Clinical Relevance of Changes in Pain Intensity in Patients with Specific Back Pain

Measurement error, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically important difference of the Short Form-36 Health Survey, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Pain Numeric Rating Scale in patients with chronic pain

In both pain research and clinical practice, patient-reported outcome measures are used to assess dimensions of health. Interpreting these instruments requires understanding their measurement error and what magnitude of change has subjective importance for patients. This study estimated the standard error of measurement (SEM), one-year minimal detectable change, and one-year minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Short Form-36 Health Survey physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) and mental (SF36 MCS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety symptoms (HADS-A) and depression symptoms (HADS-D) subscales, and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for past-week average pain intensity. MCIDs for these instruments have not previously been estimated in a large sample of chronic pain patients participating in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation. Data were drawn from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (n=8854 patients). MCID was estimated as average change and change difference, based on three different anchors. MCID estimates were 2.62-4.69 for SF-36 PCS, 4.46-6.79 for SF-36 MCS, 0.895-1.48 for NRS, 1.17-2.13 for HADS-A, and 1.48-2.54 for HADS-D. The common assumption of an identical SEM for pre- and post-treatment measurements was not always applicable. When estimating MCID, researchers should select an estimation method and anchor aligned with the study's context and objectives. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents estimates of minimal clinically important difference and minimal detectable change for several commonly used patient-reported outcome measures among patients with chronic pain. These estimates can help clinicians and researchers to determine when a measured health improvement is subjectively important to the patient and greater than measurement error. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data Availability Statement: The data utilized in this study are not available due to ethical considerations and the need for appropriate ethical approval.

Could we use the comfort score instead of the numeric rating pain score? A proof of concept pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Asking patients about pain in the Emergency Department (ED) when deriving a pain score may aggravate perception of pain due to the nocebo-effect. A strategy for diminishing this nocebo-effect is cognitive reframing. Cognitive reframing of the frequently used pain score (PS) in the ED could theoretically be obtained by using the comfort score (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not the CS and PS are interchangeable and therefore, whether or not the CS could safely be used in ED patients.

METHODS

In this prospective pilot study we enrolled patients with pain visiting the ED. Participants were asked for both PS and CS in randomized order. CS were inverted (ICS) and compared with PS using the using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Secondarily we evaluated for patient score preference.

RESULTS

In total 100 patients were enrolled. The median PS in these participants was 6 (IQR 4-7) and median ICS was 5 (IQR 3-6). In total, 15 (15%) of the PS and ICS were identical Medians did not differ significantly (p = .115). In 33% of the participants the total difference between the PS and ICS was >2. Participants preferred to be asked for PS over CS (43 vs 15%, p < .00).

CONCLUSION

This proof of concept study suggest interchangeability of the PS and the ICS in patients with pain in the ED. However, while not statistically significant, 33% of the patients had a possible clinical significant difference in score outcome, potentially over- or underestimating the patients pain. Whether or not this can be used as a tool for cognitive reframing to reduce perception of pain and medication consumption has yet to be studied.

Comparing the effects of multimedia and face-to-face pain management education on pain intensity and pain catastrophizing among patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Previous studies into Low Back Pain (LBP) assessed the effects of physical interventions or face-to-face (FTF) education mostly in western cultures. The present study aimed to compare the effects of multimedia and FTF pain management education (PME) on pain intensity and pain catastrophizing among participants with chronic LBP.

Methods

This double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on ninety participants with chronic LBP randomly allocated to either multimedia, FTF, or control groups. Participants in the multimedia group received PME through watching seven educational CDs at home and their counterparts in the FTF group received the same educations in seven weekly FTF educational sessions. Pain intensity (using a numerical rating scale) and pain catastrophizing (using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale) were assessed before, immediately after, and one month after the study intervention. The effects of the interventions were assessed using the repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Effect size and minimal detectable change (MDC) were reported for both variables. The regression model used in the present study was Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE).

Findings

The findings of MANOVA showed the significant effects of time on pain intensity and pain catastrophizing (P<0.001). The Tukey’s test showed that before and immediately after the intervention, the mean scores of pain intensity and pain catastrophizing in the FTF and PME groups were significantly different from the control group (P<0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). MDC did not show clinically significant changes in the mean score of pain intensity and GEE revealed significant difference among the groups.

Conclusion

The findings suggested that multimedia PME is as effective as FTF education in reducing pain intensity and pain catastrophizing among participants with LBP. Future studies into the effects of education on LBP are recommended to consider longitudinal designs, a reliable cutoff score for pain catastrophizing, and participants’ physical ability.

IRCT registration code

IRCT20180313039074N1.

