Natural Language Processing of Referral Letters for Machine Learning-Based Triaging of Patients With Low Back Pain to the Most Appropriate Intervention: Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Decision support systems (DSSs) for suggesting optimal treatments for individual patients with low back pain (LBP) are currently insufficiently accurate for clinical application. Most of the input provided to train these systems is based on patient-reported outcome measures. However, with the appearance of electronic health records (EHRs), additional qualitative data on reasons for referrals and patients' goals become available for DSSs. Currently, no decision support tools cover a wide range of biopsychosocial factors, including referral letter information to help clinicians triage patients to the optimal LBP treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the added value of including qualitative data from EHRs and referral letters to the accuracy of a quantitative DSS for patients with LBP. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a clinical cohort of Dutch patients with LBP. Patients filled out a baseline questionnaire about demographics, pain, disability, work status, quality of life, medication, psychosocial functioning, comorbidity, history, and duration of pain. Referral reasons and patient requests for help (patient goals) were extracted via natural language processing (NLP) and enriched in the data set. For decision support, these data were considered independent factors for triage to neurosurgery, anesthesiology, rehabilitation, or minimal intervention. Support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor, and multilayer perceptron models were trained for 2 conditions: with and without consideration of the referral letter content. The models' accuracies were evaluated via F1-scores, and confusion matrices were used to predict the treatment path (out of 4 paths) with and without additional referral parameters. RESULTS: Data from 1608 patients were evaluated. The evaluation indicated that 2 referral reasons from the referral letters (for anesthesiology and rehabilitation intervention) increased the F1-score accuracy by up to 19.5% for triaging. The confusion matrices confirmed the results. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that data enriching by adding NLP-based extraction of the content of referral letters increases the model accuracy of DSSs in suggesting optimal treatments for individual patients with LBP. Overall model accuracies were considered low and insufficient for clinical application.

Role of non-invasive objective markers for the rehabilitative diagnosis of central sensitization in patients with fibromyalgia: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Central sensitization cannot be demonstrated directly in humans. Therefore, studies used different proxy markers (signs, symptoms and tools) to identify factors assumed to relate to central sensitization in humans, that is, Human Assumed Central Sensitization (HACS). The aims of this systematic review were to identify non-invasive objective markers of HACS and the instruments to assess these markers in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted with the following inclusion criteria: (1) adults, (2) diagnosed with FM, and (3) markers and instruments for HACS had to be non-invasive. Data were subsequently extracted, and studies were assessed for risk of bias using the quality assessment tools developed by the National Institute of Health. RESULTS: 78 studies (n= 5234 participants) were included and the findings were categorized in markers identified to assess peripheral and central manifestations of HACS. The identified markers for peripheral manifestations of HACS, with at least moderate evidence, were pain after-sensation decline rates, mechanical pain thresholds, pressure pain threshold, sound 'pressure' pain threshold, cutaneous silent period, slowly repeated evoked pain sensitization and nociceptive flexion reflex threshold. The identified markers for central manifestations of HACS were efficacy of conditioned pain modulation with pressure pain conditioning and brain perfusion analysis. Instruments to assess these markers are: pin-prick stimulators, cuff-algometry, repetitive pressure stimulation using a pressure algometer, sound, electrodes and neuroimaging techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of non-invasive markers and instruments for the assessment of HACS in patients with FM. Implementing these findings into clinical settings may help to identify HACS in patients with FM.

Validity of the Central Sensitization Inventory to Address Human Assumed Central Sensitization: Newly Proposed Clinically Relevant Values and Associations.

Central sensitization cannot be directly demonstrated in humans and thus a gold standard is missing. Therefore, we used human assumed central sensitization (HACS) when associated with humans. The central sensitization inventory (CSI) is a screening questionnaire for addressing symptoms that are associated with HACS. This cross-sectional study compared patients with chronic pain and at least one central sensitivity syndrome with healthy, pain-free controls via ROC analyses. Analyses were performed for all participants together and for each sex separately. Regression analyses were performed on patients with chronic pain with and without central sensitivity syndromes. Based on 1730 patients and 250 healthy controls, cutoff values for the CSI for the total group were established at 30 points: women: 33 points; men: 25 points. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify possible predictors for the CSI score in 2890 patients with chronic pain. The CSI score is associated with all independent factors and has a low association with pain severity in women and a low association with pain severity, age, and body mass index in men. The newly established CSI cutoff values are lower than in previous studies and different per sex, which might be of clinical relevance in daily practice and importance in research.

