Does the intensity of pain and disability affect health-related quality of life of older adults with back pain? Multilevel analysis between Brazil and Netherlands: a cross-sectional study of the BACE consortium.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of back pain (BP) in the older adults is less favorable than in younger adults and progress to adverse outcomes and consequent worsening of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The present study aimed to verify the association between BP intensity, disability and HRQoL in older adults residents in Brazil and Netherlands, and to evaluate whether the country of residence influences the associations. METHODS: Data were collected from 602 Brazilian and 675 Dutch participants with a new episode of BP from the Back Complaints in Elders (BACE) consortium. For the present study, a cross section was used. Pain intensity and disability were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), respectively. HRQoL was assessed using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire. Age, sex, and education were descriptive variables. Pain intensity (NPS score) and country were the independent variables and quality of life assessed by each SF domain - 36 was the dependent variable. Analysis of models at the individual level was performed to verify the association between pain and disability, also HRQoL in Netherlands and Brazil in the total sample. The multilevel model was used to verify whether the older adults person's country of residence influenced this relationship. RESULTS: The average age of the participants was 67.00 (7.33) years. In the total sample, linear regression analysis adjusted for sex and age showed a significant association between BP intensity scores and HRQoL, for all domains. There was no association between disability and HRQoL. In the multilevel analysis, there was an association between BP intensity and HRQoL in all domains and an association between the country of residence and HRQoL, influencing the effect of pain, in all domains, except for the physical functioning. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic and cultural aspects of different countries can affect the perception of the elderly about their HRQoL in the presence of BP. Pain and disability in Brazilian and Dutch older adults ones are experienced differently in relation to their HRQoL.

EFFects of Exposure and Cognitive behavioral Therapy for chronic BACK pain ("EFFECT-BACK"): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic back pain is a widespread medical condition associated with high socioeconomic costs and increasing prevalence. Despite the advanced implementation of multidisciplinary approaches, providing a satisfactory treatment offer for those affected is often not possible. Exposure therapy (EXP) promises to be an effective and economical form of treatment and in a previous pilot study showed to be superior to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing perceived limitations of movement. The current study aims to further compare the efficacy of both treatment methods and identify those patient groups that particularly benefit from EXP. METHODS: The general objective of this randomized multicenter clinical trial (targeted N = 380) is to improve and expand the range of treatments available to patients with chronic back pain. As the primary objective of the study, two different psychological treatments (EXP and CBT) will be compared. The primary outcome measure is a clinically significant improvement in pain-related impairment, measured by the QPBDS, from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures are absolute changes and clinically significant improvements in variables coping, psychological flexibility, depressiveness, catastrophizing, exercise avoidance and fear of exercise, and intensity of pain. Participants are recruited in five psychological and medical centers in Germany and receive ten sessions of manualized therapy by trained licensed CBT therapists or clinical psychologists, who are currently in their post-gradual CBT training. Potential predictors of each treatment's efficacy will be explored with a focus on avoidance and coping behavior. CONCLUSION: This study will be the first RCT to compare CBT and EXP in chronic back pain in a large sample, including patients from different care structures due to psychological and medical recruitment centers. By identifying and exploring potential predictors of symptom improvement in each treatment group, this study will contribute to enable a more individualized assignment to treatment modalities and thus improves the care situation for chronic back pain and helps to create a customized treatment program for subgroups of pain patients. If our findings confirm EXP to be an efficacious and efficient treatment concept, it should gain more attention and be further disseminated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05294081. Registered on 02 March 2022.

A Good Response to Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Does Not Discriminate Patients With Longstanding Axial Spondyloarthritis From Controls With Chronic Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with longstanding axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and controls with back pain (nonspondyloarthritis [non-SpA]). METHODS: Consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain (axSpA or non-SpA), were prospectively recruited. Any previous NSAIDs were withdrawn 2 days before study start (baseline). Back pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS; range 0-10) starting at 2 hours after baseline and several times thereafter up to 4 weeks. "Any response" to NSAIDs was defined as improvement of back pain on the NRS > 2 units, and "good response" as improvement > 50%, compared to baseline. RESULTS: Among 233 patients included, 68 had axSpA (29.2%) and 165 had non-SpA back pain (70.8%). The mean age was 42.7 (SD 10.7) vs 49.3 (SD 11.1) years, symptom duration 15.1 (SD 11.1) years vs 14.6 (SD 11.9) years, and pain score 5.9 (SD 2.3) vs 6.3 (SD 2.0), respectively. Overall, of patients with axSpA or non-SpA back pain, 30.9% vs 29.1% of patients showed any response and 23.5% vs 16.4% of patients showed a good response after 4 weeks, respectively (P value not significant). No differences were found in the rapidity of response or between subgroups of patients based on demographics, including different stages of axSpA. CONCLUSION: No major differences in the response to NSAIDs were found between patients with axSpA and those with non-SpA with longstanding chronic back pain. The item in the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria on "response to NSAIDs" needs more study.

