Does poor sleep quality lead to increased low back pain the following day?

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the relationship between sleep quality and next-day pain intensity for people with low back pain and investigated whether there was any evidence that this relationship was causal. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an observational study that investigated sleep quality in people with low back pain. People with low back pain were recruited from primary care and the community. Sleep quality was measured with subjective (self-report) and objective (polysomnography (PSG)) measures. PSG analysis classifies sleep into stages, of which slow-wave sleep (SWS) is thought to have a key role in maintaining or increasing pain intensity. We drew directed acyclic graphs to identify possible confounders of the relationship between both measures of sleep quality, and pain intensity. We constructed two linear regression models to explore the effect of subjective and objective sleep quality on next-day pain intensity before and after confounder adjustment. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants were included in the study. For participants with low back pain, self-reported better quality sleep ß=-0.38 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.13), or spending a greater proportion of time in SWS ß=-0.12 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.02) was associated with lower next day pain intensity. After confounder adjustment, the effect reduced and was no longer significant for either self-reported ß=-0.18 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.10), or SWS ß=-0.08 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Sleep quality, whether measured by self-report or proportion of time in SWS, was associated with next day pain intensity for people with low back pain. However, this relationship is likely to be confounded and therefore not likely to be causal.

Effect of Graded Sensorimotor Retraining on Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point. Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

Making exercise count: Considerations for the role of exercise in back pain treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is pain that has persisted for greater than three months. It is common and burdensome and represents a significant proportion of primary health presentations. For the majority of people with CLBP, a specific nociceptive contributor cannot be reliably identified, and the pain is categorised as 'non-specific'. Exercise therapy is recommended by international clinical guidelines as a first-line treatment for non-specific CLBP. AIM: This comprehensive review aims to synthesise and appraise the current research to provide practical, evidence-based guidance concerning exercise prescription for non-specific CLBP. We discuss detailed initial assessment and being informed by patient preferences, values, expectations, competencies and goals. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) using broad search terms from January 2000 to March 2021, to identify the most recent clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on exercise for CLBP. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews show exercise is effective for small, short-term reductions in pain and disability, when compared with placebo, usual care, or waiting list control, and serious adverse events are rare. A range of individualised or group-based exercise modalities have been demonstrated as effective in reducing pain and disability. Despite this consensus, controversies and significant challenges remain. CONCLUSION: To promote recovery, sustainable outcomes and self-management, exercise can be coupled with education strategies, as well as interventions that enhance adherence, motivation and patient self-efficacy. Clinicians might benefit from intentionally considering their own knowledge and competencies, potential harms of exercise and costs to the patient. This comprehensive review provides evidence-based practical guidance to health professionals who prescribe exercise for people with non-specific CLBP.

Producing Clinically Meaningful Reductions in Disability: A Causal Mediation Analysis of a Patient Education Intervention.

Patient education is recommended as first-line care for low back pain (LBP), although its efficacy for providing clinically meaningful reductions in disability has been questioned. One way to improve treatment effects is to identify and improve targeting of treatment mechanisms. We conducted a pre-planned causal mediation analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of patient education for patients with acute LBP. 202 patients who had fewer than six-weeks' duration of LBP and were at high-risk of developing chronic LBP completed two, one-hour treatment sessions of either intensive patient education, or placebo patient education. 189 participants provided data for the outcome self-reported disability at three-months and the mediators, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, and back beliefs at one-week post treatment. This causal mediation analysis found that pain catastrophizing (mediated effect, -0.64; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -1.31 to -0.15) and back beliefs (mediated effect, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.02) partly explained the effect of patient education on disability but pain self-efficacy did not (mediated effect, -0.40; 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28). Considering the mediator-outcome relationship, patient education would need to induce an 8 point difference on the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (0-60); an 11 point difference on the back beliefs questionnaire (9-45); and a 21 point difference on the pain catastrophizing scale (0-52) to achieve a minimally clinically important difference of 2 points on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-24). PERSPECTIVE: Understanding the mechanisms of patient education can inform how this treatment can be adapted to provide clinically meaningful reductions in disability. Our findings suggest that adapting patient education to better target back beliefs and pain self-efficacy could result in clinically meaningful reductions in disability whereas the role of pain catastrophizing in acute LBP is less clear.

