Multidimensional pain profiles in four cases of chronic non-specific axial low back pain: An examination of the limitations of contemporary classification systems

Optimising management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: Findings from a pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability. The Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic controlled trial of the PDDM model and to explore its effectiveness compared to clinical practice guidelines' recommendations for LBP management.

METHODS

A pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial. Participants included physiotherapists and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design. Secondary exploratory analyses were conducted on LBP-related outcomes such as pain severity and interference at 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Feasibility of study procedures were confirmed, recruitment exceeded our target number of participants, and the eligibility criteria were deemed suitable. Lost to follow-up at 12 weeks was higher than expected (43.0%) and physiotherapists' compliance rates to the study protocol was lower than our predefined threshold (75.0% vs. 57.5%). A total of 44 physiotherapists and 91 patients were recruited. Recommendations for a larger scale trial were formulated. The PDDM model group demonstrated slightly better improvements in all clinical outcome measures compared to the control group at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The findings support the feasibility of conducting such trial contingent upon a few recommendations to foster proper future planning to determine the effectiveness of the PDDM model. Our results provide preliminary evidence of the PDDM model effectiveness to optimise LBP management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04893369.

Reliability and measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is one of the leading causes of years lived with disability, and approximately half of people with neck pain experience recurrent episodes. Deficits in the sensorimotor system can persist even after pain relief, which may contribute to the chronic course of neck pain in some patients. Evaluation of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain is therefore important. No consensus exists on how sensorimotor capacities of the neck should be assessed in physiotherapy. The aims of this systematic review are: (a) to provide an overview of tests used in physiotherapy for assessment of sensorimotor capacities in patients with neck pain; and (b) to provide information about reliability and measurement error of these tests, to enable physiotherapists to select appropriate tests.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies reporting data on the reliability and/or measurement error of sensorimotor tests in patients with neck pain. The results for reliability and measurement error were compared against the criteria for good measurement properties. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the modified GRADE method proposed by the COSMIN group.

RESULTS

A total of 206 tests for assessment of sensorimotor capacities of the neck were identified and categorized into 18 groups of tests. The included tests did not cover all aspects of the sensorimotor system; tests for the sensory and motor components were identified, but not for the central integration component. Furthermore, no data were found on reliability or measurement error for some tests that are used in practice, such as movement control tests, which apply to the motor component. Approximately half of the tests showed good reliability, and 12 were rated as having good (+) reliability. However, tests that evaluated complex movements, which are more difficult to standardize, were less reliable. Measurement error could not be evaluated because the minimal clinically important change was not available for all tests.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the quality of evidence is not yet high enough to enable clear recommendations about which tests to use to assess the sensorimotor capacities of the neck.

Physiotherapists' perceptions on using a multidimensional clinical reasoning form during psychologically informed training for low back pain

PURPOSE

Building clinical reasoning skills is important to effectively implement psychologically informed practice. We developed a multidimensional clinical reasoning form (CRF) to be used by physiotherapists in a psychologically informed practice training programme for low back pain. In this paper we describe the development of the CRF, how the CRF was used in the training, and present an evaluation of physiotherapists' perceptions of the CRF.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten physiotherapists purposively sampled in primary care. Data were gathered through pre, and post training focus group interviews and a secondary analysis of individual physiotherapist interviews conducted after the training. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data and capture the emergent themes.

RESULTS

Two main themes emerged before the training: (1) the CRF 'needs formal training' and (2) 'lacked instruction'. Three main themes emerged after the training (1) it provided 'a helpful framework for multidimensional clinical reasoning' (2) the CRF, and accompanying operational definitions, helped physiotherapists 'elicit information, with 'question prompts' helpful in facilitating patient disclosure (3) 'Utility' - although the CRF was not formally used by the physiotherapists it provided a conceptual reasoning framework to work from with more challenging patients.

CONCLUSION

The CRF was not designed to be used in isolation by clinicians without training. However, when used as a training adjunct it appears to be valued by physiotherapists to help develop their critical thinking and better characterise patients' presentations in order to personalise care from a bio-psychosocial perspective.

Sensory Profiles in Patients with Low Back Pain with and Without Radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

During routine clinical evaluation, it can be challenging to differentiate between lumbar radiculopathy (RAD) and lower back pain with non-radicular somatic referred pain (SRP) or even axial non-radiating low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to characterize patients with RAD, axial LBP (aLBP), and SRP on the basis of somatosensory profiles.

METHODS

Patients with LBP (n = 54) were assessed with quantitative sensory testing in the area of LBP and, in cases of RAD, additionally in the area of projecting pain. Questionnaires (PainDETECT®, EuroQol-5D, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire for Back Pain, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Short Form-12 Health Survey, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were answered by all patients.

RESULTS

Patients with RAD (n = 12) had higher pain intensity scores (numeric rating scale: 5.7 ± 1.5 vs 4.1 ± 2.2; P < 0.05) and higher PainDETECT scores (14.6 ± 6.13 vs 9.7 ± 6.2; P < 0.05) than did patients with aLBP and SRP (n = 42). Patients with RAD had a more pronounced loss of small-fiber function, increased mechanical hyperalgesia, and a trend toward increased sensitivity to thermal pain in the area of LBP compared with patients with aLBP and SRP. Within patients with RAD, sensory profiles of the area of projecting pain and the area of LBP did not differ. Pressure pain hyperalgesia (measured by pressure pain threshold) and loss of mechanical detection (measured by mechanical detection threshold) in combination with the PainDETECT items numbness and prickling reached the best predictive value in detecting a radiculopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RAD demonstrated more somatosensory abnormalities than did patients with aLBP and SRP, including increased mechanical hyperalgesia and a loss of mechanical detection. The combination of pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection threshold, numbness, and prickling in the area of LBP can be a time-efficient tool to identify patients with RAD.

Development and content validity of a rating scale for the pain and disability drivers management model

Background

Establishing the biopsychosocial profile of patients with low back pain (LBP) is essential to personalized care. The Pain and Disability Drivers Management model (PDDM) has been suggested as a useful framework to help clinicians establish this biopsychosocial profile. Yet, there is no tool to facilitate its integration into clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this study is to develop a rating scale and validate its content, to rapidly establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile, based on the five domains of the PDDM.

Methods

The tool was developed in accordance with the principles of the COSMIN methodology. We conducted three steps: 1) item generation from a comprehensive review, 2) refinement of the scale with clinicians’ feedback, and 3) statistical analyses to assess content validity.

To validate the item assessing with Likert scales, we performed Item level-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) analyses on three criteria (clarity, presentation and clinical applicability) with an a priori threshold of > 0.78. We conducted Average-Content Validity Index (Ave-CVI) analyses to validate the overall scale with a threshold of > 0.9.

Results

In accordance with the PDDM, we developed a 5-item rating scale (1 per domain) with 4 score options. We selected clinical instruments to screen for the presence or absence of problematic issues within each category of the 5 domains. Forty-two participants provided feedback to refine the scale’s clarity, presentation, and clinical applicability. The statistical analysis of the latest version presented I-CVI above the threshold for each item (I-CVI ranged between 0.94 and 1). Analysis of the overall scale supported its validation (Ave-CVI = 0.96 [0.93;0.98]).

Conclusion

From the 51 biopsychosocial elements contained within the 5 domains of the PDDM, we developed a rating scale that allows to rapidly screen for problematic issues within each category of the PDDM’s 5 domains. Involving clinicians in the process allowed us to validate the content of the first scale to establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile for people with low back pain. Future steps will be necessary to continue the psychometric properties analysis of this rating scale.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40945-022-00137-2.

Protective and Risk Factors at the Intersection of Chronic Pain, Depression, Anxiety, and Somatic Amplification: A Latent Profile Approach

Objective

Research indicates a complex nexus between chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and somatic amplification (PDAS) symptoms, marked by high rates of co-morbidity and mutually maintaining mechanisms. Although recent frameworks have attempted to explain co-occurrence rates of pain and other comorbid disorders, the interrelations between PDAS and their impacts on pain outcomes have not been adequately examined with a person-centered approach. Using nationally representative data, this study assessed the heterogeneity in PDAS symptomatology and examined links among risk and protective factors in different profiles.

Methods

Data were derived from 1027 participants in the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) who completed telephone interviews or self-report measures that assessed PDAS, various sources of social supports (family, friends, spouses/partners, religion, coworkers, and supervisors), and the number of healthcare visits.

Results

We found heterogeneity in symptom severity rather than symptom type across classes over time. Regardless of comorbidity severity, people reported similar levels of somatic symptoms, which may help clinicians more effectively diagnose comorbidity issues among chronic pain patients. As PDAS symptomatology increased by group, the perceived levels of social support decreased. Membership in a higher symptom severity class was associated with being female, younger age, and an increase in medical, but not mental health visits.

Limitations

Limitations included the use of a cross-sectional design, reliance on self-report measures, and a sample largely comprised of Whites.

Conclusion

PDAS co-occurs across classes, which may relate to shared risk and protective factors. This study lays the foundation to investigate similar questions for overlapping symptoms that occur during the same period, which would shed light on whether—among middle to older age adults—these disorders are attributable to a common mechanism and if they may inform transdiagnostic treatments.

Therapeutic Education and Physiotherapy in Low Back Pain Management

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal problems; it is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Therapeutic patient education is a method that enables health care professionals to pass on their knowledge and experience to patients so that they can participate consciously and actively in their recovery. AIM: The present study aims to examine the effect of therapeutic education (TE) combined with a specific physiotherapy (PT) approach in people with LBP. МАTERIALS AND METHODS: This was an experimental pre- and post-study design. The study involved 25 patients, mean age 43.08 ± 12 years, divided into two groups: experimental group (EG), with TE (n =18) and control group (CG), without TE (n = 7). The PT treatment frequency and duration were consistent between groups. The patients were monitored for one month, and the intervention under supervision – face-to-face and self-monitored home-based PT have been organized. The included outcome measures were Oswestry Disability Index, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, STarT Back Screening Tools, and the movement-induced pain in the lumbar spine. RESULTS: At the end of the study improved pain-free movements in the lumbar region, functionality, reduced catastrophizing was observed in both groups. There is a tendency for better results in the EG compared to the CG in terms of functionality and pain-free movement. The subjective feeling of the catastrophizing was reduced only in the EG below the cut-off score from 45.2 ± 7.7 to 33.2 ± 3.3 points. CONCLUSION: TE in combination with PT interventions improves functional abilities, decreases the pain during movements, and the subjective perception of kinesiophobia. The results suggest TE should be included in a LBP management approach.

