Risk factors for low back pain outcome: Does it matter when they are measured?

BACKGROUND: The early identification of factors that increase risk of poor recovery from acute low back pain (LBP) is critical to prevent the transition to chronicity. Although most studies of risk factors for poor outcome in LBP tend to investigate the condition once it is already persistent, there is evidence to suggest that this differs from risk factors measured during the early-acute stage. This study aimed to identify early risk factors for poor outcome in the short- and long-term in individuals with acute LBP, and to compare this with factors identified at 3 months in the same cohort. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three individuals were recruited within 2 weeks of an acute LBP episode and completed questionnaires related to their sociodemographic, psychological, clinical and history/treatment status at baseline and 3 months later, and their pain-level fortnightly for 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 133 participants recruited, follow-up data were provided by 120 at 3 months, 97 at 6 months, 85 at 9 months and 94 at 12 months. Linear regression identified various factors at baseline (acute phase) and 3 months later that predicted short- and long-term outcome (pain level, change in pain). Key findings were that: (1) depressive symptoms at baseline most consistently predicted worse outcome; (2) psychological factors in general at 3 months were more predictive of outcome than when measured at baseline; (3) early health care utilization predicted better outcome, whereas use of pain medication later (3 months) predicted worse outcome; and (4) sex and BMI predicted outcome inconsistently over 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the multidimensional nature of risk factors for poor outcome in LBP and the need to consider time variation in these factors. Significance This study attempts to consider the impact of time variation of candidate risk factors on long-term outcome from the very early onset of acute low back pain. Risk factors across domains (sociodemographic, psychological, clinical, history/treatment) were identified, but their relationship with outcome often depended on when (acute phase vs. 3 months later) they were measured after back pain onset. Findings highlight the need to consider both a diverse range of factors and their potential time variance when assessing risk of poor outcome.

Imaging to improve agreement for proximal humeral fracture classification in adult patient: A systematic review of quantitative studies.

Proximal humeral fracture classification has low reproducibility. Many studies have tried to increase inter- and intra-observer agreement with more sophisticated imaging. The aim of this review was to determine which imaging modality produces the best inter- and intra-observer agreement for proximal humeral fracture classification in adults and to determine if this varies with observer experience or fracture complexity. OvidMEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EBSCO CINAHL and Elsevier Scopus were searched on July 22nd, 2018. Quantitative studies comparing at least two imaging modalities for inter- or intra-observer agreement of proximal humeral fracture classification in adults were eligible for inclusion in this systematic literature review. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Study quality was appraised using a modified Downs and Black checklist. The search strategy identified 1987 studies, of which 15 met the eligibility criteria. All included studies addressed inter-observer agreement and 8 provided results for intra-observer agreement. A narrative synthesis was performed. Trends were compared between studies as clinical heterogeneity and the statistical measures used by included studies prevented meta-analysis. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was found to increase from radiographs (x-ray) to two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) to three-dimensional (3D) CT. 2D and 3D CT may improve inter-observer agreement to a greater extent in less experienced observers and in more complex fractures. Future studies should compare 2D and 3D CT with subgroups categorising surgeon experience and fracture complexity. X-ray should be used for initial assessment; however doctors should have a low threshold for ordering CT. PROSPERO number: CRD42018094307.