Ranking of parameters of pain hypersensitivity according to their discriminative ability in chronic low back pain

Low back pain is associated with plasticity changes and central hypersensitivity in a subset of patients. We performed a case-control study to explore the discriminative ability of different quantitative sensory tests in distinguishing between 40 cases with chronic low back pain and 300 pain-free controls, and to rank these tests according to the extent of their association with chronic pain. Gender, age, height, weight, body mass index, and psychological measures were recorded as potential confounders. We used 26 quantitative sensory tests, including different modalities of pressure, heat, cold, and electrical stimulation. As measures of discrimination, we estimated receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and likelihood ratios. Six tests seemed useful (in order of their discriminative ability): (1) pressure pain detection threshold at the site of most severe pain (fitted area under the ROC, 0.87), (2) single electrical stimulation pain detection threshold (0.87), (3) single electrical stimulation reflex threshold (0.83), (4) pressure pain tolerance threshold at the site of most severe pain (0.81), (5) pressure pain detection threshold at suprascapular region (0.80), and (6) temporal summation pain threshold (0.80). Pressure and electrical pain modalities seemed most promising and may be used for diagnosis of pain hypersensitivity and potentially for identifying individuals at risk of developing chronic low back pain over time.

Study protocol: Transition from localized low back pain to chronic widespread pain in general practice: identification of risk factors, preventive factors and key elements for treatment--a cohort study

Background Chronic localized pain syndromes, especially chronic low back pain (CLBP), are common reasons for consultation in general practice. In some cases chronic localized pain syndromes can appear in combination with chronic widespread pain (CWP). Numerous studies have shown a strong association between CWP and several physical and psychological factors. These studies are population-based cross-sectional and do not allow for assessing chronology. There are very few prospective studies that explore the predictors for the onset of CWP, where the main focus is identifying risk factors for the CWP incidence. Until now there have been no studies focusing on preventive factors keeping patients from developing CWP. Our aim is to perform a cross sectional study on the epidemiology of CLBP and CWP in general practice and to look for distinctive features regarding resources like resilience, self-efficacy and coping strategies. A subsequent cohort study is designed to identify the risk and protective factors of pain generalization (development of CWP) in primary care for CLBP patients. Methods/Design Fifty-nine general practitioners recruit consecutively, during a 5 month period, all patients who are consulting their family doctor because of chronic low back pain (where the pain is lasted for 3 months). Patients are asked to fill out a questionnaire on pain anamnesis, pain-perception, co-morbidities, therapy course, medication, socio demographic data and psychosomatic symptoms. We assess resilience, coping resources, stress management and self-efficacy as potential protective factors for pain generalization. Furthermore, we raise risk factors for pain generalization like anxiety, depression, trauma and critical life events. During a twelve months follow up period a cohort of CLBP patients without CWP will be screened on a regular basis (3 monthly) for pain generalization (outcome: incident CWP). Discussion This cohort study will be the largest study which prospectively analyzes predictors for transition from CLBP to CWP in primary care setting. In contrast to the typically researched risk factors, which increase the probability of pain generalization, this study also focus intensively on protective factors, which decrease the probability of pain generalization.

Predictors of sickness absence in patients with a new episode of low back pain in primary care

This study examines predictors of sickness absence in patients presenting to a health practitioner with acute/ subacute low back pain (LBP). Aims of this study were to identify baseline-variables that detect patients with a new LBP episode at risk of sickness absence and to identify prognostic models for sickness absence at different time points after initial presentation. Prospective cohort study investigating 310 patients presenting to a health practitioner with a new episode of LBP at baseline, three-, six-, twelve-week and six-month follow-up, addressing work-related, psychological and biomedical factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify baseline-predictors of sickness absence at different time points. Prognostic models comprised 'job control', 'depression' and 'functional limitation' as predictive baseline-factors of sickness absence at three and six-week follow-up with 'job control' being the best single predictor (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.26-0.87). The six-week model explained 47% of variance of sickness absence at six-week follow-up (p<0.001). The prediction of sickness absence beyond six-weeks is limited, and health practitioners should re-assess patients at six weeks, especially if they have previously been identified as at risk of sickness absence. This would allow timely intervention with measures designed to reduce the likelihood of prolonged sickness absence.

Predictive value of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire for persisting problems

A small proportion of individuals with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) develop persistent problems. Up to 80% of the total costs for NSLBP are owing to chronic NSLBP. Psychosocial factors have been described to be important in the transition from acute to chronic NSLBP. Guidelines recommend the use of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire (ALBPSQ) and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) to identify individuals at risk of developing persistent problems, such as long-term absence of work, persistent restriction in function or persistent pain. These instruments can be used with a cutoff value, where patients with values above the threshold are further assessed with a more comprehensive examination.

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: This study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption. METHODS: 104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months. RESULTS: Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain.

[Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain]

Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain Low back pain is classified into two principle categories: specific and non specific. This difference is important in terms of screening, medical care and treatment. Specific low back pain has various etiologies that imply specific treatment. This report describes one case of rare specific low back pain. The purpose of this article is to highlight the pitfalls that can represent such a common pathology, to show that obtaining an early diagnosis can be challenging, and finally to prevent care providers from stereotypes related to low back pain management.

Three-year cost analysis of function-centred versus pain-centred inpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs of function- and pain-centred inpatient treatment in patients with chronic low back pain over 3 years of follow-up. DESIGN: Cost analysis of a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: A total of 174 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to function- or pain-centred inpatient treatment. METHODS: Data on direct and indirect costs were gathered by questionnaires sent to patients, health insurance providers, employers, and the Swiss Disability Insurance Company. RESULTS: There was a non-significant difference in total medical costs after 3 years' follow-up. Total costs were 77,305 Euros in the function-centred inpatient treatment group and 83,085 Euros in the pain-centred inpatient treatment group. Likewise, indirect costs after 3 years from lost work days were non-significantly lower in the function-centred in-patient treatment group (6354 Euros; 95% confidence interval -20,892, 8392) and direct medical costs were non-significantly higher in the function-centred inpatient treatment group (574 Euros; 95% confidence interval -862, 2011). CONCLUSION: The total costs of function-centred and pain-centred inpatient treatment were similar over the whole 3-year follow-up.