Predicting 7-day and 3-month functional outcomes after an ED visit for acute nontraumatic low back pain

Emergency presentations for older persons with low back pain: An increasing clinical and economic challenge

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether differences exist for older persons presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with lower back pain (LBP) in terms of management, health service resource use and cost when compared to younger patients with LBP.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected electronic medical record data from January 2015 to July 2021. Data from 11,098 adults presenting with LBP to two large regional Australian EDs were analysed over a 5-year period. Rates of presentation, investigation, medication use, spinal surgery and cost were assessed for all participants with respect to age groups (over or under 65 years of age), diagnosis and time. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the contribution of presentation characteristics to the risk of inpatient admission and to investigate the variable effect of patient age.

RESULTS

Older people represented 23% (n = 2565) of all LBP presentations, with a growing proportion of presentations over time. More than 1 in 4 patients over 65 were admitted (n = 703, 27%), with CT imaging being proportionately three times more prevalent (24% vs. 6%), and average cost double (AU$3973 vs. $1671) that of the younger population. Consultation by an ED physiotherapist was associated with lower admission risk across all adult presentations (OR 0.52, 95% CI [0.40 to 0.67]).

CONCLUSIONS

Older persons are over-represented amongst gradually increasing rates of LBP presentations to EDs and associated with escalating cost of care and hospital resource use. Older patients present a different clinical and economic profile to younger patients, supporting the provision of individualised management recommendations.

Serious diagnoses at revisits in children discharged from the emergency department with back pain

BACKGROUND

Back pain is often benign but can be a harbinger for serious pathology. Little is known about the outcome in children with back pain but no serious diagnoses detected at the initial visit. We sought to estimate the rate of serious diagnoses at revisits among children initially discharged from the emergency department (ED) with back pain.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients from 45 pediatric hospitals in the Pediatric Health Information System database from October 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019. We included patients discharged from the ED with a principal diagnosis of back pain and excluded patients with trauma and concurrent or previously known serious diagnoses. We identified the rates and types of serious diagnoses made within 30 days of the index visit. We examined the rates of diagnostic tests at the index visit in patients with and without serious diagnoses.

RESULTS

Of the 25,130 patients with back pain, 88 (0.4%, 95% confidence interval = 0.3% to 0.4%) had serious pathology diagnosed within 30 days. The most common diagnoses were anatomic (40%) and nonneurologic (39%) categories such as vertebral fracture and nephrolithiasis; infectious (19%) and neoplastic etiologies (3%) were less common. Diagnoses requiring acute interventions such as cauda equina syndrome (n = 2) and intraspinal abscess (n = 3) were rare. Patients with serious diagnoses at revisits underwent more blood tests and back ultrasound at the index visit compared to patients without serious diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of back pain and no serious or trauma diagnoses, there is a low rate of serious pathology on revisits. Of the serious diagnoses identified, high-acuity diseases were rare. For the subset of patients with clinical suspicion for serious pathology but none identified at the index visit, this represents an opportunity for further research to optimize their management.

Do patients with acute low back pain in emergency departments have more severe symptoms than those in general practice? A systematic 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 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 versus those presenting to emergency departments.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 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 using a validated tool for observational studies and the overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analysis using 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%CI: 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%CI: 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.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076806.

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.

Screening Tools to Predict the Development of Chronic Low Back Pain: An Integrative Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe available instruments that can be used to screen patients with acute or subacute low back pain for a chronic low back pain trajectory.

DESIGN

Integrative literature review.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsychINFO databases took place from May through July of 2014 using systematic search strategies to identify screening instruments developed to identify people at risk of chronic low back pain. After screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as quality indicators, the identified studies were categorized based on whether the instrument measured psychological, clinical, or functional measures to predict chronic low back pain.

RESULTS

Initial searches identified 2,274 potential articles. After assessing for duplicates, title, and abstract content, there were 129 remaining articles. Articles were further excluded after analysis of the text, for a total of 42 studies reviewed. Most instruments reviewed were unable to provide evidence of predictive power for developing chronic low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified numerous instruments developed to assess the likelihood of chronic low back pain in acute and subacute low back pain populations. Of the instruments reviewed, the STarT Back Screening Tool and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire demonstrated superior predictive power compared with other instruments. Both screening tools offer evidence of validation, translation into different languages and international application, and usage in various health care settings and provide data on predictive power.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Effectiveness of Acute Care Remote Triage Systems: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Technology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes.

