Use of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapy interventions

Evaluating the Efficacy of Capacitive Resistive Monopolar Radiofrequency Combined With Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This randomised controlled trial evaluates the effectiveness of capacitive resistive monopolar radiofrequency (CRMRF) combined with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) training in managing chronic low back pain (CLBP). Given the multifactorial nature of CLBP, this study explores a multimodal treatment approach integrating CRMRF, known for its thermal effects and ability to alleviate pain through improved cell metabolism and microcirculation, with PNF training, which enhances muscle strength, flexibility, and proprioception.

METHODS

This study was designed as a single-blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial conducted in an outpatient clinical setting. Over the course of four months, 62 participants, suffering from chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to receive either the combined CRMRF and PNF treatment or PNF alone, with primary outcomes measured in terms of pain and functional disability using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). For secondary outcome of disability associated with pain, Quebec Pain Disability Scale (QPDS) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were used. The study's hypothesis was that the combined treatment would reduce pain and disability more effectively than PNF alone.

RESULTS

Results indicated that the experimental group experienced greater improvements in pain and functional disability, surpassing the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS, ODI, QPDS and RMDQ, suggesting the clinical relevance of the combined CRMRF and PNF approach.

DISCUSSION

These findings are consistent with previous research highlighting the benefits of CRMRF in various musculoskeletal disorders and suggest that integrating CRMRF with PNF training offers a promising non-invasive treatment option for CLBP sufferers. Overall, our study contributes to the growing evidence base supporting innovative, multimodal treatment strategies for managing CLBP, with the potential to enhance patients' quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05682287.

Effectiveness of manual therapy for patients with low back pain from the perspective of physical and psychosocial factors

[Purpose] This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Arthrokinematic Approach (AKA)-Hakata method for patients with low back pain (LBP). [Participants and Methods] The participants were 39 patients with LBP who visited a medical facility between June 1, 2022, and November 30, 2022. The intervention period was 8 weeks, with five treatment sessions, and the patient assessments were performed using patient self-reported measures of LBP and motor function assessment. [Results] The AKA-Hakata method showed significant differences in all of the items evaluated in the longitudinal comparison of patients. Additionally, an interaction was observed only in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire between the two groups classified using the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment Back Screening Tool. [Conclusion] The results of this study showed that treatment with the AKA-Hakata method may have an early therapeutic effect on the physical and psychosocial risks in daily life. The results of this study indicated that the AKA-Hakata method is effective for the treatment of LBP. However, this study only evaluated a relatively short treatment period of five sessions. Further research on the long-term treatment effect is needed in order to optimize the treatment duration in detail and investigate the effectiveness of the AKA-Hakata method.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity, and psychometric evaluation of the Tamil version STarT back screening tool among low back pain subjects

BACKGROUND

The STarT back screening tool helps primary care workers make the initial clinical decision and classify low back pain subjects into subgroups. Currently, the tool is required for stratification/triaging of low back pain and is commonly used in clinical practice, and requires linguistic validation in Tamil. The study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Tamil version of the STarT back screening tool.

METHODS

The baseline measurements include the Tamil version of the STarT back screening tool-, pain severity using the Numeric pain rating Scale (NPRS), disability status using the Tamil version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and fear avoidance beliefs using the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) - Tamil were obtained. After five days, the retest measures are done to investigate the test-retest reliability.

RESULTS

The current study showed excellent test-retest reliability of total score (ICC - 0.80) and psychosocial subscore (ICC-0.82) with excellent internal consistency and moderate to high validity with clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that the Tamil version of the STarT Back Screening Questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool that reported good understanding and easy completion by the subject.

Predictive performance of the STarT Back tool for poor outcomes in patients with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back Tool (SBT) is a brief multiple-construct risk prediction tool for patients with low back pain (LBP). Thus far, the predictive ability of this tool has been inconsistent. Therefore, we aim to conduct a literature review on the predictive ability of the SBT to determine the outcomes of patients with LBP. The results of this review should improve the ability of the SBT to predict poor outcomes in patients with LBP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Databases, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wanfang will be searched for studies on SBT and LBP from their inception until 31 March 2023. Longitudinal studies investigating the association between SBT subgroups and LBP outcomes, including pain, disability and quality of life, will be included. The identified studies will be independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. A standardised sheet will be used to extract data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by the χ2 test with Cochran's Q statistic and quantified by the I2 statistic. The results will be synthesised qualitatively and presented as pooled risk ratios or beta coefficients quantitatively. The results will also be presented using their 95% confidence limits. Publication bias will be assessed using the method proposed by Egger and by visual inspection of funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a secondary analysis of original studies that received ethics approval. Therefore, prior ethical approval is not required for this study. The findings will be submitted to relevant peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at profession-specific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022309189.

The relationship between the Keele STarT back screening tool, the short form of central sensitivity inventory and health-related quality of life in patients with low back pain

INTRODUCTION

It has been reported that the scores of the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) and the short form of Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI-9) are associated with Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients with low back pain (LBP). However, it is unclear which screening tool is more associated with HRQoL in patients with LBP.

OBJECTIVE

To identify which SBST and CSI-9 are more related to HRQoL and investigate the association between SBST and CSI-9 scores.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHOD

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the factors associated with the HRQoL using age, pain intensity, disability, SBST score, and CSI-9 score as independent variables. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was also conducted to determine the association between SBST and CSI-9 score.

RESULTS

Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (p < 0.01, β = -0.62, VIF = 1.70) and SBST score (p < 0.01, β = -0.32, VIF = 1.86) were significant associated variables. A significant association was found between SBST and CSI-9 scores (p < 0.01, ρ = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

The results showed that in patients with LBP the association of HRQoL with SBST was more substantial than with CSI-9.

A Scoping Review of Chronic Low Back Pain Classification Schemes Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Research Task Force recommended that patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) be stratified by its impact on their lives. They proposed the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) to help guide therapy and facilitate study comparability. The ISS has been evaluated as a continuous measure, but not for use as a stratification or classification scheme.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the characteristics of successful schemes to inform the use of the ISS for stratification or classification.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

Search of PubMed, CINAHL, and APA PsycInfo to identify patient self-report-based classification schemes applicable to CLBP. Data were captured on the methods used for each scheme's development, the domains covered, their scoring criteria and what the classification has successfully measured. The study was reviewed and approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (2019-0651-AM02).

RESULTS

The search identified 87 published articles about the development and testing of 5 classification schemes: 1) The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool, 2) Multiaxial Assessment of Pain, 3) Graded Chronic Pain Scale, 4) Back Pain Classification Scale, and 5) Chronic Pain Risk Score. All have been shown to be predictive of future outcomes and the STarT Back has been found useful in identifying effective classification-specific treatment. Each scheme had a different classification scoring structure, was developed using different methods, and 3 included domains not found in the ISS.

LIMITATIONS

Expanding the search to other databases may have identified more classification schemes. Our minimum number of publications inclusion criterion eliminated dozens of cluster analyses, some of which may have eventually been replicated.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods used to develop these successful classification schemes, especially those that use straightforward scoring schemes, should be considered for use in the development of a scheme based on the ISS.

Consistencia interna, validez convergente, discriminante y de criterio del Start Back Screening Tool en una muestra colombiana

Introducción. El dolor lumbar (DL) es una causa frecuente de consulta y una de las principales causas de incapacidad laboral permanente. La estratificación del riesgo de discapacidad por DL permite desarrollar intervenciones terapéuticas específicas; sin embargo, dicha estratificación requiere instrumentos válidos y confiables. Objetivo. Determinar la consistencia interna y la validez convergente, discriminante y de criterio del cuestionario Start Back Screening Tool (SBST) en una muestra colombiana. Materiales y métodos. Estudio cuantitativo de validación de pruebas realizado en 68 pacientes adultos con DL que recibieron una intervención fisioterapéutica (10 sesiones) entre 2019 y 2020 en una clínica de Chía, Colombia. Los participantes diligenciaron el SBST, la escala numérica de clasificación del dolor (ENCD) y el cuestionario Roland Morris Disability (RMD) en tres momentos: pre-, post-intervención y luego de 6 semanas de seguimiento (sin tratamiento). La consistencia interna del SBST se determinó mediante los coeficientes Alfa de Cronbach, Omega, λ6 y Greatest lower bound (GLB). En cuanto a la validez de criterio y de constructo, se evaluaron las correlaciones entre el instrumento y la ENCD y el RMD mediante el coeficiente de correlación de Pearson. Finalmente, se realizó un ANOVA de medidas repetidas entre las medias de puntaje del SBST obtenidas en los tres momentos para estimar su validez discriminante. Resultados. La consistencia interna del instrumento, según los diferentes coeficientes, varió entre aceptable y alta (Alfa= 0.634; Omega=0.648; λ6=0.664; GLB = 0.780). Se observaron correlaciones positivas entre el puntaje promedio en el SBST y los puntajes promedio en la ENCD (r=0.257; p=0.035) y la RMD (r=0.475; p<0.0010), así como diferencias significativas entre los puntajes promedio del SBST pre, post-intervención y seguimiento (ANOVA: F=33.722; p <0.001). Conclusión. El SBST es un instrumento válido y confiable para el clasificar el nivel de riesgo de mal pronóstico en pacientes colombianos con DL.

Patients' Views on the Implementation Potential of a Stratified Treatment Approach for Low Back Pain in Germany: A Qualitative Study

Stratified care for low back pain (LBP) has been shown to be clinically- and cost-effective in the UK, but its transferability to the German healthcare system is unknown. This study explores LBP patients’ perspectives regarding future implementation of stratified care, through in-depth interviews (n = 12). The STarT-Back-Tool was completed by participants prior to interviews. Interview data were analysed using Grounded Theory. The overarching theme identified from the data was ‘treatment-success’, with subthemes of ‘assessment and treatment planning’, ‘acceptance of the questionnaire’ and ‘contextual factors’. Patients identified the underlying cause of pain as being of great importance (whereas STarT-Back allocates treatment based on prognosis). The integration of the STarT-Back-Tool in consultations was considered helpful as long as it does not disrupt the therapeutic relationship, and was acceptable if tool results are handled confidentially. Results indicate that for patients to find STarT-Back acceptable, the shift from a focus on identifying a cause of pain and subsequent diagnosis, to prediction-orientated treatment planning, must be made clear. Patient ‘buy in’ is important for successful uptake of clinical interventions, and findings can help to inform future strategies for implementing STarT-Back in the Germany, as well as having potential implications for transferability to other similar healthcare systems.