Conservative In-Patient Treatment of Specific Back Pain Before and During the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The measures taken in the coronavirus disease pandemic have had major structural and financial effects on orthopaedics and trauma surgery as many surgeries in this field. Experience Appropriate reports from non-surgical orthopaedics are not yet available.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

The study aimed to provide information on the changes that occurred in a group of patients with spinal diseases undergoing conservative in-patient treatment during the coronavirus disease pandemic, with regard to the number of cases, patient structure and course of treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from a total of 954 patients from an acute department for conservative treatment of back pain from the years 2019 and 2020 were retrospectively compared, thus allowing conclusions to be drawn about the course of in-patient conservative spinal treatment. In addition to sociodemographic data, numerical pain rating scales, scales for impairment by pain and physical function at the beginning and at the end of treatment were analysed using descriptive statistics and differentiation tests.

RESULTS

The study showed a 21% reduction in the number of cases in 2020 compared with those in 2019. The patient structure has changed in terms of diagnosis groups and physical function. The values of the assessments on discharge and their pre-post differences show an almost identical pattern of treatment outcomes before and after the start of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively small decline in the number of in-patient admissions for the non-surgical treatment of specific spinal disorders indicates that this treatment option was also necessary in the pandemic-related crisis. With minor changes in the patient structure, comparable treatment results could be achieved.

Vigorous regular leisure-time physical activity is associated with a clinically important improvement in back pain - a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Neck and back pain are musculoskeletal conditions with serious individual and societal consequences. Current evidence about the prognostic value for neck and back pain is limited and conflicting. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the association between leisure-time physical activity (LPA) and improvement of neck and/or back pain in a working population receiving manual therapy or general care in one of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

Analyses of data from two RCTs evaluating the effect of manual therapies for neck and/or back pain was conducted. Participants (n = 1 464) answered questionnaires about frequency and effort level of LPA at baseline. LPA on moderate or vigorous levels was compared to no or low/irregular moderate and vigorous levels. Pain intensity was assessed with numerical scales at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. The outcome was minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity, defined as ≥2 points improvement in mean pain intensity at follow-up. Crude- and adjusted risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with Poisson regression analysis and stratified by pain location.

Results

Participants with neck and/or back pain performing vigorous LPA showed a minimal clinically important improvement after 12 months compared to the control group; RR 1.35 (95% CI; 1.06-1.73). No effect was observed at 3 or 6 months. Moderate LPA did not improve pain intensity in any follow-up. Stratified analyses revealed that the effect of vigorous LPA at 12 months in back pain was RR 1.83 (95% CI; 1.26-2.66) and neck pain RR 1.06 (95% CI; 0.75-1.49).

Conclusions

Persons with neck and/or back pain receiving manual therapy or general evidence-based care have greater chance of improvement after 12 months if they prior to treatment frequently practice vigorous LPA. When analyzed separately, the effect was only present for back pain.

Trial registration

Registration in Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN), Stockholm Manual Intervention Trial (MINT), ISRCTN92249294 BJORN-trial, ISRCTN56954776

Efficacy of Mobile Health in Patients With Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the most common health problems and a main cause of disability, which imposes a great burden on patients. Mobile health (mHealth) affects many aspects of people's lives, and it has progressed rapidly, showing promise as an effective intervention for patients with low back pain. However, the efficacy of mHealth interventions for patients with low back pain remains unclear; thus, further exploration is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mHealth interventions in patients with low back pain compared to usual care.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials designed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement standard. We searched for studies published in English before October 2020 in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two researchers independently scanned the literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Bias risks were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used RevMan 5.4 software to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with 792 participants met the inclusion criteria. The simultaneous use of mHealth and usual care showed a better reduction in pain intensity than usual care alone, as measured by the numeric rating scale (mean difference [MD] -0.85, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.40; P<.001), and larger efficacy in reducing disability, as measured by the Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (MD -1.54, 95% CI -2.35 to -0.73; P<.001). Subgroup analyses showed that compared with usual care, mHealth using telephone calls significantly reduced pain intensity (MD -1.12, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.53; P<.001) and disability score (MD -1.68, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.63; P<.001). However, without the use of telephone calls, mHealth had no obvious advantage over usual care in improving pain intensity (MD -0.48, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.20; P=.16) and the disability score (MD -0.41, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.05; P=.58). The group that received a more sensitive feedback intervention showed a significantly reduced disability score (MD -4.30, 95% CI -6.95 to -1.69; P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of simultaneous mHealth and usual care interventions has better efficacy than usual care alone in reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain. Moreover, the results of subgroup analysis revealed that mHealth using telephone calls might play a positive role in improving pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain.