Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are commonly used for acute low back pain and neck pain, but supporting efficacy data are scarce. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a judicious short course of an opioid analgesic for acute low back pain and neck pain. METHODS: OPAL was a triple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) presenting to one of 157 primary care or emergency department sites in Sydney, NSW, Australia, with 12 weeks or less of low back or neck pain (or both) of at least moderate pain severity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using statistician-generated randomly permuted blocks to guideline-recommended care plus an opioid (oxycodone-naloxone, up to 20 mg oxycodone per day orally) or guideline-recommended care and an identical placebo, for up to 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity at 6 weeks measured with the pain severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (10-point scale), analysed in all eligible participants who provided at least one post-randomisation pain score, by use of a repeated measures linear mixed model. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000775516). FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2016, and March 10, 2022, 347 participants were recruited (174 to the opioid group and 173 to the placebo group). 170 (49%) of 346 participants were female and 176 (51%) were male. 33 (19%) of 174 participants in the opioid group and 25 (15%) of 172 in the placebo group had discontinued from the trial by week 6, due to loss to follow-up and participant withdrawals. 151 participants in the opioid group and 159 in the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Mean pain score at 6 weeks was 2·78 (SE 0·20) in the opioid group versus 2·25 (0·19) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference 0·53, 95% CI -0·00 to 1·07, p=0·051). 61 (35%) of 174 participants in the opioid group reported at least one adverse event versus 51 (30%) of 172 in the placebo group (p=0·30), but more people in the opioid group reported opioid-related adverse events (eg, 13 [7·5%] of 174 participants in the opioid group reported constipation vs six [3·5%] of 173 in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Opioids should not be recommended for acute non-specific low back pain or neck pain given that we found no significant difference in pain severity compared with placebo. This finding calls for a change in the frequent use of opioids for these conditions. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, and SafeWork SA.

Emergency department length of stay and re-presentation rates in patients with low back pain: A medical record review study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is ranked in the top 10 conditions presenting to emergency departments (ED) in Australia. We aimed to investigate ED re-presentation rates and length of stay (LOS) of patients with LBP, including associated factors. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of three EDs in Sydney, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes of non-serious LBP with at least one re-presentation within 12 months. Secondary outcomes were re-presentation rates within 3-days, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months, 6-months, and mean LOS. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associated factors with re-presentation and prolonged stay (>4 h) and reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 8289 episodes of non-serious LBP, 7.7% included at least one re-presentation within 12 months. There were only 14 re-presentations (0.2%) where the diagnosis changed from non-serious LBP at the index visit to serious spinal pathology at the repeat visit. The overall mean LOS was 4.1 h, and 26.9% of patients stayed in the ED for >4 h. Those who received opioids (aOR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.59) were more likely to re-present. In contrast, patients receiving imaging were less likely to re-present (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). Receiving imaging (aOR: 2.83; 95% CI: 2.56-3.13) and opioids (aOR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.47-1.82) increased the odds of prolonged stay. CONCLUSION: A re-presentation within 12 months occurs in 7.7% of episodes of LBP in ED. Over one-quarter of patients stayed longer than 4 h.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

Development of low back pain curriculum content standards for entry-level clinical training.

BACKGROUND: The management of low back pain (LBP) is highly variable and patients often receive management that is not recommended and/or miss out on recommended care. Clinician knowledge and behaviours are strongly influenced by entry-level clinical training and are commonly cited as barriers to implementing evidence-based management. Currently there are no internationally recognised curriculum standards for the teaching of LBP content to ensure graduating clinicians have the appropriate knowledge and competencies to assess and manage LBP. We formed an international interdisciplinary working group to develop curriculum content standards for the teaching of LBP in entry-level clinical training programs. METHODS: The working group included representatives from 11 countries: 18 academics and clinicians from healthcare professions who deal with the management of LBP (medicine, physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, pharmacology, and psychology), seven professional organisation representatives (medicine, physiotherapy, chiropractic, spine societies), and one healthcare consumer. A literature review was performed, including database and hand searches of guidelines and accreditation, curricula, and other policy documents, to identify gaps in current LBP teaching and recommended entry-level knowledge and competencies. The steering group (authors) drafted the initial LBP Curriculum Content Standards (LBP-CCS), which were discussed and modified through two review rounds with the working group. RESULTS: Sixty-two documents informed the draft standards. The final LBP-CCS consisted of four broad topics covering the epidemiology, biopsychosocial contributors, assessment, and management of LBP. For each topic, key knowledge and competencies to be achieved by the end of entry-level clinical training were described. CONCLUSION: We have developed the LBP-CCS in consultation with an interdisciplinary, international working group. These standards can be used to inform or benchmark the content of curricula related to LBP in new or existing entry-level clinical training programs.

