Baseline Characteristics May Help Indicate the Best Choice of Health Care Provider for Back Pain Patients in Primary Care: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Baseline characteristics of patients low back pain differ substantially between care settings, but it is largely unknown whether predictors are of equal importance across settings. The aim of this study was to investigate whether 8 known predictors relate differently to outcomes in chiropractic practice and in general practice and to which degree these factors may be helpful in selecting patients benefiting more from one setting or the other. METHODS: Patient characteristics were collected at baseline, and outcomes of pain intensity (numeric rating scale 0-10) and activity limitation (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire 0-100) after 2, 12, and 52 weeks. Differences in the prognostic strength between settings were investigated for each prognostic factor separately by estimating the interaction between setting and the prognostic factor using regression models. Between-setting differences in outcome in high-risk and low-risk subgroups, formed by single prognostic factors, were assessed in similar models adjusted for a propensity score to take baseline differences between settings into account. RESULTS: Prognostic factors were generally associated more strongly with outcomes in general practice compared with chiropractic practice. The difference was statistically significant for general health, duration of pain, and musculoskeletal comorbidity. After propensity score adjustment, differences in outcomes between settings were insignificant, but negative prognostic factors tended to be less influential in chiropractic practice except for leg pain and depression, which tended to have less negative impact in general practice. CONCLUSION: Known prognostic factors related differently to outcomes in the 2 settings, suggesting that some subgroups of patients might benefit more from one setting than the other.

Leg pain location and neurological signs relate to outcomes in primary care patients with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) patients with related leg pain and signs of nerve root involvement are considered to have a worse prognosis than patients with LBP alone. However, it is unclear whether leg pain location above or below the knee and the presence of neurological signs are important in primary care patients. The objectives of this study were to explore whether the four Quebec Task Force categories (QTFC) based on the location of pain and on neurological signs have different characteristics at the time of care seeking, whether these QTFC are associated with outcome, and if so whether there is an obvious ranking of the four QTFC on the severity of outcomes. METHOD: Adult patients seeking care for LBP in chiropractic or general practice were classified into the four QTFC based on self-reported information and clinical findings. Analyses were performed to test the associations between the QTFC and baseline characteristics as well as the outcomes global perceived effect and activity limitation after 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year and also 1-year trajectories of LBP intensity. RESULTS: The study comprised 1271 patients; 947 from chiropractic practice and 324 from general practice. The QTFC at presentation were statistically significantly associated with most of the baseline characteristics, with activity limitation at all follow-up time points, with global perceived effect at 2 weeks but not 3 months and 1 year, and with trajectories of LBP. Severity of outcomes in the QTFC increased from LBP alone, across LBP with leg pain above the knee and below the knee to LBP with nerve root involvement. However, the variation within the categories was considerable. CONCLUSION: The QTFC identify different LBP subgroups at baseline and there is a consistent ranking of the four categories with respect to outcomes. The differences between outcomes appear to be large enough for the QTFC to be useful for clinicians in the communication with patients. However, due to variation of outcomes within each category individuals' outcome cannot be precisely predicted from the QTFC alone. It warrants further investigation to find out if the QTFC can improve existing prediction tools and guide treatment decisions.

Pain trajectories over 12 months following conservative care consultation in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate symptom trajectories in chiropractic patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with LSS were recruited from chiropractic clinics and self-reported questionnaires were collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Patients received weekly text messages about low back pain (LBP) and leg symptoms for 1 year. Group-based trajectory modelling was performed to identify symptom trajectory groups. The groups were compared based on patient characteristics, LBP and leg pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ). RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included in the analysis. A three-group trajectory model was chosen: 'improving' (16%), 'fluctuating/improving' (30%), and 'persistent' (54%). The 'persistent' group had a higher proportion of women [71% (95% CI 57-82%)] than the 'improving' group 29% (95% CI 11-56%), and a higher ODI score at both baseline [34.2 (95% CI 29.7-38.8) vs. 22.8 (16.4-29.1)] and 1-year follow-up [28.1 (95% CI 23.2-33.0) vs. 4.8 (0.1-9.4)]. Similar differences were observed for ZCQ symptom and function scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pain symptoms in people with LSS followed distinctly different trajectories. Half of the sample had a pattern of consistently severe symptoms over a year, while the other half either improved rapidly or experienced fluctuating symptoms with some improvement.