What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 1: A synthesis of recommendation

BACKGROUND

Despite the emergence of multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP) over the last decade, self-reported levels of disability in this population have not improved. This may be explained by the numerous implementation barriers, such as the complexity of information and sheer volumes of CPGs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence and recommendations from the most recent and high-quality CPGs on the rehabilitation management of LBP by developing an infographic summarizing the recommendations to facilitate dissemination into clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of high-quality CPGs with an emphasis on rehabilitation approaches. We searched major health-related research databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, and PEDro). We performed quality assessment via the AGREE-II instrument. Contents of the CPGs were synthesized by extracting recommendations, which were then compared to one another to identify consistencies based on an iterative evaluation process.

RESULTS

We identified and assessed 5 recent high-quality CPGs. We synthesized 13 recommendations on the rehabilitation management of LBP (2 for screening procedures, 3 for assessment procedures, and 8 involving treatment approaches) and 2 underlying principles were highlighted. These results were then synthetized and illustrated in a concise infographic that serves as a conceptual roadmap that identifies the specific behavior changes (i.e., adoption of CPGs' recommendations) rehabilitation professionals should adopt in order to integrate an evidenced-based approach for the management of LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically reviewed the literature for CPGs' recommendations for the physical rehabilitation management of LBP and synthesized the information through an infographic.

"They think you're trying to get the drug": Qualitative investigation of chronic pain patients' health care experiences during the opioid overdose epidemic in Canada

Background: The opioid overdose epidemic has led health care providers to increased vigilance for opioid-related risks in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Media have conveyed stigmatizing representations of opioid analgesics. Aims: This study aimed to understand how the opioid overdose epidemic has impacted health care experiences among people living with CNCP in two Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Quebec). Methods: This qualitative study proceeded through 22 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2019. Participants were recruited from a cross-sectional survey examining the effects of the opioid overdose epidemic on individuals with CNCP. We collected in-depth narratives that we analyzed using a thematic framework. The sample included 12 women and 10 men aged 20 to 70 years, with 11 from each province. Results: Several participants described increased difficulty in accessing medical services for pain since the onset of the opioid overdose epidemic. They reported that some physicians urged them to taper opioids regardless of their pain severity and functional limitations. Some participants reported facing discrimination and care denials as they were labeled "drug-seeking," especially in hospital. Depending on their educational resources, they were unequally able to counter providers' stigmatizing behaviors. However, participants described empathetic relationships with providers with whom they had a long-term relationship. Some participants drew distinctions between themselves and the stigmatized status of "addict" in ways that reinforced stigma toward people who are dependent on opioids. Conclusions: Health policies and provider education programs aimed at reducing opioid-related stigma are needed to counter detrimental consequences of the opioid overdose epidemic for people living with CNCP.

Methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Mechanism-based classification of pain has been advocated widely to aid tailoring of interventions for individuals experiencing persistent musculoskeletal pain. Three pain mechanism categories (PMCs) are defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain. Discrimination between them remains challenging. This study aimed to build on a framework developed to converge the diverse literature of PMCs to systematically review methods purported to discriminate between them; synthesise and thematically analyse these methods to identify the convergence and divergence of opinion; and report validation, psychometric properties, and strengths/weaknesses of these methods. The search strategy identified articles discussing methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system. Studies that assessed the validity of methods to discriminate between categories were assessed for quality. Extraction and thematic analysis were undertaken on 184 articles. Data synthesis identified 200 methods in 5 themes: clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing, imaging, diagnostic and laboratory testing, and pain-type questionnaires. Few methods have been validated for discrimination between PMCs. There was general convergence but some disagreement regarding findings that discriminate between PMCs. A combination of features and methods, rather than a single method, was generally recommended to discriminate between PMCs. Two major limitations were identified: an overlap of findings of methods between categories due to mixed presentations and many methods considered discrimination between 2 PMCs but not others. The results of this review provide a foundation to refine methods to differentiate mechanisms for musculoskeletal pain.

Masterclass: A pragmatic approach to pain sensitivity in people with musculoskeletal disorders and implications for clinical management for musculoskeletal clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Research on musculoskeletal disorders indicates that pain sensitivity can be an important consideration for musculoskeletal clinicians in the holistic view of a patient presentation. However, diversity in research findings in this field can make this a difficult concept for clinicians to navigate. Limited integration of the concept of pain sensitivity into clinical practice for musculoskeletal clinicians has been noted.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this masterclass is to provide a framework for the consideration of pain sensitivity as a contributing factor in the presentation of people with musculoskeletal pain. It provides pragmatic synthesis of the literature related to pain sensitivity through a lens of how this information can inform clinical practice for musculoskeletal clinicians. Guidance is provided in a 'how to' format for integration of this knowledge into the clinical encounter to facilitate personalised care.

IMPLICATIONS

The relationship of pain sensitivity with pain and disability is not clear or linear. The real importance of pain sensitivity in a clinical presentation may be: (1) the potential for pain sensitivity to modify the effect of common treatments utilised by musculoskeletal clinicians, or (2) the effect of pain sensitivity on the prognosis/course of a disorder. Screening tools and subjective features have been highlighted to indicate when physical assessment of pain sensitivity should be prioritised in the physical examination. A pragmatic blueprint for specific assessment related to pain sensitivity has been outlined. A framework for integrating assessment findings into clinical reasoning to formulate management plans for the pain sensitive patient is provided.

Optimizing management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: A feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Self-reported levels of disability in individuals with low back pain (LBP) have not improved in the last decade. A broader perspective and a more comprehensive management framework may improve disability outcomes. We recently developed and validated the Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model, which aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the applicability of the PDDM model to a LBP population and the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic trial, as well as to explore clinicians' perceived acceptability of the PDDM model's use in clinical settings.

METHODS

This study was an one-arm prospective feasibility trial. Participants included physiotherapists working with a population suffering from LBP and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP that sought a new referral and deemed fit for rehabilitation from private and public clinical settings. Clinicians participated in a one-day workshop on the integration of the PDDM model into their clinical practice, and were asked to report various LBP-related outcomes via self-reported questionnaires (i.e., impact of pain on physical function, nervous system dysfunctions, cognitive-emotional factors, work disabilities) at baseline and at six-week follow-up. Physiotherapists' acceptability of the use of the PDDM model and appreciation of the training were assessed via semi-structured phone interviews. Analyses focused on a description of the model's applicability to a LBP population, feasibility outcomes and acceptability measures.

RESULTS

Applicablity of the PDDM model was confirmed since it successfully established the profile of patients according to the elements of each categories, and each of the 5 domains of the model was represented among the study sample. Trial was deemed feasible contingent upon few modifications as our predefined success criteria for the feasibility outcomes were met but feasibility issues pertaining to data collection were highlighted. Twenty-four (24) clinicians and 61 patients were recruited within the study's timeframe. Patient's attrition rate (29%) and clinicians' compliance to the study protocol were adequate. Clinicians' perceived acceptability of the use of the model in clinical settings and their appreciation of the training and online resources were both positive. Recommendations to improve the model's integration in clinical practice, content of the workshop and feasibility of data collection methods were identified for future studies. A positive effect for all patients' reported outcome measures were also observed. All outcome measures except for the PainDetect questionnaire showed a statistically significant reduction post-intervention (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings provide preliminary evidence of the potential of the PDDM model to optimize LBP management as well as conducting a future larger-scale pragmatic trial to determine its effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03949179.

Pain can be conditioned to voluntary movements through associative learning: an experimental study in healthy participants

Experimental data suggest that associative learning can influence defensive avoidance behavior and pain perception in humans. However, whether voluntary movements can become conditioned stimuli (CSs) and influence pain responses is yet to be evaluated. Forty healthy volunteers participated in this study. Electrocutaneous stimuli applied to the shoulder at pain threshold level (US) and at pain tolerance level (US) were determined before a movement-conditioning paradigm. First, reaching movements to visual cues shown on one side of a computer screen were associated with the US (CS+ movements) on 80% of trials, whereas reaching movements to visual stimuli shown on the other side were never associated with the nociceptive-US (CS- movements). Next, participants underwent a test phase in which movements to visual cues on both sides were paired with the US on 50% of trials. During the test phase, participants were asked to evaluate whether the movement was painful (yes/no) and to rate pain intensity after each trial. Movement onset and duration as well as skin conductance responses were collected. The US stimuli were more likely to be perceived as painful and were also rated as more painful during CS+ movements. Movement onset latency and skin conductance responses were significantly higher in anticipation of the CS+ movement as compared to the CS- movement. These findings suggest that pain can be conditioned to voluntary movements.

Meta-Analysis of Integrated Therapeutic Methods in Noninvasive Lower Back Pain Therapy (LBP): The Role of Interdisciplinary Functional Diagnostics

Introduction. Lower back pain (LBP) is almost a problem of civilizations. Quite often, it is a consequence of many years of disturbed distribution of tension within the human body caused by local conditions (injuries, hernias, stenoses, spondylolisthesis, cancer, etc.), global factors (postural defects, structural integration disorders, lifestyle, type of activity, etc.), or systemic diseases (connective tissue, inflammation, tumours, abdominal aneurysm, and kidney diseases, including urolithiasis, endometriosis, and prostatitis). Therefore, LBP rehabilitation requires the use of integrated therapeutic methods, combining the competences of interdisciplinary teams, both in the process of diagnosis and treatment. Aim of the Study. Given the above, the authors of the article conducted meta-analysis of the literature in terms of integrated therapeutic methods, indicating the techniques focused on a holistic approach to the patient. The aim of the article is to provide the reader with comprehensive knowledge about treating LBP using noninterventional methods. Material and Methods. An extensive search for the materials was conducted online using PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Embase. The most common noninterventional methods have been described, as well as the most relevantly updated and previously referenced treatment of LBP. The authors also proposed noninvasive (measurable) diagnostic procedures for the functional assessment of the musculoskeletal system, including initial, systematic, and cross-sectional control. All figures and images have been prepared by the authors and are their property.