Management of low back pain in Australian emergency departments for culturally and linguistically diverse populations from 2016 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Disparate care in the ED for minority populations with low back pain is a long-standing issue reported in the USA. Our objective was to compare care delivery for low back pain in Australian EDs between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and non-CALD patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of medical records of the ED of three public hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. We included adult patients diagnosed with non-serious low back pain at ED discharge. CALD status was defined by country of birth, preferred language and use of interpreter service. The main outcome measures were ambulance transport, lumbar imaging, opioid administration and hospital admission. RESULTS: Of the 14 642 included presentations, 7656 patients (52.7%) were born overseas, 3695 (25.2%) preferred communicating in a non-English language and 1224 (8.4%) required an interpreter. Patients born overseas were less likely to arrive by ambulance (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.73) than Australian-born patients. Patients who preferred a non-English language were also less likely to arrive by ambulance (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90), yet more likely to be imaged (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) or be admitted to hospital (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29) than Native-English-speaking patients. Patients who required an interpreter were more likely to receive imaging (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.64) or be admitted (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.73) compared with those who communicated independently. CALD patients were generally less likely to receive weak opioids than non-CALD patients (aOR range 0.76-0.87), yet no difference was found in the use of any opioid or strong opioids. CONCLUSION: Patients with low back pain from a CALD background, especially those lacking English proficiency, are significantly more likely to be imaged and admitted in Australian EDs. Future interventions improving the quality of ED care for low back pain should give special consideration to CALD patients.

Australian emergency department care for older adults diagnosed with low back pain of lumbar spine origin: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record system data (2016-2019).

BACKGROUND: In Australian emergency departments, 30% of all back pain presentations are for older adults. Relatively little is known about the care that this population receives during an emergency department stay, including admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to describe emergency department management of older adults diagnosed with a lumbar spine condition and to determine predictors of healthcare use in this population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data of adults aged ≥ 65 years with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis. Demographic, clinical care (date and time of presentation and discharge, length of stay in the emergency department, mode of arrival, triage category, re-presentations to the emergency department (within 48 h), discharge mode, the administration of pain-relieving medicines, lumbar imaging, and laboratory tests) and costs data were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Descriptive analyses and multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: Over the period January 2016 to December 2019 there were 4,093 presentations to emergency departments by older adults with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis (82.0% were non-specific low back pain). Most were female (58.3%), 39.9% had some form of lumbar imaging, and 34.1% were admitted to hospital. The most administered pain medicines were opioid analgesics (67.1%), followed by paracetamol (63.9%) and NSAIDs (33.0%). Predictors of healthcare use and hospital inpatient admission were receiving a laboratory test and receiving any opioid. For the financial period 2019-20, the mean (SD) total cost of care per presentation was $5,629 ($11,982). CONCLUSION: In the emergency department, more than two thirds of older adults with a lumbar spine condition received opioid analgesics. They often received imaging and laboratory tests, had high costs and were admitted to hospital. Alternative pathways of care are needed to support older adults with low back pain, to receive guideline-concordant emergency department care and have good health outcomes.

Do Patients with Acute Low Back Pain in Emergency Departments Have More Severe Symptoms than Those in General Practice? ASystematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0-100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. RESULTS: We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0-100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0-100 scale). CONCLUSION: Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

Public and patient perceptions of diagnostic labels for non-specific low back pain: a content analysis.

PURPOSE: An online randomised experiment found that the labels lumbar sprain, non-specific low back pain (LBP), and episode of back pain reduced perceived need for imaging, surgery and second opinions compared to disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis among 1447 participants with and without LBP. They also reduced perceived seriousness of LBP and increased recovery expectations. METHODS: In this study we report the results of a content analysis of free-text data collected in our experiment. We used two questions: 1. When you hear the term [one of the six labels], what words or feelings does this make you think of? and 2. What treatment (s) (if any) do you think a person with [one of the six labels] needs? Two independent reviewers analysed 2546 responses. RESULTS: Ten themes emerged for Question1. Poor prognosis emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis, while good prognosis emerged for lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Thoughts of tissue damage were less common for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Feelings of uncertainty frequently emerged for non-specific LBP. Twenty-eight treatments emerged for Question2. Surgery emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis compared to lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Surgery did not emerge for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinicians should consider avoiding the labels disc bulge, degeneration and arthritis and opt for labels that are associated with positive beliefs and less preference for surgery, when communicating with patients with LBP.

Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surgery has at best a limited role in the management of back pain. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. Two independent researchers screened PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to May 6th, 2021. Studies of any design published in any language were eligible provided they described a second opinion intervention for people with spinal pain (low back or neck pain with or without radicular pain) either considering surgery or to whom surgery had been recommended. We assessed the methodological quality with the Downs & Black scale. Outcomes were: i) characteristics of second opinion services for people considering or who have been recommended spinal surgery, ii) agreement between first and second opinions in terms of diagnoses, need for surgery and type of surgery, iii) whether they reduce surgery and improve patient outcomes; and iv) the costs and healthcare use associated with these services. Outcomes were presented descriptively. RESULTS: We screened 6341 records, read 27 full-texts, and included 12 studies (all observational; 11 had poor methodological quality; one had fair). Studies described patient, doctor, and insurance-initiated second opinion services. Diagnostic agreement between first and second opinions varied from 53 to 96%. Agreement for need for surgery between first and second opinions ranged from 0 to 83%. Second opinion services may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. Second opinion services may reduce costs and healthcare use (e.g. imaging), but might increase others (e.g. injections). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion services typically recommend less surgical treatments compared to first opinions and may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. There is a need for high-quality randomised trials to determine the value of second opinion services for reducing spinal surgery.

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.

Paramedic management of back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Research examining paramedic care of back pain is limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe ambulance service use and usual paramedic care for back pain, the effectiveness and safety of paramedic care of back pain, and the characteristics of people with back pain who seek care from paramedics. METHODS: We included published peer-reviewed studies of people with back pain who received any type of paramedic care on-scene and/or during transport to hospital. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SciELO from inception to July 2022. Two authors independently screened and selected the studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality using the PEDro, AMSTAR 2 and Hawker tools. This review followed the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: From 1987 articles we included 26 articles (25 unique studies) consisting of 22 observational studies, three randomised controlled trials and one review. Back pain is frequently in the top 3 reasons for calls to an ambulance service with more than two thirds of cases receiving ambulance dispatch. It takes ~ 8 min from time of call to an ambulance being dispatched and 16% of calls for back pain receive transport to hospital. Pharmacological management of back pain includes benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, opioids, nitrous oxide, and paracetamol. Non-pharmacological care is poorly reported and includes referral to alternate health service, counselling and behavioural interventions and self-care advice. Only three trials have evaluated effectiveness of paramedic treatments (TENS, active warming, and administration of opioids) and no studies provided safety or costing data. CONCLUSION: Paramedics are frequently responding to people with back pain. Use of pain medicines is common but varies according to the type of back pain and setting, while non-pharmacological care is poorly reported. There is a lack of research evaluating the effectiveness and safety of paramedic care for back pain.

"I would not go to him": Focus groups exploring community responses to a public health campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Community awareness of the harms of overdiagnosis remains low. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate community responses to a public health campaign designed for health service waiting rooms that focuses on the harms of unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain. METHODS: We conducted two focus groups of 19 community members with or without low back pain in Sydney, Australia. This study formed the fourth and final stage of the development process of a public health campaign: (a) initial design, (b) expert review and revision, (c) online experiment and (d) community views & revision. We evaluated reactions to components of the campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of overdiagnosis. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to identify main themes. RESULTS: Community members reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about overdiagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of overdiagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Public health campaigns including posters and leaflets displayed in waiting rooms could raise awareness about overuse of diagnostic imaging and the harms of overdiagnosis more broadly. However, negative reactions are possible and must be managed carefully. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We involved a community participation manager who provided advice on the focus group discussion guide, participant recruitment and manuscript presentation.

Effect of a waiting room communication strategy on imaging rates and awareness of public health messages for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effects of waiting room communication strategies on health-care behavior. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of a waiting room communication strategy, designed to raise awareness of potential harms of unnecessary imaging, on lumbar imaging rates in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a controlled experimental study with a replicated time series design. The design included a 6-week run-in time. Following this there were alternating 1-week intervention and control periods. The intervention group received a communication strategy describing the potential harms of unnecessary imaging for low back pain, shown on a 55" LCD screen positioned in the ED waiting room. The communication strategy was designed by a creative innovation agency and included five digital posters and a patient leaflet. The control group received standard messaging for the waiting room at the time, shown on the same 55" LCD screen, and access to the patient leaflet. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of people presenting to ED with low back pain who received at least one lumbar imaging test, measured using routinely collected ED data. Secondary patient-reported outcomes (patient satisfaction and awareness of campaign messages) were collected from a sample of people presenting for any condition who responded to a text-message-based survey. RESULTS: For the imaging outcome, 337 people presenting to ED with low back pain were included over a 4-month period (intervention n = 99; control n = 238). All had available data on lumbar imaging. Use of lumbar imaging was 25% in those exposed to the communication strategy [95% confidence interval (CI) = 18% to 35%] compared with 29% in those exposed to the standard waiting room messaging [95% CI = 23% to 35%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.41]. For the patient-reported outcomes, 349 patients presenting to ED for any condition responded to the survey (intervention n = 170; control n = 179; response rate = 33%). There was uncertain evidence that the intervention increased awareness of the communication strategy leaflet (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 0.90 to 4.47). Other measures did not suggest between-group differences in patient satisfaction or awareness of the campaign messages. CONCLUSION: A communication strategy displayed in the ED waiting room may slightly reduce the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive lumbar imaging, although there is uncertainty due to imprecision. The campaign did not appear to increase awareness of campaign messages or affect patient satisfaction in a sample of patients presenting to the ED for any reason. Larger studies should investigate whether simple, low-cost waiting room communication strategies can raise awareness of unnecessary healthcare and influence health-care quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000300976, 05/03/2020.

