction for lumbar back pain: design of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To present the design of a trial on the efficacy of lumbar traction. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PATIENTS: Patients with a minimum of 6 wk, nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTION: High-dose, motorized, continuous traction with a force between 35% and 50% of the total body weight was compared with sham or low-dose traction with a force between 0 and 20% of body weight. The sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that becomes tighter in the back during traction. This is experienced by patients as if traction were exerted. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures were the patient's global impression of the effect and the severity of three main complaints. Secondary effect measures were functional status, pain, range of motion, work absence and recurrences. The effect measures were rated before randomization and 4 wk, 12 wk and 6 months later. CONCLUSION: There have been a number of earlier trials on the efficacy of lumbar traction; they suffer, however, from severe methodological flaws. This trial aimed to avoid these shortcomings.