METHODS

English-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

Pain One Week After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Low Back Pain Is Associated With Poor Three-month Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 million visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) annually. Nearly 30% of patients who present to an ED with acute LBP report functional impairment or pain 3 months later. These patients are at risk of chronic LBP, a highly debilitating condition. In this study, we assessed whether three variables assessable shortly after symptom onset could independently predict poor 3-month outcomes among LBP patients who present to an ED.

METHODS

This was a planned analysis of data from two randomized comparative effectiveness studies of patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP. Patients were enrolled during an ED visit, contacted by telephone 1 week after the ED visit, and then followed up by telephone 3 months later. The coprimary 3-month outcomes were LBP-related functional impairment and persistent moderate or severe LBP. Two of the three hypothesized predictor variables were assessed during the index visit: 1) the STarT Back Screening Tool score, a nine-item, multidimensional tool validated and widely used in the outpatient setting, and 2) the patient's own anticipated duration of LBP. The third hypothesized predictor was presence of pain assessed by phone 1 week after the ED visit. We then determined whether these three predictor variables were independently associated with poor outcomes at 3 months, after controlling for medication received, age, and sex.

RESULTS

A total of 354 patients were enrolled. Of these, 309 (87%) provided 3-month impairment data and 311 (88%) provided 3-month pain data. At 3 months, 122 of 309 (39%) patients reported functional impairment and 51 of 311(16%) patients reported moderate or severe LBP. Among the three hypothesized predictor variables, 58 of 352 (16%) patients with available data reported a moderate or high STarT Back Screening Tool score, 35 of 321 (11%) patients with available data reported anticipated duration of LBP > 1 week, and 235 of 346 (68%) patients reported pain at 1-week telephone follow-up. After age, sex, and medication received were controlled for in a multivariable logistic regression model, only pain at 1 week was independently associated with 3-month impairment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.39-4.22) and 3-month moderate or severe pain (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 1.53-9.58).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of patients reported functional impairment 3 months after an ED visit for acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP. Moderate or severe LBP was less common, reported in about half as many patients (16%). Of the three hypothesized predictor variables, only persistent pain at 1 week was independently associated with poor outcomes at 3 months. Despite its important role in the outpatient setting, the STarT Back Tool was not associated with poor outcomes in this ED cohort.

Diazepam Is No Better Than Placebo When Added to Naproxen for Acute Low Back Pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Low back pain causes more than 2.5 million visits to US emergency departments (EDs) annually. Low back pain patients are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and benzodiazepines. The former is an evidence-based intervention, whereas the efficacy of the latter has not been established. We compare pain and functional outcomes 1 week and 3 months after ED discharge among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+diazepam versus naproxen+placebo.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, comparative efficacy clinical trial conducted in an urban health care system. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain of no more than a duration of 2 weeks were eligible for enrollment immediately before discharge from an ED if they had a score greater than 5 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, a validated 24-item inventory of functional impairment caused by low back pain. Higher scores on the questionnaire indicate greater functional disability. The primary outcome in the trial was improvement in the score between ED discharge and 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity 1 week and 3 months after ED discharge, as measured on a 4-point descriptive scale (severe, moderate, mild, and none). All patients were given 20 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be taken twice a day as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive either 28 tablets of diazepam 5 mg or identical placebo, to be received as 1 or 2 tablets every 12 hours as needed for low back pain. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge. Using a between-group mean difference of 5 Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire points, a previously validated threshold for clinical significance, we calculated the need for at least 100 patients with primary outcome data.

RESULTS

Enrollment began in June 2015 and continued for 9 months. Five hundred forty-five patients were screened for eligibility. One hundred fourteen patients met selection criteria and were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were not substantially different between the 2 groups. One hundred twelve patients (98%) provided 1-week outcome data. The mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score of patients randomized to naproxen+diazepam improved by 11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9 to 13), as did the mean score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo (11; 95% CI 8 to 13). At 1-week follow-up, 18 of 57 diazepam patients (32%; 95% CI 21% to 45%) reported moderate or severe low back pain versus 12 of 55 placebo patients (22%; 95% CI 13% to 35%). At 3-month follow-up, 6 of 50 diazepam patients (12%; 95% CI 5% to 24%) reported moderate or severe low back pain versus 5 of 53 placebo patients (9%; 95% CI 4% to 21%). Adverse events were reported by 12 of 57 diazepam patients (21%; 95% CI 12% to 33%) and 8 of 55 placebo patients (15%; 95% CI 7% to 26%).

CONCLUSION

Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, naproxen+diazepam did not improve functional outcomes or pain compared with naproxen+placebo 1 week and 3 months after ED discharge.

Correlation between classification in risk categories and clinical aspects and outcomes

Objective

to correlate classification in risk categories with the clinical profiles, outcomes and origins of patients.

Method

analytical cross-sectional study conducted with 697 medical forms of adult patients. The variables included: age, sex, origin, signs and symptoms, exams, personal antecedents, classification in risk categories, medical specialties, and outcome. The Chi-square and likelihood ratio tests were used to associate classifications in risk categories with origin, signs and symptoms, exams, personal antecedents, medical specialty, and outcome.

Results

most patients were women with an average age of 44.5 years. Pain and dyspnea were the symptoms most frequently reported while hypertension and diabetes mellitus were the most common comorbidities. Classifications in the green and yellow categories were the most frequent and hospital discharge the most common outcome. Patients classified in the red category presented the highest percentage of ambulance origin due to surgical reasons. Those classified in the orange and red categories also presented the highest percentage of hospitalization and death.

Conclusion

correlation between clinical aspects and outcomes indicate there is a relationship between the complexity of components in the categories with greater severity, evidenced by the highest percentage of hospitalization and death.

Predicting three-month functional outcomes after an ED visit for acute low back pain

BACKGROUND

Nearly 30% of patients who present to an ED with acute, new onset, low back pain (LBP) report LBP-related functional impairment three months later. These patients are at risk of chronic LBP, a highly debilitating condition. It has been reported previously that functional impairment, depression, and psychosomatic symptomatology at the index visit are associated with poor LBP outcomes. We wished to replicate those findings in a cohort of ED patients, and also to determine if clinical features present at one week follow-up could predict three-month outcomes in individual patients.

METHODS

This was a planned analysis of data from a randomized comparative effectiveness study of three analgesic combinations conducted in one ED. Patients were followed by telephone one week and three months post-ED visit. The primary outcome was a three-month Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score >0, indicating the presence of LBP-related functional impairment. At the index visit, we measured functional impairment (using the RMDQ), depressive symptomatology (using the Patient Health Questionnaire depression module), and psychosomatic features (using the 5-item Cassandra scale). At the one-week follow-up, we ascertained the presence or absence of LBP. We built a logistic regression model in which all the predictors were entered and retained in the model, in addition to socio-demographic variables and dummy variables controlling for investigational medication. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (adjOR) with 95% CI. To determine if statistically significant associations could be used to predict three-month outcomes in individual patients, we then calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios [LR(+) and LR(-)] with 95% CI for those independent variables associated with the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 295 patients who completed the study, 14 (5%) were depressed and 18 (6%) reported psychosomatic symptoms. The median index visit RMDQ score was 19 (IQR: 17, 21) indicating substantial functional impairment. One week after the ED visit, 193 (65%) patients reported presence of LBP. 294 patients provided a three-month RMDQ score, 88 of whom (30%, 95% CI: 25, 35%) reported a score >0. Neither depression (adjOR 0.7 [95% CI 0.2, 3.1]), psychosomatic symptomatology (adjOR 0.5 [95% CI 0.1, 2.0]), nor index visit functional impairment (adjOR 1.0 [95% CI 1.0, 1.1]) were associated with three-month outcome. Pain at one week was strongly and independently associated with the three-month outcome when examined at the group level (adjOR 4.0 [95% CI 2.1, 7.7]). However, likelihood ratios for pain or its absence at one-week were insufficiently robust to be clinically useful in predicting three-month outcomes in individual patients (LR+: 1.4 [95% CI: 1.3, 1.7]; LR-: 0.4 [95% CI: 0.2, 0.6]).