The C4EB study-Transvamix (10% THC / 5% CBD) to treat chronic pain in epidermolysis bullosa: A protocol for an explorative randomized, placebo controlled, and double blind intervention crossover study.

Patients with the genetic blistering skin condition epidermolysis bullosa (EB) report severe pain as a consequence of skin and mucous membrane lesions including blisters, wounds, and scars. Adequate symptom alleviation is not often achieved using conventional pharmacologic interventions. Finding novel approaches to pain care in EB is imperative to improve the quality of life of patients living with EB. There are several anecdotal reports on the use of cannabinoid-based medicines (CBMs) by EB patients to reduce the burden of symptoms. However, controlled clinical investigations assessing these reported effects are lacking. As the pain quality "unpleasantness" delineates EB pain, we hypothesize the modulation of affective pain processing in the brain by way of intervention with CBMs comprising the cannabinoids Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol-objectified by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The C4EB study is an investigator-initiated, single-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and crossover trial. Adult patients with the diagnosis epidermolysis bullosa, reporting chronic pain will be eligible to participate. Following baseline measurements, participants will be randomized to receive the sublingually administered interventions placebo and Transvamix® in forward or reversed orders, each for two weeks and separated by a washout. The primary outcome is the difference in numeric rating scale pain scores between grouped interventions, using affective descriptors within the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2. Secondary outcomes include pain self-efficacy, concomitant analgesic medication-use and adverse events. Additionally, fMRI will be employed to assess brain connectivity related to neuroanatomic pain circuits at baseline, placebo and Transvamix® interventions. The study was approved by the ethical committee at the University Medical Center of Groningen in the Netherlands. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number: Netherlands Trial Register: NL9347 (Acronym: C4EB).

A guide for standardized interpretation of lumbar multifidus ultrasonography; an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent descriptions of Lumbar multifidus (LM) morphology were previously identified, especially in research applying ultrasonography (US), hampering its clinical applicability with regard to diagnosis and therapy. The aim of this study is to determine the LM-sonoanatomy by comparing high-resolution reconstructions from a 3-D digital spine compared to standard LM-ultrasonography. METHODS: An observational study was carried out. From three deeply frozen human tissue blocks of the lumbosacral spine, a large series of consecutive photographs at 78 µm interval were acquired and reformatted into 3-D blocks. This enabled the reconstruction of (semi-)oblique cross-sections that could match US-images obtained from a healthy volunteer. Transverse and oblique short-axis views were compared from the most caudal insertion of LM to L1. RESULTS: Based on the anatomical reconstructions, we could distinguish the LM from the adjacent erector spinae (ES) in the standard US imaging of the lower spine. At the lumbosacral junction, LM is the only dorsal muscle facing the surface. From L5 upwards, the ES progresses from lateral to medial. A clear distinction between deep and superficial LM could not be discerned. We were only able to identify five separate bands between every lumbar spinous processes and the dorsal part of the sacrum in the caudal anatomical cross-sections, but not in the standard US images. CONCLUSION: The detailed cross-sectional LM-sonoanatomy and reconstructions facilitate the interpretations of standard LM US-imaging, the position of the separate LM-bands, the details of deep interspinal muscles, and demarcation of the LM versus the ES. Guidelines for electrode positioning in EMG studies should be refined to establish reliable and verifiable findings. For clinical practice, this study can serve as a guide for a better characterisation of LM compared to ES and for a more reliable placement of US-probe in biofeedback.

Reply to Jensen, O.K. On the Use of Quantitative Sensory Testing to Estimate Central Sensitization in Humans. Comment on "Schuttert et al. The Definition, Assessment, and Prevalence of (Human Assumed) Central Sensitisation in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5931".