Feeling reassured after a consultation does not reduce disability or healthcare use in people with acute low back pain: a mediation analysis of a randomised trial.

QUESTION: Does feeling reassured after a consultation reduce future disability or healthcare use in people with acute low back pain (LBP)? DESIGN: Mediation analysis of a randomised, sham-controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and two people with acute LBP at above average risk (high risk) of developing chronic LBP. INTERVENTION: All participants received guideline-based care from their usual clinician. Participants received two additional 1-hour sessions of patient education focused on emphasising the benign nature of LBP or sham patient education that included active listening only. OUTCOME MEASURES: The two primary outcomes for this study were self-reported disability and healthcare use. The mediator was feeling reassured that LBP was not caused by serious illness. RESULTS: Data from 194 (96%) participants and 178 (88%) participants were included in the analysis for disability and healthcare use outcome models, respectively. Feeling reassured did not mediate the effect of the intervention on disability (indirect effect -0.23, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.18) or healthcare use (indirect effect 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04). Patient education intervention increased feeling reassured (1.14 points, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.85) compared with sham patient education. However, the mediator (ie, feeling reassured) did not reduce disability (-0.20 points, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.19) or healthcare use (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.21). CONCLUSION: Feeling reassured after a consultation did not lead to improvements in disability and healthcare use for people with acute LBP. Clinicians should reflect on the time that they allocate to reassuring their patients and consider reallocating time to other aspects of the consultation that could reduce disability and future healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612001180808, study protocol https://osf.io/4tfaz/.

Do people with acute low back pain have an attentional bias to threat-related words?

OBJECTIVES: It has been hypothesised that attentional bias to environmental threats can contribute to persistent pain. It is unclear whether people with acute low back pain (LBP) have an attentional bias to environmental threats. We investigated if attentional bias of threat related words is different in people with acute LBP and pain-free controls. METHODS: People with acute LBP and pain-free people completed a free viewing eye tracking task. Participants were simultaneously presented with two words, a threat related word and a neutral control word. Threat related words were general threat, affective pain and sensory pain. We conducted linear mixed models to detect differences between acute LBP and pain-free participants on five eye tracking outcome measures (dwell time, first fixation, latency to first fixation, first run dwell time and number of fixations). We calculated absolute reliability, (standard error of measure), and relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC 2,1]) for each eye tracking outcome measures. RESULTS: We recruited 65 people with acute LBP and 65 pain-free controls. Participants with acute LBP had a higher proportion of fixations towards the affective pain words (M=0.5009, 95% CI=0.4941, 0.5076) than the pain-free controls had (M=0.4908, 95% CI=0.4836, 0.4979), mean between group difference = -0.0101, 95% CI [-0.0198, -0.0004], p=0.0422. There was no difference between acute LBP and pain-free controls for the remaining eye tracking outcome measures (all p>0.05). The only outcome measure that had an ICC of more than 0.7 was the latency to first fixation (affective pain words ICC=0.73, general threat words ICC=0.72). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with pain-free controls, people with acute LBP looked more often at affective pain words relative to neutral control words. This may indicate a form of engagement bias for people with acute LBP. Attentional bias was not consistent across outcome measures or word groups. Further research is needed to investigate the potential role of attentional bias in the development of persistent pain.

[GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences: Risk of bias and indirectness]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 19. Bewertung der Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz für die Bedeutung von Endpunkten oder Werten und Präferenzen ­ Risiko für Bias und Indirektheit.

OBJECTIVES: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback. RESULTS: This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness. CONCLUSION: This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.