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of a strong association at the group level between presence of LBP at one week and functional impairment at three months, when used to predict outcomes in individual patients, presence of pain failed to discriminate with clinically meaningful utility between acute LBP patients destined to have a favorable versus unfavorable three-month outcome.

Emergency room resource utilization by patients with low-back pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with admission to the hospital through the emergency room (ER) for patients with a primary diagnosis of low-back pain (LBP). The authors further evaluated the impact of ER admission and patient characteristics on mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital length of stay.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with LBP discharged from hospitals according to the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 1998 and 2007. Univariate comparisons of patient characteristics according to the type of admission (ER versus non-ER) were conducted. Multivariate analysis evaluated factors associated with an ER admission, risk of mortality, and nonroutine discharge.

RESULTS

According to the NIS, approximately 183,151 patients with a primary diagnosis of LBP were discharged from US hospitals between 1998 and 2007. During this period, an average of 65% of these patients were admitted through the ER, with a significant increase from 1998 (54%) to 2005 (71%). Multivariate analysis revealed that uninsured patients (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7–2.6, p < 0.0001) and African American patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.7, p < 0.0001) were significantly more likely to be admitted through the ER than private insurance patients or Caucasian patients, respectively. Additionally, a moderate but statistically significant increase in the likelihood of ER admission was noted for patients with more preexisting comorbidities (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0–1.2, p < 0.001). An 11% incremental increase in the odds of admission through the ER was observed with each year increment (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0–1.2, p < 0.001). Highest income patients ($45,000+) were more likely to be admitted through the ER (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6, p = 0.007) than the lowest income cohort. While ER admission did not impact the risk of mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60–1.51, p = 0.84), it increased the odds of a nonroutine discharge (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.26–1.53, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant majority of patients discharged from hospitals in the US from 1998 to 2007 with a primary diagnosis of LBP were admitted through the ER, with more patients being admitted via this route each year. These patients were less likely to be discharged directly home compared with patients with LBP who were not admitted through the ER. Uninsured and African American patients with LBP were more likely to be admitted through the ER than their counterparts, as were patients with more preexisting health problems. Interestingly, patients with LBP at the highest income levels were more likely to be admitted through hospital ERs. The findings suggest that socioeconomic factors may play a role in the utilization of ER resources by patients with LBP, which in turn appears to impact at least the short-term outcome of these patients.

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus.

DESIGN

Expert panel and preliminary evaluation of key recommendations.

METHODS

The NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting.

RESULTS

The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals.

CONCLUSION

The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Focus article: report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Gender differences in acute and chronic pain in the emergency department: results of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference pain section

Pain is a leading public health problem in the United States, with an annual economic burden of more than $630 billion, and is one of the most common reasons that individuals seek emergency department (ED) care. There is a paucity of data regarding sex differences in the assessment and treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions in the ED. The Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference convened in Dallas, Texas, in May 2014 to develop a research agenda to address this issue among others related to sex differences in the ED. Prior to the conference, experts and stakeholders from emergency medicine and the pain research field reviewed the current literature and identified eight candidate priority areas. At the conference, these eight areas were reviewed and all eight were ratified using a nominal group technique to build consensus. These priority areas were: 1) gender differences in the pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain, including differences in opioid tolerance, side effects, or misuse; 2) gender differences in pain severity perceptions, clinically meaningful differences in acute pain, and pain treatment preferences; 3) gender differences in pain outcomes of ED patients across the life span; 4) gender differences in the relationship between acute pain and acute psychological responses; 5) the influence of physician-patient gender differences and characteristics on the assessment and treatment of pain; 6) gender differences in the influence of acute stress and chronic stress on acute pain responses; 7) gender differences in biological mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating acute pain in ED populations; and 8) gender differences in biological mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating chronic pain development after trauma, stress, or acute illness exposure. These areas represent priority areas for future scientific inquiry, and gaining understanding in these will be essential to improving our understanding of sex and gender differences in the assessment and treatment of pain conditions in emergency care settings.

Report of the National Institutes of Health task force on research standards for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The purpose of this article is to disseminate the report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) task force on research standards for cLBP.

METHODS

The NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting.

RESULTS

The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved these recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals.

CONCLUSIONS

The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The research task force believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurological, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. We expect that the research task force recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for cLBP. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum data set, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.