Results

This review article goes beyond combining a detailed description of each procedure with full references, as well as a comprehensive discussion of this very complex and troublesome problem.

Conclusions

Lower back pain is a serious health problem, and this review article will help educate physicians and physiotherapists dealing with LBP in the options of evidence-based treatment. Ultimately, the article introduces and postulates the need to systematize therapeutic procedures in LBP therapy, with a long-term perspective.

The McKenzie Method and its association with psychosocial outcomes in low back pain: a systematic review

Study Design: Systematic Literature Review.Background: The McKenzie Method (MDT) is a comprehensive conservative approach commonly used for the management of low back pain (LBP); however, its association with psychosocial outcomes in this population is less clear.Objectives: Evaluate whether MDT has an association with psychosocial outcomes for individuals with LBP.Methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase and AMED. They were systematically searched from the date of inception to August 2019. Included studies had to have participants experiencing LBP who were over 18 years old, utilize MDT as an assessment or intervention, and report outcomes for at least one psychosocial variable. Three reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality of randomized control trials (RCT) using the PEDro scale and observational studies using the GRACE scale.Results: The initial search resulted in 181 articles to review. After screening abstracts, then full articles, a total of 16 studies were included, 5 of which were RCTs rated 5-8/10 on the PEDro scale. A qualitative review was performed and the studies' results were synthesized into five main findings: fear-avoidance beliefs, depression symptoms, pain self-efficacy, psychological distress, and return to work (RTW).Conclusions: There is evidence that MDT has an association with improving fear-avoidance beliefs, pain self-efficacy, depression, and psychological distress. These results should be interpreted with caution as further high-quality randomized control trials addressing this topic are necessary due to the varying methodological and statistical constructs of the included studies.

Analysis of Motor Control in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Key to Personalized Care?

SYNOPSIS

Motor control exercise has been shown to be effective in the management of low back pain (LBP). However, the effect sizes for motor control exercise are modest, possibly because studies have used a one-size-fits-all approach, while the literature suggests that patients may differ in presence or type of motor control issues. In this commentary, we address the question of whether consideration of such variation in motor control issues might contribute to more personalized motor control exercise for patients with LBP. Such an approach is plausible, because motor control changes may play a role in persistence of pain through effects on tissue loading that may cause nociceptive afference, particularly in the case of peripheral sensitization. Subgrouping systems used in clinical practice, which comprise motor control aspects, allow reliable classification that is, in part, aligned with findings in studies on motor control in patients with LBP. Motor control issues may have heuristic value for treatment allocation, as the different presentations observed suggest different targets for motor control exercise, but this remains to be proven. Finally, clinical assessment of patients with LBP should take into account more aspects than motor control alone, including pain mechanisms, musculoskeletal health, and psychosocial factors, and may need to be embedded in a stratification approach based on prognosis to avoid undue diagnostic procedures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):380-388. Epub 12 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.7916.

Clinical assessments can discriminate altered body perception in patients with unilateral chronic low back pain, but not differences between affected and unaffected side

Chronic pain disorders appear to be associated with altered body perception. The clinical tools of two-point discrimination (TPD), left/right judgment task (LRJ) and body image drawing (BID) can all be used to assess altered body perception in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). The aim of this observational study was to examine whether values from TPD, LRJ and BID can determine altered body perception between unilateral CLBP patients' painful and pain-free trunk sides, through the evaluation of some of the underlying mechanisms of body perception. Twenty-seven eligible participants completed all tasks. Inclusion criteria were: unilateral CLBP with duration of over 12 weeks; pain level higher than two out of ten on the numeric rating scale; a minimum score of four points on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Findings from TPD and BID tests showed an alteration in body awareness. However, no significant interaction effects were found between the affected sides and their measurements (TPD p = 0.310, LRJ response time p = 0.571, LRJ accuracy p = 0.190, BID p = 0.751). The profiling of people with high levels of distorted body perception for other factors known to contribute to CLBP may be a useful direction for further investigation.

Are measures of pain sensitivity associated with pain and disability at 12-month follow up in chronic neck pain?