We thank Dr. Jensen for his interest [...].

Human assumed central sensitisation (HACS) in patients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLaSSICO study).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLBPr) are sometimes referred to a specialised pain clinic for a precise diagnosis based, for example, on a diagnostic selective nerve root block. Possible interventions are therapeutic selective nerve root block or pulsed radiofrequency. Central pain sensitisation is not directly assessable in humans and therefore the term 'human assumed central sensitisation' (HACS) is proposed. The possible existence and degree of sensitisation associated with pain mechanisms assumed present in the human central nervous system, its role in the chronification of pain and its interaction with diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are largely unknown in patients with CLBPr. The aim of quantitative sensory testing (QST) is to estimate quantitatively the presence of HACS and accumulating evidence suggest that a subset of patients with CLBPr have facilitated responses to a range of QST tests.The aims of this study are to identify HACS in patients with CLBPr, to determine associations with the effect of selective nerve root blocks and compare outcomes of HACS in patients to healthy volunteers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational study including 50 patients with CLBPr. Measurements are performed before diagnostic and therapeutic nerve root block interventions and at 4 weeks follow-up. Data from patients will be compared with those of 50 sex-matched and age-matched healthy volunteers. The primary study parameters are the outcomes of QST and the Central Sensitisation Inventory. Statistical analyses to be performed will be analysis of variance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, approved this study (dossier NL60439.042.17). The results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR NL6765.

What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: A scoping review was conducted with the objective to identify and map the available evidence from long-term studies on chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), to examine how these studies are conducted, and to address potential knowledge gaps. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to march 2021, not restricted by date or language. Experimental and observational study types were included. Inclusion criteria were: participants between 18 and 65 years old with non-specific sub-acute or chronic LBP, minimum average follow-up of > 2 years, and studies had to report at least one of the following outcome measures: disability, quality of life, work participation, or health care utilization. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically. RESULTS: Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies examined invasive treatments (72%), conservative (21%), or a comparison of both (7%). No natural cohorts were included. Methodological quality was weak (16% of studies), moderate (63%), or strong (21%) and generally improved after 2010. Disability (92%) and pain (86%) outcomes were most commonly reported, followed by work (25%), quality of life (15%), and health care utilization (4%). Most studies reported significant improvement at long-term follow-up (median 51 months, range 26 months-18 years). Only 10 (11%) studies took more than one measurement > 2 year after baseline. CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent non-specific LBP seem to experience improvement in pain, disability and quality of life years after seeking treatment. However, it remains unclear what factors might have influenced these improvements, and whether they are treatment-related. Studies varied greatly in design, patient population, and methods of data collection. There is still little insight into the long-term natural course of LBP. Additionally, few studies perform repeated measurements during long-term follow-up or report on patient-centered outcomes other than pain or disability.

Increased adherence to perioperative safety guidelines associated with improved patient safety outcomes: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: National Dutch guidelines have been introduced to improve suboptimal perioperative care. A multifaceted implementation programme (IMPlementatie Richtlijnen Operatieve VEiligheid [IMPROVE]) has been developed to support hospitals in applying these guidelines. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IMPROVE on guideline adherence and the association between guideline adherence and patient safety. METHODS: Nine hospitals participated in this unblinded, superiority, stepped-wedge, cluster RCT in patients with major noncardiac surgery (mortality risk ≥1%). IMPROVE consisted of educational activities, audit and feedback, reminders, organisational, team-directed, and patient-mediated activities. The primary outcome of the study was guideline adherence measured by nine patient safety indicators on the process (stop moments from the composite STOP bundle, and timely administration of antibiotics) and on the structure of perioperative care. Secondary safety outcomes included in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections, mortality, length of hospital stay, and unplanned care. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1934 patients. The IMPROVE programme improved one stop moment: 'discharge from recovery room' (+16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-23%). This stop moment was related to decreased mortality (-3%; 95% CI, -4% to -1%), fewer complications (-8%; 95% CI, -13% to -3%), and fewer unscheduled transfers to the ICU (-6%; 95% CI, -9% to -3%). IMPROVE negatively affected one other stop moment - 'discharge from the hospital' - possibly because of the limited resources of hospitals to improve all stop moments together. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed implementation effects of IMPROVE were found. We found some positive associations between guideline adherence and patient safety (i.e. mortality, complications, and unscheduled transfers to the ICU) except for the timely administration of antibiotics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3568 (Dutch Trial Registry).