The RESOLVE Trial for people with chronic low back pain: statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Statistical analysis plans describe the planned data management and analysis for clinical trials. This supports transparent reporting and interpretation of clinical trial results. This paper reports the statistical analysis plan for the RESOLVE clinical trial. The RESOLVE trial assigned participants with chronic low back pain to graded sensory-motor precision training or sham-control. RESULTS: We report the planned data management and analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome is pain intensity at 18-weeks post randomization. We will use mixed-effects models to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes by intention-to-treat. We will report adverse effects in full. We also describe analyses if there is non-adherence to the interventions, data management procedures, and our planned reporting of results. CONCLUSION: This statistical analysis plan will minimize the potential for bias in the analysis and reporting of results from the RESOLVE trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615000610538 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619).

Zolpidem reduces pain intensity postoperatively: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of hypnotic medicines on post-operative pain intensity.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate whether the administration of hypnotic medicines, z-drugs, melatonin or benzodiazepines, reduced pain intensity postoperatively. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Psych info, Central and PubMed databases were searched, from inception to February 2020 to identify relevant trials. The search was extended, post hoc, to include meta-Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science and the conference booklets for the 14th, 15th, and 16th International Association for the Study of Pain conferences. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and cross-checked the extracted data. RESULTS: The search retrieved 5546 articles. After full-text screening, 15 trials were included, which had randomised 1252 participants. There is moderate-quality evidence that in the short-term [WMD - 1.06, CI - 1.48 to - 0.64, p ≤ .01] and low-quality evidence that in the medium-term [WMD - 0.90, CI - 1.43 to - 0.37, p ≤ .01] postoperative period oral zolpidem 5/10 mg with other analgesic medicines reduced pain intensity compared to the same analgesic medicines alone. There is low-quality evidence that melatonin was not effective on postoperative pain intensity compared to placebo. The results of benzodiazepines on pain intensity were mixed. The authors reported no significant adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There is promising evidence that the hypnotic medicine zolpidem, adjuvant to other analgesics, is effective at achieving a minimally clinically important difference in pain intensity postoperatively. There is no consistent effect of melatonin or benzodiazepines on postoperative pain intensity. Readers should interpret these results with some caution due to the lack of data on safety, the small number of trials included in the pooled effects and their sample sizes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO ID= CRD42015025327 .

Cohort profile: the AUstralian Twin BACK pain and physical activity study (AUTBACK study).

PURPOSE: Despite the growing evidence that physical activity and familial factors play a role in low back pain (LBP), there is a lack of robust longitudinal studies that (1) investigate the types and dosages of physical activity that are protective or harmful for LBP, (2) employ objective measures of physical activity and (3) conduct appropriate adjustment for confounders. The AUstralian Twin BACK (AUTBACK) study was established to elucidate the longitudinal LBP-physical activity relationship with the benefits of controlling for familial (both genetic/nongenetic) factors that may influence physical activity engagement and LBP. PARTICIPANTS: Participants are twins registered at Twins Research Australia (TRA), older than 18 years, with access to internet. We collected data on LBP status (weekly) and physical activity levels (monthly) for 12 months as well as a wide range of health, lifestyle and physical activity (objective, self-reported, including different types and dosages) data. FINDINGS TO DATE: We included 401 twins, 157 being complete twin pairs (n=314). Lifetime prevalence of LBP was 85%. Participants spent 61% of their week in sedentary time and only 4% in moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (accelerometer). So far, 168 participants (40% of the sample) have completed the 12-month follow-up. A total of 7150 weekly (LBP status) and 1763 monthly questionnaires (physical activity status) have been answered (92% response rate). FUTURE PLANS: The 12-month follow-up will be completed by June 2020. This cohort represents a novel and comprehensive resource for researchers in the field, and includes high-quality, and frequent data on LBP and physical activity. It allows the investigation of genetic and shared environmental factors on the LBP-physical activity relationship. The AUTBACK group has planned a number of projects, with the main one being the investigation of the influence of physical activity on recurrence of LBP. Data linkage opportunities are available, including with other studies conducted by TRA.