OBJECTIVES

Pain sensitivity and psychosocial issues are prognostic of poor outcome in acute neck disorders. However, knowledge of associations between pain sensitivity and ongoing pain and disability in chronic neck pain are lacking. We aimed to investigate associations of pain sensitivity with pain and disability at the 12-month follow-up in people with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

The predictor variables were: clinical and quantitative sensory testing (cold, pressure); neural tissue sensitivity; neuropathic symptoms; comorbidities; sleep; psychological distress; pain catastrophizing; pain intensity (for the model explaining disability at 12 months only); and disability (for the model explaining pain at 12 months only). Data were analysed using uni- and multivariate regression models to assess associations with pain and disability at the 12-month follow-up (n = 64 at baseline, n = 51 at follow-up).

RESULTS

Univariable associations between all predictor variables and pain and disability were evident (r > 0.3; p < 0.05), except for cold and pressure pain thresholds and cold sensitivity. For disability at the 12-month follow-up, 24.0% of the variance was explained by psychological distress and comorbidities. For pain at 12 months, 39.8% of the variance was explained primarily by baseline disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither clinical nor quantitative measures of pain sensitivity were meaningfully associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes in people with chronic neck pain, limiting their clinical application in evaluating prognosis.

Patients' perceived needs for allied health, and complementary and alternative medicines for low back pain: A systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Allied health and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are therapeutic therapies commonly accessed by consumers to manage low back pain (LBP). We aimed to identify the literature regarding patients' perceived needs for physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy and CAM for the management of LBP.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016) was conducted to identify studies examining patients' perceived needs for allied health and CAM for LBP. Data regarding study design and methodology were extracted. Areas of patients' perceived need for allied health and CAM were aggregated.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies from 2202 were included: 25 qualitative, 18 quantitative and 1 mixed-methods study. Three areas of need emerged: (i) physiotherapy was viewed as important, particularly when individually tailored. However, patients had concerns about adherence, adverse outcomes and correct exercise technique. (ii) Chiropractic therapy was perceived to be effective and needed by some patients, but others were concerned about adverse outcomes. (iii) An inconsistent need for CAM was identified with some patients perceiving a need, while others questioning the legitimacy and short-term duration of these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings regarding patients' perceived needs for allied health and CAM for LBP may assist in informing development of more patient-centred guidelines and service models for LBP. Understanding patients' concerns regarding active-based physiotherapy, which is recommended in most guidelines, and issues surrounding chiropractic and CAM, which are generally not, may help inform management that better aligns patient's perceived needs with effective treatments, to improve outcomes for both patients and the health-care system.

Towards an integrated clinical framework for patient with shoulder pain

Background

Shoulder pain (SP) represents a common musculoskeletal condition that requires physical therapy care. Along the years, the usual evaluation strategies based on clinical tests and diagnostic imaging has been challenged. Clinical tests appear unable to clearly identify the structures that generated pain and interpretation of diagnostic imaging is still controversial. The current patho-anatomical diagnostic categories have demonstrated poor reliability and seem inadequate for the SP treatment.

Objectives

The present paper aims to (1) describe the different proposals of clinical approach to SP currently available in the literature; to (2) integrate these proposals in a single framework in order to help the management of SP.

Conclusion

The proposed clinical framework, based on a bio-psychosocial vision of health, integrates symptoms characteristics, pain mechanisms and expectations, preferences and psychosocial factors of patients that may guide physiotherapist to make a diagnostic triage and to choose the right treatment for the individual patient.

Cognitive Functional Therapy: An Integrated Behavioral Approach for the Targeted Management of Disabling Low Back Pain

Biomedical approaches for diagnosing and managing disabling low back pain (LBP) have failed to arrest the exponential increase in health care costs, with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. Health messages regarding the vulnerability of the spine and a failure to target the interplay among multiple factors that contribute to pain and disability may partly explain this situation. Although many approaches and subgrouping systems for disabling LBP have been proposed in an attempt to deal with this complexity, they have been criticized for being unidimensional and reductionist and for not improving outcomes. Cognitive functional therapy was developed as a flexible integrated behavioral approach for individualizing the management of disabling LBP. This approach has evolved from an integration of foundational behavioral psychology and neuroscience within physical therapist practice. It is underpinned by a multidimensional clinical reasoning framework in order to identify the modifiable and nonmodifiable factors associated with an individual's disabling LBP. This article illustrates the application of cognitive functional therapy to provide care that can be adapted to an individual with disabling LBP.

What are the similarities and differences between healthy people with and without pain?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Knowledge of pain characteristics among the healthy population or among people with minimal pain-related disability could hold important insights to inform clinical practice and research. This study investigated pain prevalence among healthy individuals and compared psychosocial and physical characteristics between adults with and without pain.

METHODS

Data were from 1,000 self-reported healthy participants aged 3-101 years (1,000 Norms Project). Single-item questions assessed recent bodily pain ("none" to "very severe") and chronic pain (pain every day for 3 months in the previous 6 months). Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument, New Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, 6-min walk test, 30-s chair stand and timed up-and-down stairs tests were compared between adults with and without pain.