Identifying Epidermolysis Bullosa Patient Needs and Perceived Treatment Benefits: An Explorative Study Using the Patient Benefit Index.

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a genetic blistering skin condition for which no cure exists. Symptom alleviation and quality of life are therefore central to EB care. This study aimed to gain insight into EB patient needs and benefits from current clinical care. Two questionnaires were administered cross-sectionally to adult EB patients at the Dutch expertise centre for blistering diseases. Patient needs and benefits were analyzed using the patient benefit index survey (PBI-S). Ancillary data were compiled pertaining to self-reported EB severity, pain and pruritus, as well as current and previous treatments. In total, 104 participants were included (response rate 69.8%). Sixty-eight participants comprised the analyzed cohort (n = 36 omitted from analysis). The needs given the highest importance were to get better skin quickly (64.7%) and to be healed of all skin alterations (61.8%). A positive correlation between pain and EB severity and the importance of most needs was observed. Minimal clinically important differences within the PBI-S, relating to reported benefits from clinical care, were reported by 60.3% of the cohort. This study highlights a discrepancy between patient needs and feasible treatment outcomes. Utilizing the PBI-S in conjunction with well-established multidisciplinary care may catalyze the process of tailoring treatments to the needs of individual patients.

The Definition, Assessment, and Prevalence of (Human Assumed) Central Sensitisation in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Central sensitisation is assumed to be one of the underlying mechanisms for chronic low back pain. Because central sensitisation is not directly assessable in humans, the term 'human assumed central sensitisation' (HACS) is suggested. The objectives were to investigate what definitions for HACS have been used, to evaluate the methods to assess HACS, to assess the validity of those methods, and to estimate the prevalence of HACS. Database search resulted in 34 included studies. Forty different definition references were used to define HACS. This review uncovered twenty quantitative methods to assess HACS, including four questionnaires and sixteen quantitative sensory testing measures. The prevalence of HACS in patients with chronic low back pain was estimated in three studies. The current systematic review highlights that multiple definitions, assessment methods, and prevalence estimates are stated in the literature regarding HACS in patients with chronic low back pain. Most of the assessment methods of HACS are not validated but have been tested for reliability and repeatability. Given the lack of a gold standard to assess HACS, an initial grading system is proposed to standardize clinical and research assessments of HACS in patients with a chronic low back.

Cannabinoid use and effects in patients with epidermolysis bullosa: an international cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) patient anecdotes and case reports indicate that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBMs) may alleviate pain and pruritus and improve wound healing. CBM use has not been characterized in the EB patient population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate CBM use among EB patients, including CBM types, effects on symptoms (e.g., pain and pruritus), disease process (e.g., blistering, wounds, and inflammation), well-being (e.g., sleep, appetite) and concomitant medications. METHODS: English-speaking EB patients or caregivers completed an online international, anonymous, cross-sectional survey regarding CBM use. Respondents reported the types of CBMs, subsequent effects including perceived EB symptom alteration, changes in medication use, and side effects. RESULTS: Seventy-one EB patients from five continents reported using or having used CBMs to treat their EB. Missing question responses ranged between 0 (0%) and 33 (46%). Most used more than one CBM preparation (mean: 2.4 ± 1.5) and route of administration (mean: 2.1 ± 1.1). Topical and ingested were the most common routes. Pain and pruritus were reported retrospectively to decrease by 3 points (scale: 0-10; p < 0.001 for both) after CBM use. Most reported that CBM use improved their overall EB symptoms (95%), pain (94%), pruritus (91%) and wound healing (81%). Most participants (79%) reported decreased use of pain medications. The most common side-effect was dry mouth (44%). CONCLUSIONS: CBMs improve the perception of pain, pruritus, wound healing, and well-being in EB patients and reduced concomitant medication use. Nevertheless, a direct relation between the use of CBMs and reduction of the above-mentioned symptoms cannot be proven by these data. Therefore, future controlled studies using pharmaceutically standardised CBM preparations in EB are warranted to delineate the risks and benefits of CBMs.

Functional and morphological lumbar multifidus characteristics in subgroups with low back pain in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Since the contribution of the lumbar multifidus(LM) is not well understood in relation to non-specific low back pain(LBP), this may limit physiotherapists in choosing the most appropriate treatment strategy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare clinical characteristics, in terms of LM function and morphology, between subacute and chronic LBP patients from a large clinical practice cohort compared to healthy controls. DESIGN: Multicenter case control study. METHOD: Subacute and chronic LBP patients and healthy controls between 18 and 65 years of age were included. Several clinical tests were performed: primary outcomes were the LM thickness from ultrasound measurements, trunk range of motion(ROM) from 3D kinematic tests, and median frequency and root mean square values of LM by electromyography measurements. The secondary outcomes Numeric Rating Scale for Pain(NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) were administered. Comparisons between groups were made with ANOVA, p-values<0.05, with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test were considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 161 participants were included, 50 healthy controls, 59 chronic LBP patients, and 52 subacute LBP patients. Trunk ROM and LM thickness were significantly larger in healthy controls compared to all LBP patients(p < 0.01). A lower LM thickness was found between subacute and chronic LBP patients although not significant(p = 0.11-0.97). All between-group comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in electromyography outcomes (p = 0.10-0.32). NRS showed no significant differences between LBP subgroups(p = 0.21). Chronic LBP patients showed a significant higher ODI score compared to subacute LBP patients(p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Trunk ROM and LM thickness show differences between LBP patients and healthy controls.

Reducing work pressure and IT problems and facilitating IT integration and audit & feedback help adherence to perioperative safety guidelines: a survey among 95 perioperative professionals.

BACKGROUND: To improve perioperative patient safety, guidelines for the preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative phase were introduced in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013. To help the implementation of these guidelines, we aimed to get a better understanding of the barriers and drivers of perioperative guideline adherence and to explore what can be learned for future implementation projects in complex organizations. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire survey based on the theoretical framework of Van Sluisveld et al. for classifying barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire contained 57 statements derived from (a) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations by the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, (b) interviews with quality and safety policy officers and perioperative professionals, and (c) a publication of Cabana et al. The target group consisted of 232 perioperative professionals in nine hospitals. In addition to rating the statements on a five-point Likert scale (which were classified into the seven categories of the framework: factors relating to the intervention, society, implementation, organization, professional, patients, and social factors), respondents were invited to rank their three most important barriers in a separate, extra open-ended question. RESULTS: Ninety-five professionals (41%) completed the questionnaire. Fifteen statements (26%) were considered to be barriers, relating to social factors (N = 5), the organization (N = 4), the professional (N = 4), the patient (N = 1), and the intervention (N = 1). An integrated information system was considered an important facilitator (70.4%) as well as audit and feedback (41.8%). The Barriers Top-3 question resulted in 75 different barriers in nearly all categories. The most frequently reported barriers were as follows: time pressure (16% of the total number of barriers), emergency patients (8%), inefficient IT structure (4%), and workload (3%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a wide range of barriers that are believed to hinder the use of the perioperative safety guidelines, while an integrated information system and local data collection and feedback will also be necessary to engage perioperative teams. These barriers need to be locally prioritized and addressed by tailored implementation strategies. These results may also be of relevance for guideline implementation in general in complex organizations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568.