Systematic reviews that include only published data may overestimate the effectiveness of analgesic medicines for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews of analgesics for low back pain generally include published data only. Obtaining data from unpublished trials is potentially important because they may impact effect sizes in meta-analyses. We determined whether including unpublished data from trial registries changes the effect sizes in meta-analyses of analgesics for low back pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Trial registries were searched for unpublished data that conformed to the inclusion criteria of n = 5 individual source systematic reviews. We reproduced the meta-analyses using data available from the original reviews and then reran the same analyses with the addition of new unpublished data. RESULTS: Sixteen completed, unpublished, trials were eligible for inclusion in four of the source reviews. Data were available for five trials. We updated the analyses for two of the source reviews. The addition of data from two trials reduced the effect size of muscle relaxants, compared with sham, for recent-onset low back pain from -21.71 (95% CI: -28.23 to -15.19) to -2.34 (95% CI: -3.34 to -1.34) on a 0-100 scale for pain intensity. The addition of data from three trials (one enriched design) reduced the effect size of opioid analgesics, compared with sham, for chronic low back pain from -10.10 (95% CI: -12.81 to -7.39) to -9.31 (95% CI: -11.51 to -7.11). The effect reduced in the subgroup of enriched design studies, from -12.40 (95% CI: -16.90 to -7.91) to -11.34 (95% CI: -15.36 to -7.32), and in the subgroup of nonenriched design studies, from -7.27 (95% CI: -9.97 to -4.57) to -7.19 (95% CI: -9.24 to -5.14). CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews should include reports of unpublished trials. The result for muscle relaxants conflicts with the conclusion of the published review and recent international guidelines. Adding unpublished data strengthens the evidence that opioid analgesics have small effects on persistent low back pain and more clearly suggests these effects may not be clinically meaningful.

Combined education and patient-led goal setting intervention reduced chronic low back pain disability and intensity at 12 months: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One model of care that has not been tested for chronic low back pain (LBP) is patient-led goal setting. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and healthcare use of a patient-led goal setting approach (intervention) with simple advice to exercise (control) over 12 months. METHODS: An assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial. Intervention was education combined with patient-led goal setting compared with a control group receiving a standardised exercise programme. The primary outcomes were back pain disability and pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and stress. Outcomes and healthcare use were assessed immediately post-treatment (2 months) and after 4 and 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=37) or the control (n=38) group. Using linear mixed model analyses, adjusted mean changes in primary outcomes of disability and pain intensity were greater in the intervention group than in the control group (disability post-treatment: p<0.05). These differences were clinically meaningful. Mean differences in all secondary measures were greater in the intervention group than in the control group (p<0.05). There was no difference in healthcare use between groups over 12 months. CONCLUSION: A patient-led goal setting intervention was significantly more effective than advice to exercise for improving outcomes in disability, pain intensity, quality of life, self-efficacy and kinesiophobia in chronic LBP. These improvements were maintained at 12 months. Smaller effects were seen in measures of depression, anxiety and stress. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000830695.

Persistent Pain After Wrist or Hand Fracture: Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the incidence of wrist fracture is increasing. There are currently no externally validated prognostic models to inform early decision making for these patients. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a prognostic model from a comprehensive range of candidate prognostic factors that can identify patients who are at risk of developing persistent pain following wrist or hand fracture. METHODS: We developed and validated a prognostic model using secondary data derived from a prospective cohort study (n = 715), with recruitment sites in 3 metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, Australia. The primary outcome was persistent pain 4 months following the injury. The current study used a backward stepwise regression analysis to develop the model in 2 hospitals (n = 408) and externally validate it in a third hospital (n = 307). To determine the accuracy of the model, we assessed calibration and discrimination in accordance with the PROGnosis RESearch Strategy framework. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 95% of the cohort. Of 14 candidate variables, the final model contained 2 prognostic factors: patient age and pain intensity reported at initial presentation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63 (95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69) in the development sample and 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.51, 0.70) in the validation sample. The model systematically overestimated risk (intercept, -1.13; slope, 0.73). CONCLUSION: We developed and externally validated a prognostic model to predict persistent pain 4 months after a wrist or hand fracture. Future studies are needed to assess whether the accuracy of this model can be improved by updating and validating it in local settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(1):28-35. Epub 12 Sep 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8342.