RESULTS

Seventy-two percent of adults and 49% of children had experienced recent pain, although most rated their pain as mild (80% and 87%, respectively). Adults with recent pain were more likely to be overweight/obese and report sleep difficulties, and had lower self-efficacy, AQoL mental super dimension scores and sit-to-stand performance, compared to adults with no pain (p<0.05). Effect sizes were modest (Cohen's d=0.16-0.39), therefore unlikely clinically significant. Chronic pain was reported by 15% of adults and 3% of children. Adults with chronic pain were older, more likely to be overweight/obese, and had lower AQoL mental super dimension scores, 6-min walk, sit-to-stand and stair-climbing performance (p<0.05). Again, effect sizes were modest (Cohen's d=0.25-0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Mild pain is common among healthy individuals. Adults who consider themselves healthy but experience pain (recent/chronic) display slightly lower mental health and physical performance, although these differences are unlikely clinically significant.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings emphasise the importance of assessing pain-related disability in addition to prevalence when considering the disease burden of pain. Early assessment of broader health and lifestyle risk factors in clinical practice is emphasised. Avenues for future research include examination of whether lower mental health and physical performance represent risk factors for future pain and whether physical activity levels, sleep and self-efficacy are protective against chronic pain-related disability.

Rehabilitation management of low back pain - it's time to pull it all together!

In the past, rehabilitation research initiatives for low back pain (LBP) have targeted outcome enhancement through personalized treatment approaches, namely through classification systems (CS). Although the use of CS has enhanced outcomes, common management practices have not changed, the prevalence of LBP is still high, and only selected patients meet the CS profile, namely those with a nociceptive context. Similarly, although practice guidelines propose some level of organization and occasionally a timeline of care provision, each mainly provides best practice for isolated treatment approaches. Moreover, there is no theoretical framework that has been proposed that guides the rehabilitation management process of mechanical LBP. In this commentary, we propose a model constituted of five domains (nociceptive drivers, nervous system dysfunction drivers, comorbidities drivers, cognitive–emotional drivers, and contextual drivers) grounded as mechanisms driving pain and/or disability in LBP. Each domain is linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, where once a patient is deemed suitable for rehabilitation, the clinician assesses elements of each domain in order to identify where the relative treatment efforts should be focused. This theoretical model is designed to provide a more comprehensive management overview, by appreciating the relative contribution of each domain driving pain and disability. Considering that the multiple domains driving pain and disability, and their interaction, requires a model that is comprehensive enough to identify and address each related issue, we consider that the proposed model has several positive implications for rehabilitation of this painful and highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder.

Reference values and factors associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in healthy adolescents and adults

BACKGROUND

Insufficient attention has been given to individuals who report musculoskeletal symptoms yet experience minimal disability.

OBJECTIVES

To examine musculoskeletal symptoms among healthy individuals, and compare demographic, psychological and physical factors between individuals with and without symptoms.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

METHOD

Data were from the 1000 Norms Project which recruited 1000 individuals aged 3-101 years. Participants were healthy by self-report and had no major physical disability. Musculoskeletal symptoms (ache/pain/discomfort, including single-site and multi-site symptoms) were assessed in adolescents (11-17y) and adults (18-101y) using the Extended Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E). To compare individuals with single-site, multi-site and no symptoms, body mass index, grip strength, 6-min walk, 30-s chair stand and timed up-and-down stairs (all participants), and mental health, sleep difficulties, self-efficacy and physical activity (adults), were collected.

RESULTS

/findings: Socio-demographic characteristics were similar to the Australian population. Twelve-month period prevalence of all symptoms was 69-82%; point prevalence was 23-39%. Adults with single-site symptoms were more likely to be overweight/obese and had lower sit-to-stand and stair-climbing performance (p < 0.05). Adults with multi-site symptoms were more likely to be female and overweight/obese, had lower mental health, greater sleep difficulties and lower grip strength, 6-min walk and sit-to-stand performance (p < 0.05). Differences were only observed among 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 and 80-101 year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

Normative reference data for the NMQ-E have been generated. Musculoskeletal symptoms are common among healthy individuals. In older adults, musculoskeletal symptoms are linked with overweight/obesity, lower mental health, sleep difficulties and lower physical performance, emphasising the importance of multi-dimensional assessments in musculoskeletal disorders.

Pain provocation following sagittal plane repeated movements in people with chronic low back pain: Associations with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Provocative pain responses following standardised protocols of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending have not been reported in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Potential differing pain responses to movement likely reflect complex sensorimotor interactions influenced by physical, psychological and neurophysiological factors. To date, it is unknown whether provocative pain responses following repeated bending are associated with different pain sensitivity and psychological profiles. Therefore the first aim of this study was to determine whether data-driven subgroups with different, clinically-important pain responses following repeated movement exist in a large CLBP cohort, specifically using a standardised protocol of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending. The second aim was to determine if the resultant pain responses following repeated movement were associated with pain and disability, pain sensitivity and psychological factors.

METHODS

Clinically-important (≥2-points, 11-point numeric rating scale) changes in pain intensity following repeated forward/backward bending were examined. Participants with different provocative pain responses to forward and backward bending were profiled on age, sex, pain sensitivity, psychological variables, pain characteristics and disability.