Can rheumatologists unequivocally diagnose axial spondyloarthritis in patients with chronic back pain of less than 2 years duration? Primary outcome of the 2-year SPondyloArthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in patients with chronic back pain (CBP) of less than 2 years (2y) duration referred to the rheumatologist, the development of diagnosis over time, and patient characteristics of those developing definite (d-)axSpA over 2y. METHODS: We analysed the 2y data from SPondyloArthritis Caught Early, a European cohort of patients (<45 years) with CBP (≥3 months, ≤2y) of unknown origin. The diagnostic workup comprised evaluation of clinical SpA features, acute phase reactants, HLA-B27, radiographs and MRI (sacroiliac joints and spine), with repeated assessments. At each visit (baseline, 3 months, 1y and 2y), rheumatologists reported a diagnosis of axSpA or non-axSpA with level of confidence (LoC; 0-not confident at all to 10-very confident). MAIN OUTCOME: axSpA diagnosis with LoC≥7 (d-axSpA) at 2y. RESULTS: In 552 patients with CBP, d-axSpA was diagnosed in 175 (32%) at baseline and 165 (30%) at 2y. Baseline diagnosis remained rather stable: at 2y, baseline d-axSpA was revised in 5% of patients, while 8% 'gained' d-axSpA. Diagnostic uncertainty persisted in 30%. HLA-B27+ and baseline sacroiliitis imaging discriminated best 2y-d-axSpA versus 2y-d-non-axSpA patients. Good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and MRI-sacroiliitis most frequently developed over follow-up in patients with a new d-axSpA diagnosis. Of the patients who developed MRI-sacroiliitis, 7/8 were HLA-B27+ and 5/8 male. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of d-axSpA can be reliably made in nearly one-third of patients with CBP referred to the rheumatologist, but diagnostic uncertainty may persist in 5%-30% after 2y. Repeated assessments yield is modest, but repeating MRI may be worthwhile in male HLA-B27+ patients.

How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?

PURPOSE: A main concern of patients with back problems is pain and its impact on function and quality of life. These are subjective phenomena, and should be probed during the clinical consultation so that the physician can ascertain the extent of the problem. This study evaluated the agreement between clinicians' and patients' independent ratings of patient status on the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). METHODS: This was an analysis of the data from 5 spine specialists and 108 patients, in two centres. Prior to the consultation, the patient completed the COMI. After the consultation, the clinician (blind to the patient's version) also completed a COMI. Concordance was assessed by % agreement, Kappa values, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman rank, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and comparisons of mean values, as appropriate. RESULTS: Agreement regarding the "main problem" (back pain, leg/buttock pain, sensory disturbances, other) was 83%, Kappa = 0.70 (95%CI 0.58-0.81). Moderate/strong correlations were found between the doctors' and patients' COMI-item ratings (0.48-0.74; p < 0.0001), although compared with the patients' ratings the doctors systematically underestimated absolute values for leg pain (p = 0.002) and dissatisfaction with symptom state (p = 0.002), and overestimated how much the patient's function was impaired (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The doctors were able to ascertain the location of the main problem and the multidimensional outcome score with good accuracy, but some individual domains were systematically underestimated (pain, symptom-specific well-being) or overestimated (impairment of function). More detailed/direct questioning on these domains during the consultation might deliver a better appreciation of the impact of the back problem on the patient's daily life.

Unusual cause of inflammatory backache: SAPHO syndrome.

Synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, and osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare chronic inflammatory disease that develops in adults. We present a case of SAPHO syndrome in a 37-year-old male presenting with gradually worsening back and neck pain for a 7-year period. The episodes were preceded by a history of pustular skin eruptions, which first appeared on the upper trunk and then involved his face and were pustular and scarring. The purpose of presenting this case report from Iraq is to raise awareness about this rare condition, which is frequently misdiagnosed and under-recognized.