Trajectories of Disability and Low Back Pain Impact: 2-year Follow-up of the Groningen Spine Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify treatment response trajectories in patients with low back pain (LBP) during and after multidisciplinary care in a tertiary spine center, and to examine baseline patient characteristics that can distinguish trajectories. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment response is often heterogeneous between patients with LBP. Knowledge on key characteristics that are associated with courses of disability could identify patients at risk for less favorable outcome. This knowledge will help improve shared decision-making. METHODS: Adult patients with LBP completed questionnaires on disability (Pain Disability Index) and LBP impact (Impact Stratification of the National Institutes of Health minimal dataset) at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months' follow-up. Latent class analyses were applied to identify trajectories of disability and LBP impact. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical patient characteristics were compared between trajectory subgroups. RESULTS: Follow-up was available for 996 patients on disability and 707 patients on LBP impact. Six trajectories were identified for both outcome measures. Three disability trajectories remained stable at distinct levels of severity (68% of patients) and three trajectories showed patterns of recovery (32%). For LBP impact there was one stable trajectory (17%), two slightly improving (59%), two recovering (15%), and one with a pattern of recovery and relapse (15%). Significant differences between trajectories were observed for almost all baseline patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: On average, patients show moderate improvements in disability and LBP impact 2 years after visiting a multidisciplinary tertiary spine center. However, latent class analyses revealed that most patients belong to subgroups experiencing stable levels of disability and LBP impact. Differences in baseline patient characteristics were mostly associated with baseline levels of functioning, instead of (un)favorable outcome during follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Can We Change Health Care Costs in Patients With Complex Back Pain?: Results From a 5-year Before and After Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A before and after study cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine changes in health care costs after multidisciplinary spine care in patients with complex chronic back pain (CBP), to analyze the predictive value of patient and disease characteristics on health care costs, and to study the potential impact of biases concerning the use of real world data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to high direct and indirect societal costs of back pain there is a need for interventions that can assist in reducing the economic burden on patients and society. METHODS: All patients referred to a university-based spine center insured at a major health care insurer in the Netherlands were invited. Personal and disease-related data were collected at baseline. Health care costs were retrieved from the health care insurer from 2 years before to 2 years after intervention. Repeated measures analysis of variances were calculated to study changes in health care costs after intervention. Multivariable regression analyses and cluster robust fixed effect models were applied to predict characteristics on health care costs. To study regression to the mean, a fixed effect model was calculated comparing 2 years before and 2 years post-intervention. RESULTS: In total 428,158 declarations during 4.6 years were filed by 997 participants (128,666 considered CBP-related). CBP-related costs significantly increased during the intervention period and reduced 2 years after the intervention. Total health care costs kept rising. The intervention was associated with a 21% to 34% (P < 0.01) reduction in costs depending on the model used. Reduction in costs was related to being male and lower body mass index. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that reduction in CBP-related health care utilization in patients with complex CBP can be achieved after a multidisciplinary spine intervention. The results are robust to controlling for background characteristics and are unlikely to be fully driven by regression to the mean. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature. METHODS: Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system. RESULTS: In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings - particularly for levels L4-S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases. DISCUSSION: Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.

Central Sensitisation and functioning in patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a cross-sectional and cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: A relevant subsample of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have manifested augmented central pain processing, central sensitisation (CS). Patients with CLBP have limited functioning and participation. Theoretically, physical functioning in patients with CLBP can plausibly be linked to CS; however, evidence to explain such association is scarce. Moreover, there is no gold standard for CS diagnosis. The objectives of the study are: (1) to analyse the association between instruments assessing reference symptoms and signs attributed to CS; (2) to analyse whether reference symptoms and signs attributed to CS are associated with functioning measurement outcomes; and (3) to analyse whether changes (between baseline and discharge) in reference symptoms and signs attributed to CS are related to changes in each of the functioning measurement outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional and longitudinal observational study is performed with measurements taken at baseline and discharge of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme. A sample size of 110 adult patients with CLBP has been calculated for the study. CS measurements are: Central Sensitisation Inventory, quantitative sensory testing and heart rate variability. Functioning measurements are: lifting capacity, maximal aerobic capacity, accelerometry and reported functioning. Statistical analyses to be performed are: (1) correlation between CS measurements, (2) multiple regression between functioning (dependent variable) and CS measurements (independent variable), and (3) multiple regression between changes in scores of functioning (dependent variable) and CS measurements (independent variable), and corrected for sex and age. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study obtained the clearance to its implementation from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen in July 2017. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at relevant conferences, and reports to stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7167/NL6980.