RESULTS

Three groups with differing provocative pain responses following repeated movements were derived: (i) no clinically-important increased pain in either direction (n=144, 49.0%), (ii) increased pain with repeated bending in one direction only (unidirectional, n=112, 38.1%), (iii) increased pain with repeated bending in both directions (bidirectional, n=38, 12.9%). After adjusting for psychological profile, age and sex, for the group with bidirectional pain provocation responses following repeated spinal bending, higher pressure and thermal pain sensitivity were demonstrated, while for the group with no increase in pain, better cognitive and affective psychological questionnaire scores were evident. However, these associations between provocative pain responses following movement and pain sensitivity and psychological profiles were weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Provocative pain responses following repeated movements in people with CLBP appear heterogeneous, and are weakly associated with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles.

IMPLICATIONS

To date, suboptimal outcomes in studies examining exercise interventions targeting directional, movement-based subgroups in people with CLBP may reflect limited consideration of broader multidimensional clinical profiles associated with LBP. This article describes heterogeneous provocative pain responses following repeated spinal bending, and their associated pain sensitivity and psychological profiles, in people with CLBP. These findings may help facilitate targeted management. For people with no increase in pain, the lack of pain provocation following repeated spinal bending, in combination with a favourable psychological profile, suggests this subgroup may have fewer barriers to functional rehabilitation. In contrast, those with pain provoked by both forward and backward bending may require specific interventions targeting increased pain sensitivity and negative psychological cognitions and affect, as these may be may be important barriers to functional rehabilitation.

February 2017 Letter to the Editor-in-Chief

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: "Regarding the Complexity of Low Back Pain" with Authors' Response J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(2):126-129. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0201.

Unraveling the Complexity of Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Various approaches to diagnose and manage LBP have arisen, leading to an exponential increase in health care costs. Paradoxically, this trend has been associated with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. The health care system faces enormous challenges, with both the disability burden and financial impact relating to LBP escalating. Growing evidence suggests that current practice is discordant with contemporary evidence, and is in fact often exacerbating the problem. Change will demand a cultural shift in LBP beliefs and practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(11):932-937. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0609.

Revisiting the Corticomotor Plasticity in Low Back Pain: Challenges and Perspectives

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a recurrent debilitating condition that costs billions to society. Refractoriness to conventional treatment, lack of improvement, and associated movement disorders could be related to the extensive brain plasticity present in this condition, especially in the sensorimotor cortices. This narrative review on corticomotor plasticity in CLBP will try to delineate how interventions such as training and neuromodulation can improve the condition. The review recommends subgrouping classification in CLBP owing to brain plasticity markers with a view of better understanding and treating this complex condition.

Do MRI findings identify patients with low back pain or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reveal a range of degenerative findings and anatomical abnormalities; however, the clinical importance of these remains uncertain and controversial. We aimed to investigate if the presence of MRI findings identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched. We included RCTs investigating MRI findings as treatment effect modifiers for patients with LBP or sciatica. We excluded studies with specific diseases as the cause of LBP. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Each MRI finding was examined for its individual capacity for effect modification.

RESULTS

Eight published trials met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of trials was inconsistent. Substantial variability in MRI findings, treatments and outcomes across the eight trials prevented pooling of data. Patients with Modic type 1 when compared with patients with Modic type 2 had greater improvements in function when treated by Diprospan (steroid) injection, compared with saline. Patients with central disc herniation when compared with patients without central disc herniation had greater improvements in pain when treated by surgery, compared with rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although individual trials suggested that some MRI findings might be effect modifiers for specific interventions, none of these interactions were investigated in more than a single trial. High quality, adequately powered trials investigating MRI findings as effect modifiers are essential to determine the clinical importance of MRI findings in LBP and sciatica (

PROSPERO

CRD42013006571).

Laterality judgments in people with low back pain--A cross-sectional observational and test-retest reliability study

BACKGROUND

Disruption of cortical representation, or body schema, has been indicated as a factor in the persistence and recurrence of low back pain (LBP). This has been observed through impaired laterality judgment ability and it has been suggested that this ability is affected in a spatial rather than anatomical manner.

OBJECTIVES

We compared laterality judgment performance of foot and trunk movements between people with LBP with or without leg pain and healthy controls, and investigated associations between test performance and pain. We also assessed the test-retest reliability of the Recognise Online™ software when used in a clinical and a home setting.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational and test-retest study.

METHODS

Thirty individuals with LBP and 30 healthy controls performed judgment tests of foot and trunk laterality once supervised in a clinic and twice at home.

RESULTS

No statistically significant group differences were found. LBP intensity was negatively related to trunk laterality accuracy (p = 0.019). Intraclass correlation values ranged from 0.51 to 0.91. Reaction time improved significantly between test occasions while accuracy did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Laterality judgments were not impaired in subjects with LBP compared to controls. Further research may clarify the relationship between pain mechanisms in LBP and laterality judgment ability. Reliability values were mostly acceptable, with wide and low confidence intervals, suggesting test-retest reliability for Recognise Online™ could be questioned in this trial. A significant learning effect was observed which should be considered in clinical and research application of the test.