A lower frequency of inflammatory back pain in male patients with ankylosing spondylitis compared with female patients.

In routine rheumatology practice, we noticed that a significant number of male ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients did not experience inflammatory back pain (IBP). Based on this observation, we aimed to investigate the prevalence of IBP in male AS patients and compare it to that in female patients. Patients with AS who fulfilled the modified New York criteria were subjected to a face-to-face interview with a standardized questionnaire that addressed the IBP components based on the Berlin criteria. The study also included 63 patients with chronic mechanical back pain (MBP). Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity, Function, and Metrology Indexes (BASDAI, BASFI, and BASMI) were evaluated in patients with AS. There were 181 patients with AS (124 males, mean age 41.2 years; 57 females, mean age 44.6 years) and 63 patients with MBP (28 males, mean age 47.2 years; 35 females, mean age 43.5 years). The prevalence of IBP was found to be 87.7% in female and 66.1% in male patients with AS (p = 0.002). The specificity of the criteria was determined to be high both in females (85.7%) and males (89.2%). Female patients with AS had higher BASDAI levels than males (p = 0.048), but no difference was found in BASFI, BASMI, or serum CRP levels between genders. A considerable proportion of male patients with AS did not experience IBP, although they had similar CRP levels compared with females.

[The role of structure-modifying agents in the treatment of back pain].

BACKGROUND: Back pain is currently one of the most urgent problems within pain syndromes. Inadequate treatment of nonspecific back pain, even with a relatively favorable prognosis, leads to its chronicity and decreases the patient's quality of life. The most common cause of vertebrogenic dorsopathies is spinal osteochondrosis. The etiopathogenetic basis of spinal osteochondrosis is degenerative and dystrophic changes in the intervertebral discs involving adjacent vertebrae, joints, and ligaments. Considering the experience of many years of using chondroprotective therapy in clinical practice, we performed an observational study using Ambene Bio to assess the change of pain severity over time in patients with osteochondrosis and back pain. AIM: To study the change in the severity of pain and its components in patients with back pain during therapy with Ambene Bio combined with standard therapy (NSAIDs and muscle relaxants). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with chronic lower back pain lasting more than 3 months were included in the study. CONCLUSION: The study results confirmed the high efficacy of Ambene Bio in patients with dorsopathies with an alternating treatment regimen (10 IM injections 2 mL every other day).

Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Adults (BackPEI-A): Updating and an online application.

INTRODUCTION: Back Pain and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument for Adults (BackPEI-A) lags the most recent literature, as it does not assess issues related to activity increasingly present in the daily lives of people of all ages. PURPOSE: (1) to update the BackPEI-A by including four new questions regarding the use of mobile devices; (2) to present a new graphic design of the issues related to back and neck pain to facilitate understanding of the location of these pains; (3) to test the content validity and the reliability of the new questions; and (4) to identify whether the BackPEI-A version in online form has adequate reliability. METHODS: The content validation by evaluation of eight experts, and the reliability of the new questions and of the online version were assessed. The new questions were translated to English. Content validation was assessed by the content validity index (CVI). Reliability was assessed using the agreement percentage (%C), the kappa statistic (k), and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). k > 0.4 and %C > 0.5 were assumed to include new questions. RESULTS: The new questions showed good agreement among the experts, k > 0.4 and %C > 0.5. Both forms applied presented an average kappa of total sample ranging from moderate to good, and moderate ICC values, showing an adequate reliability. CONCLUSION: The updated BackPEI-A is valid and reliable and allows the identification of aspects related to back and neck pain, as well as possible risk factors.

Impact of mental health components on the development of back pain in young adults with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

BACKGROUND: Back pain occurs commonly in adults and is multifactorial in nature. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and intensity of back pain during young adulthood in subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), as well as factors that may be associated with its prognosis. METHODS: Subjects with AIS aged 20-39 treated conservatively were included in this study. Patient-reported outcome measures in adulthood involved episodes of back pain, and scales of self-image, depression, anxiety, and stress. Additionally, pain, self-image, and mental health scores were retrieved at the first clinic consultation. Occurrence of back pain was defined as a numeric pain rating scale ≥ 6. RESULTS: 101 participants were enrolled. The prevalence of back pain in the lifetime, past 12 months, past 6 months, past 1 month, past 7 days, and past 24 h were 37%, 35%, 31%, 27%, 23%, and 20%, respectively. Male, self-image, and depression were significant associated factors for the development of back pain at all time points. Furthermore, the analyses of the initial presentation of participants have shown that participants with back pain in adulthood were characterised by poor self-image and mental health during their adolescence. CONCLUSION: The present study addressed the natural history of back pain in young adults with conservatively treated AIS. Psychological makeup has been shown to constitute the development of back pain and is strongly hinted as an early sign of having back pain in adulthood among subjects with AIS.