Does a Diagnostic Classification Algorithm Help to Predict the Course of Low Back Pain? A Study of Danish Chiropractic Patients With 1-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: A diagnostic classification algorithm, "the Petersen classification," consisting of 12 categories based on a standardized examination protocol, was developed for the primary purpose of identifying clinically homogeneous subgroups of individuals with low back pain (LBP). OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a diagnostic classification algorithm is associated with activity limitation and LBP intensity at follow-up assessments of 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year, and whether the algorithm improves outcome prediction when added to a set of known predictors. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of 934 consecutive adult patients with new episodes of LBP who were visiting chiropractic practices in primary care and categorized according to the Petersen classification. Outcomes were disability and pain intensity measured with questionnaires at 2 weeks and 3 months, and 1-year trajectories of LBP based on weekly responses to text messages. Associations were analyzed with linear and logistic regression models. In a subgroup of patients, the numbers of visits to primary and secondary care were described. RESULTS: The Petersen classification was statistically significantly associated with all outcomes (P<.001) but explained very little of the variance (R2 = 0.00-0.05). Patients in the nerve root involvement category had the most pain and activity limitation and the most visits to primary and secondary care. Patients in the myofascial pain category were the least affected. CONCLUSION: The Petersen classification was not helpful in determining individual prognosis in patients with LBP receiving usual care in chiropractic practice. However, patients should be examined for potential nerve root involvement to improve prediction of likely outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):837-846. Epub 8 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8083.

Clinical examination findings as prognostic factors in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong tradition of performing a clinical examination of low back pain (LBP) patients and this is generally recommended in guidelines. However, establishing a pathoanatomic diagnosis does not seem possible in most LBP patients and clinical tests may potentially be more relevant as prognostic factors. The aim of this review of the literature was to systematically assess the association between low-tech clinical tests commonly used in adult patients with acute, recurrent or chronic LBP and short- and long-term outcome. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and MANTIS were searched from inception to June 2012. Prospective clinical studies of adult patients with LBP with or without leg pain and/or signs of nerve root involvement or spinal stenosis, receiving non-surgical or no treatment, which investigated the association between low-tech clinical tests and outcome were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study quality were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 5,332 citations were retrieved and screened for eligibility, 342 articles were assessed as full text and 49 met the inclusion criteria. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis was performed. Associations between clinical tests and outcomes were often inconsistent between studies. In more than one third of the tests, there was no evidence of the tests being associated with outcome. Only two clinical tests demonstrated a consistent association with at least one of the outcomes: centralization and non-organic signs. CONCLUSIONS: For most clinical tests in LBP there is not consistent evidence for an association with outcome. Centralization and non-organic signs are exceptions from that. None of the other clinical tests have been investigated in confirmatory studies and study quality is generally low. There is a need for hypothesis testing studies designed specifically to investigate the prognostic value of the clinical tests, and a need for standardization of the performance and interpretation of tests.

Low back pain in primary care: a description of 1250 patients with low back pain in danish general and chiropractic practice.

Study Design. Baseline description of a multicenter cohort study. Objective. To describe patients with low back pain (LBP) in both chiropractic and general practice in Denmark. Background. To optimize standards of care in the primary healthcare sector, detailed knowledge of the patient populations in different settings is needed. In Denmark, most LBP-patients access primary healthcare through chiropractic or general practice. Methods. Chiropractors and general practitioners recruited adult patients seeking care for LBP. Extensive baseline questionnaires were obtained and descriptive analyses presented separately for general and chiropractic practice patients, Mann-Whitney rank sum test and Pearson's chi-square test, were used to test for differences between the two populations. Results. Questionnaires were returned from 934 patients in chiropractic practice and 319 patients from general practice. Four out of five patients had had previous episodes, one-fourth were on sick leave, and the LBP considerably limited daily activities. The general practice patients were slightly older and less educated, more often females, and generally worse on all disease-related parameters than chiropractic patients. All differences were statistically significant. Conclusions. LBP in primary care was recurrent, causing sick leave and activity limitations. There were clear differences between the chiropractic and general practice populations in this study.