Effect of Intensive Patient Education vs Placebo Patient Education on Outcomes in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with acute low back pain do not recover with basic first-line care (advice, reassurance, and simple analgesia, if necessary). It is unclear whether intensive patient education improves clinical outcomes for those patients already receiving first-line care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive patient education for patients with acute low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients from general practices, physiotherapy clinics, and a research center in Sydney, Australia, between September 10, 2013, and December 2, 2015. Trial follow-up was completed in December 17, 2016. Primary care practitioners invited 618 patients presenting with acute low back pain to participate. Researchers excluded 416 potential participants. All of the 202 eligible participants had low back pain of fewer than 6 weeks' duration and a high risk of developing chronic low back pain according to Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain (PICKUP) Tool, a validated prognostic model. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either patient education or placebo patient education. Interventions: All participants received recommended first-line care for acute low back pain from their usual practitioner. Participants received additional 2 × 1-hour sessions of patient education (information on pain and biopsychosocial contributors plus self-management techniques, such as remaining active and pacing) or placebo patient education (active listening, without information or advice). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included disability (24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 1 week, and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 202 participants randomized for the trial, the mean (SD) age of participants was 45 (14.5) years and 103 (51.0%) were female. Retention rates were greater than 90% at all time points. Intensive patient education was not more effective than placebo patient education at reducing pain intensity (3-month mean [SD] pain intensity: 2.1 [2.4] vs 2.4 [2.2]; mean difference at 3 months, -0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.3]). There was a small effect of intensive patient education on the secondary outcome of disability at 1 week (mean difference, -1.6 points on a 24-point scale [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1]) and 3 months (mean difference, -1.7 points, [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]) but not at 6 or 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: Adding 2 hours of patient education to recommended first-line care for patients with acute low back pain did not improve pain outcomes. Clinical guideline recommendations to provide complex and intensive support to high-risk patients with acute low back pain may have been premature. Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trial Registration Number: 12612001180808.

Are measures of pain sensitivity associated with pain and disability at 12-month follow up in chronic neck pain?

OBJECTIVES: Pain sensitivity and psychosocial issues are prognostic of poor outcome in acute neck disorders. However, knowledge of associations between pain sensitivity and ongoing pain and disability in chronic neck pain are lacking. We aimed to investigate associations of pain sensitivity with pain and disability at the 12-month follow-up in people with chronic neck pain. METHODS: The predictor variables were: clinical and quantitative sensory testing (cold, pressure); neural tissue sensitivity; neuropathic symptoms; comorbidities; sleep; psychological distress; pain catastrophizing; pain intensity (for the model explaining disability at 12 months only); and disability (for the model explaining pain at 12 months only). Data were analysed using uni- and multivariate regression models to assess associations with pain and disability at the 12-month follow-up (n = 64 at baseline, n = 51 at follow-up). RESULTS: Univariable associations between all predictor variables and pain and disability were evident (r > 0.3; p < 0.05), except for cold and pressure pain thresholds and cold sensitivity. For disability at the 12-month follow-up, 24.0% of the variance was explained by psychological distress and comorbidities. For pain at 12 months, 39.8% of the variance was explained primarily by baseline disability. CONCLUSIONS: Neither clinical nor quantitative measures of pain sensitivity were meaningfully associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes in people with chronic neck pain, limiting their clinical application in evaluating prognosis.

Goal setting practice in chronic low back pain. What is current practice and is it affected by beliefs and attitudes?

INTRODUCTION: Goal setting, led by the patient, is promising as an effective treatment for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP); however, little is known about current practice. The aims of the study were to explore (1) current goal setting practice in CLBP among physiotherapists; (2) perceived barriers to goal setting in CLBP; and (3) relationship between clinician's attitudes and beliefs and goal setting practice. METHOD: A cross-sectional observational survey. RESULTS: The majority of respondents used goal setting with the main aim of facilitating self-management. The greatest number of goals were set with 50% therapist/50% patient involvement. The most common perceived barriers to goal setting related to time constraints and lack of skill and confidence. A higher biomedical score for treatment orientation of the therapist was associated with a lower patient involvement score. CONCLUSION: Goal setting is common practice for CLBP and is perceived as a high priority. It is more often a collaboration between therapist and patient rather than patient-led with treatment orientation of the physiotherapist a predictor of patient involvement. Education of healthcare professionals needs to include better understanding of chronic pain to orient them away from a biomedical treatment approach, as well as to enhance skills in facilitating patient involvement in goal setting.