Appropriateness of imaging decisions for low back pain presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Imaging for low back pain is widely regarded as a target for efforts to reduce low-value care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of the overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging in patients presenting with low back pain to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study of five public hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia, in 2019-20. We reviewed the clinical charts of consecutive adult patients who presented with a complaint of low back pain and extracted clinical features relevant to a decision to request lumbar imaging. We estimated the proportion of encounters where a decision to request lumbar imaging was inappropriate (overuse) or where a clinician did not request an appropriate and informative lumbar imaging test when indicated (underuse). RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-nine patients presented with a complaint of low back pain, of which 158 (24.3%) were referred for imaging. Seventy-nine (12.2%) had a combination of features suggesting that lumbar imaging was indicated according to clinical guidelines. The prevalence of overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging was 8.8% (57 of 649 cases, 95% CI 6.8-11.2%) and 4.3% (28 of 649 cases, 95% CI 3.0-6.1%), respectively. Thirteen cases were classified as underuse because the patients were referred for uninformative imaging modalities (e.g. referred for radiography for suspected cauda equina syndrome). CONCLUSION: In this study of emergency care, there was evidence of not only overuse of lumbar imaging but also underuse through failure to request lumbar imaging when indicated or referral for an uninformative imaging modality. These three issues seem more important targets for quality improvement than solely focusing on overuse.

Prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of prevention strategies to reduce future impact of low back pain (LBP), where impact is measured by LBP intensity and associated disability. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and The Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 22 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating any intervention aiming to prevent future impact of LBP, reporting an outcome measure of LBP intensity and/or disability measured at least 3 months post-randomisation, and the intervention group must be compared with a group that received no intervention/placebo or minimal intervention. Trials restricting recruitment to participants with current LBP were excluded. RESULTS: 27 published reports of 25 different trials including a total of 8341 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled results, from three RCTs (612 participants), found moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme can prevent future LBP intensity (mean difference (MD) -4.50; 95% CI -7.26 to -1.74), and from 4 RCTs (471 participants) that an exercise and education programme can prevent future disability due to LBP (MD -6.28; 95% CI -9.51 to -3.06). It is uncertain whether prevention programmes improve future quality of life (QoL) and workability due to the overall low-quality and very low-quality available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides moderate-quality evidence that an exercise programme, and a programme combining exercise and education, are effective to reduce future LBP intensity and associated disability. It is uncertain whether prevention programmes can improve future QoL and workability. Further high-quality RCTs evaluating prevention programmes aiming to reduce future impact of LBP are needed.

Understanding overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department is a well-recognised healthcare challenge. Studies to date have not provided robust evidence that available interventions can reduce overuse. For an intervention aimed at reducing imaging to be effective, insight into how both patients and clinicians view lumbar imaging tests is essential. AIM: To explore factors that might influence overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department. METHODS: Participants were recruited from three hospitals in Sydney, Australia between April and August 2019. We conducted focus groups and/or interviews with 14 patients and 12 clinicians. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using framework analysis by a team of four researchers with diverse backgrounds. RESULTS: Patients described feeling that the decision about lumbar imaging was made by their Emergency Department clinician and reported little involvement in the decision-making process. Other potential drivers of lumbar imaging overuse from the patients' perspective were strong expectations for lumbar imaging, a reluctance to delay receiving a diagnosis, and requirements from third parties (eg, insurance companies) to have imaging. Emergency Department clinicians suggested that the absence of an ongoing therapeutic relationship, and the inability to manage perceived patient pressure could drive overuse of lumbar imaging. Suggested protective factors included: involving patients in the decision, ensuring clinicians have the ability to explain the reasons to avoid imaging and collaborative approaches to care both within the Emergency Department and with primary care. CONCLUSION AND KEY FINDINGS: We found several factors that could contribute to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department. Solutions to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department could include: (1) strategies to involve patients in decisions about imaging; (2) training and support to provide thorough and well explained clinical assessment for low back pain; and (3) systems that support collaborative approaches to care.

Emergency department interventions for adult patients with low back pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Most low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) -15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.0 to -9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD -15.7, 95% CI -19.8 to -11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD -11.4, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI -0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD -6.8, 95% CI -24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Ketoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.

Clinical course of patients with low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0-100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation. RESULTS: Eight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0-100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2-77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2-55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8-21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.