Challenges in the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis.

With back pain as one of the most common complaints in the population and with no single disease feature with sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) on its own, diagnosing axSpA can be challenging. In this article, we discuss clinical, laboratory, and imaging spondyloarthritis features that can be used in diagnosis and explain the general principles underlying an axSpA diagnosis. Moreover, we discuss three pitfalls to avoid when diagnosing axSpA: i) using classification criteria as diagnostic criteria, ii) making a diagnosis by simple counting of spondyloarthritis features, and iii) over-reliance on imaging findings. Finally, we have some advice on how to build diagnostic skills and discuss new developments that may help facilitate the diagnosis of axSpA in the future.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.

PURPOSE: While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs. METHODS: We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22. CONCLUSION: While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Longitudinal Care Patterns and Utilization Among Patients With New-Onset Neck Pain by Initial Provider Specialty.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization patterns for patients with new-onset neck pain by initial provider specialty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Initial provider specialty has been associated with distinct care patterns among patients with acute back pain; little is known about care patterns among patients with acute neck pain. METHODS: De-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data were derived from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal health information on over 200M enrollees and patients representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. Patients had outpatient visits for new-onset neck pain from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019, classified by initial provider specialty. Utilization was assessed during a 180-day follow-up period, including subsequent neck pain visits, diagnostic imaging, and therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: The cohort included 770,326 patients with new-onset neck pain visits. The most common initial provider specialty was chiropractor (45.2%), followed by primary care (33.4%). Initial provider specialty was strongly associated with the receipt of subsequent neck pain visits with the same provider specialty. Rates and types of diagnostic imaging and therapeutic interventions during follow-up also varied widely by initial provider specialty. While uncommon after initial visits with chiropractors (≤2%), CT, or MRI scans occurred in over 30% of patients with initial visits with emergency physicians, orthopedists, or neurologists. Similarly, 6.8% and 3.4% of patients initially seen by orthopedists received therapeutic injections and major surgery, respectively, compared with 0.4% and 0.1% of patients initially seen by a chiropractor. CONCLUSION: Within a large national cohort, chiropractors were the initial provider for a plurality of patients with new-onset neck pain. Compared with patients initially seen by physician providers, patients treated initially by chiropractors or therapists received fewer and less costly imaging services and were less likely to receive invasive therapeutic interventions during follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

External validation and updating of prognostic prediction models for nonrecovery among older adults seeking primary care for back pain.

ABSTRACT: Prognostic prediction models for 3 different definitions of nonrecovery were developed in the Back Complaints in the Elders study in the Netherlands. The models' performance was good (optimism-adjusted area under receiver operating characteristics [AUC] curve ≥0.77, R2 ≥0.3). This study aimed to assess the external validity of the 3 prognostic prediction models in the Norwegian Back Complaints in the Elders study. We conducted a prospective cohort study, including 452 patients aged ≥55 years, seeking primary care for a new episode of back pain. Nonrecovery was defined for 2 outcomes, combining 6- and 12-month follow-up data: Persistent back pain (≥3/10 on numeric rating scale) and persistent disability (≥4/24 on Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). We could not assess the third model (self-reported nonrecovery) because of substantial missing data (>50%). The models consisted of biopsychosocial prognostic factors. First, we assessed Nagelkerke R2 , discrimination (AUC) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large [CITL], slope, and calibration plot). Step 2 was to recalibrate the models based on CITL and slope. Step 3 was to reestimate the model coefficients and assess if this improved performance. The back pain model demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.79), and R2 was 0.23. The disability model demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.85), and R2 was 0.35. Both models had poor calibration (CITL <0, slope <1). Recalibration yielded acceptable calibration for both models, according to the calibration plots. Step 3 did not improve performance substantially. The recalibrated models may need further external validation, and the models' clinical impact should be assessed.