The reliability of eyetracking to assess attentional bias to threatening words in healthy individuals.

Eyetracking is commonly used to investigate attentional bias. Although some studies have investigated the internal consistency of eyetracking, data are scarce on the test-retest reliability and agreement of eyetracking to investigate attentional bias. This study reports the test-retest reliability, measurement error, and internal consistency of 12 commonly used outcome measures thought to reflect the different components of attentional bias: overall attention, early attention, and late attention. Healthy participants completed a preferential-looking eyetracking task that involved the presentation of threatening (sensory words, general threat words, and affective words) and nonthreatening words. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to measure test-retest reliability (ICC > .70 indicates adequate reliability). The ICCs(2, 1) ranged from -.31 to .71. Reliability varied according to the outcome measure and threat word category. Sensory words had a lower mean ICC (.08) than either affective words (.32) or general threat words (.29). A longer exposure time was associated with higher test-retest reliability. All of the outcome measures, except second-run dwell time, demonstrated low measurement error (<6%). Most of the outcome measures reported high internal consistency (α > .93). Recommendations are discussed for improving the reliability of eyetracking tasks in future research.

Physiotherapists' beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

QUESTION: What influence do physiotherapists' beliefs and attitudes about chronic low back pain have on their clinical management of people with chronic low back pain? DESIGN: Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies. Quantitative and qualitative studies were included if they investigated an association between physiotherapists' attitudes and beliefs about chronic low back pain and their clinical management of people with chronic low back pain. RESULTS: Five quantitative and five qualitative studies were included. Quantitative studies used measures of treatment orientation and fear avoidance to indicate physiotherapists' beliefs and attitudes about chronic low back pain. Quantitative studies showed that a higher biomedical orientation score (indicating a belief that pain and disability result from a specific structural impairment, and treatment is selected to address that impairment) was associated with: advice to delay return to work, advice to delay return to activity, and a belief that return to work or activity is a threat to the patient. Physiotherapists' fear avoidance scores were positively correlated with: increased certification of sick leave, advice to avoid return to work, and advice to avoid return to normal activity. Qualitative studies revealed two main themes attributed to beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists who have a relationship to their management of chronic low back pain: treatment orientation and patient factors. CONCLUSION: Both quantitative and qualitative studies showed a relationship between treatment orientation and clinical practice. The inclusion of qualitative studies captured the influence of patient factors in clinical practice in chronic low back pain. There is a need to recognise that both beliefs and attitudes regarding treatment orientation of physiotherapists, and therapist-patient factors need to be considered when introducing new clinical practice models, so that the adoption of new clinical practice is maximised. [Gardner T, Refshauge K, Smith L, McAuley J, Hübscher M, Goodall S (2017) Physiotherapists' beliefs and attitudes influence clinical practice in chronic low back pain: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 132-143].

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patient education for acute low back pain (PREVENT Trial): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Statistical analysis plans increase the transparency of decisions made in the analysis of clinical trial results. The purpose of this paper is to detail the planned analyses for the PREVENT trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patient education for acute low back pain. RESULTS: We report the pre-specified principles, methods, and procedures to be adhered to in the main analysis of the PREVENT trial data. The primary outcome analysis will be based on Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which can test treatment effects at specific time points, and the assumptions of this analysis are outlined. We also outline the treatment of secondary outcomes and planned sensitivity analyses. We provide decisions regarding the treatment of missing data, handling of descriptive and process measure data, and blinded review procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Making public the pre-specified statistical analysis plan for the PREVENT trial minimizes the potential for bias in the analysis of trial data, and in the interpretation and reporting of trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612001180808 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12612001180808).