[Lower Back Pain - Specific or Non-Specific?] / Rückenschmerzen.

Lower Back Pain - Specific or Non-Specific? Abstract. Lower back pain is a challenge. A diagnosis that is as accurate as possible is significant for both the treating physician and the patient. With a precise examination, it is often possible to narrow down even the less specific back pain (the so-called "non-specific back pain") and assign it to a clinical syndrome.

What is the best referral strategy for axial spondyloarthritis? A prospective multicenter study in patients with suspicious chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of referral strategies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in patients with suspicious chronic inflammatory low back pain (LBP), to estimate the value of inflammatory back pain (IBP) for referral, and to identify the predictive factors of the final diagnosis of axSpA in Middle Eastern Arab countries. METHODS: The study was multicentric, prospective, and conducted in LBP first-line clinics (rheumatology, internal, family medicine, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology). Consecutive adult patients aged under 45years were included in case of LBP suspicious of inflammatory nature according to the first-line physician. The rheumatologist's final diagnosis was the gold standard. The diagnostic properties of ten referral strategies (Brandt I, II, III, Hermann, RADAR, RADAR 2/3, MASTER, Braun, CAFASPA, and ASAS) and of IBP were calculated. A multivariable logistic regression identified the clinical predictive factors of axSpA. RESULTS: In 515 referred patients, axSpA was confirmed in 48%, refuted in 43%, and diagnosis remained inconclusive in 9%. The optimal referral strategy was the MASTER (PLR 3.3), which comprises IBP, good response to NSAIDs, positive HLA-B27, and SpA family history. Considering strategies without HLA-B27, the RADAR 2/3 had a PLR of 2.9 (IBP, good response to NSAIDs, any extra-musculoskeletal manifestation). The predictive factors for axSpA were MRI sacroiliitis, positive HLA-B27, high CRP, psoriasis, IBP, and longer symptom duration. Of all patients, 35% were self-referred, 16% were referred by primary care physicians, and 15% by neuro/orthopedic surgeons. CONCLUSION: Optimizing physicians' awareness of these clinical features may enhance referral in axSpA.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Patient-reported Outcome Measures in de novo Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis: Is it Appropriate to Apply the Values of Adult Spine Deformity?

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to calculate the range of minimum clinically important difference threshold values using anchor-based and distribution-based methods for back pain, leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Scoliosis Research Society 22R instrument (SRS-22R) in patients with de novo degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DNDLS) who underwent long-segment fusion surgery. Then, we sought to determine a statistically sound meaningful, minimum clinically important difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compare our results with previously reported values for other adult spine deformity (ASD) populations. SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND DATA: Minimum clinically important difference thresholds for back pain, leg pain, and the ODI and SRS-22R have not been widely described in patients with ASD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROMs were obtained preoperatively and two years postoperatively in 128 patients with DNDLS. We applied different minimum clinically important difference calculation methods to the data, and the results were compared. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in the two-year postoperative PROM scores compared with the preoperative scores. Different preoperative calculation methods yielded an ~10-fold range of values. Minimum clinically important difference values were established as 1.9 for back pain, 1.5 for leg pain, 18.9 for the ODI, 0.8 for SRS-22R pain, 0.5 for SRS-22R activity, 1.6 for SRS-22R appearance, 0.8 for SRS-22R mental, and 0.98 for the SRS-22R subtotal. Compared with the previously reported minimum clinically important differences in ASD, the values for back pain, ODI, and SRS-22R appearance were higher in patients with DNDLS. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity-based and specificity-based methods provide statistically sound minimum clinically important difference thresholds for the DNDLS population. The minimum clinically important difference thresholds for PROMs in patients with DNDLS were different from the threshold values previously reported for adult patients with spinal deformities.

Emergency department management of dangerous back pain in children.

Back pain in the pediatric population remains an unusual and concerning complaint that may be an indicator of serious underlying pathology. This issue reviews rare but dangerous etiologies of pediatric back pain and highlights signs and symptoms that may raise a red flag for potentially dangerous etiologies of back pain among children and teens. The evaluation of these patients, including judicious and effective imaging recommendations, is also discussed. A data-driven algorithm for evaluating patients can save the majority of patients from the expense and anxiety of unnecessary testing while effectively identifying the most appropriate means (and locations) for working up pathologic pediatric back pain.