Criticisms about overuse of MRI in low back pain are well documented. Yet, with the exception of suspicion of serious pathology, little is known about factors that influence clinicians' preference for MRI. We investigated the factors associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI for patients consulting with benign low back and leg pain (LBLP) including sciatica. Data were collected from 607 primary care patients consulting with LBLP and assessed by 7 physiotherapists, in the ATLAS cohort study. Following clinical assessment, physiotherapists documented whether he/she wanted the patient to have an MRI. Factors potentially associated with clinicians' preference for imaging were selected a priori, from patient characteristics and clinical assessment findings. A mixed-effect logistic regression model examined the associations between these factors and physiotherapists' preference for MRI.Background
Methods
Recruitment to time and target in clinical trials is a key challenge requiring careful estimation of numbers of potential participants. The SCOPiC trial ((HTA 12/201/09) (ISRCTN75449581)) is investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica in primary care. Here, we describe the approaches followed to achieve recruitment of our required sample size (n=470), the challenges encountered and required adaptations. We used recruitment data from the SCOPiC trial and its internal pilot, to show the differences between estimated and actual numbers of patients from consultation to participation in the trial. Patients were consented to the trial if they had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (with at least 70% confidence) and met the trial eligibility criteria.Background
Methods
Measurement inconsistency across clinical trials is tackled by the development of a core outcome measurement set. Four core outcome domains were recommended for clinical trials in patients with non-specific LBP (nsLBP): physical functioning, pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and number of deaths. This study aimed to reach consensus on core instruments to measure the first three domains. The Steering Committee overseeing this project selected 17 potential core instruments for physical functioning, three for pain intensity, and five for HRQoL. Evidence on their measurement properties in nsLBP was synthesized in three systematic reviews using COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 208) were invited in a Delphi survey to seek consensus on which instruments to endorse as core. Consensus was Background & purpose
Methods & Results
Neuropathic pain is a challenging pain syndrome to manage. Low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is clinically diagnosed as either sciatica or referred leg pain and sciatica is often assumed to be neuropathic. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and characteristics of neuropathic pain in LBLP patients. Analysis of cross-sectional data from a prospective, primary care cohort of 609 LBLP patients. Patients completed questionnaires, and received clinical assessment including MRI. Neuropathic characteristics (NC) were measured using the self-report version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs scale (SLANSS; score of ≥12 indicates pain with NC).Purpose of study and background
Methods
Subacromial corticosteroid injection is widely used in the treatment of Subacromial Impingement Syndrome (SIS). There is increasing interest in using ultrasound (US) to improve the accurate placement of injections. This study investigated whether the accuracy of placement of US-guided subacromial corticosteroid injections influences patients' outcome of pain and function. Secondary analysis of data from a 2−2 factorial randomised controlled trial investigating exercise and corticosteroid injection for pain and function in SIS. US-guided injections were delivered according to a pre-defined protocol. Video images were reviewed to categorise accuracy of injection into the subacromial bursa into 3 accuracy groups using pre-defined criteria: 1) not in the subacromial bursa; 2) probably in the subacromial bursa; and 3) definitely in the subacromial bursa. The primary outcome measure was the self-reported Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score, compared at 6 weeks and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI pain and function subscales and participant global rating of overall change from baseline. A mixed effects model was used to compare accuracy groups' outcomes at 6 weeks and 6 months, adjusted for baseline covariates.Introduction
Method
The use of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) remains controversial due to the increased revision rate in female patients. We compared the outcomes of BHR in female patients to an age matched total hip arthroplasty(THA) cohort. We reviewed the pain, function and total Harris Hip Scores(HHS), and Kaplan-Meir survivorship for BHR and THA cohorts from a prospective regional arthroplasty database. There were 234 patients in each cohort, with mean age of 51 years. The BHR cohort had significantly better function and total HHS at all points of the 5-year study, but not for the post-operative pain score. The 5-year revision rate for the BHR cohort was significantly higher than the THA cohort (6.8% vs 3.4%, p=0.001). The main reason for revision in the BHR cohort was aseptic loosening (n=8), followed by metallosis (n=3). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 92.6% (95% CI±1.7%) and 96.4% (95% CI±1.3%) for the BHR and THA cohort (p=0.001). BHR can give significantly better functional outcomes than THA. The vast majority of female patients were happy with BHR and did not need further surgery at the 5-year stage. This is somewhat at odds with the recent reputation of the procedure. The 10-year result of the same cohort is warranted to provide further data. Our study is not a recommendation to still offer BHR to female patients, but rather to inject a note of realism into the debate. There are implications for future implant development in that these results do validate resurfacing as a functionally valuable option for active patients.
To identify treatment effect modifiers within the STarT Back Trial which demonstrated prognostic stratified care was effective in comparison to standard care for patients with low back pain. Secondary analysis of the STarT Back Trial using 688 patients with available 4-month follow-up data. Disability (baseline and 4 months) was assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) using continuous and dichotomized (>7) outcome scores. Potential treatment effect modifiers were evaluated with group x predictor interaction terms using linear and logistic regression models. Modifiers included: age, gender, education, socio-economic status (SES), employment status, work satisfaction, episode duration, general health (SF-12), number of pain medications, and treatment expectations.Purpose and Background:
Methods:
Internet interventions provide an opportunity to encourage patients with LBP to self-manage and remain active, by tailoring advice and providing evidence-based support for increasing physical activity. This paper reports the development of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, designed for use with usual primary care, as the first stage of a feasibility RCT currently underway comparing: usual primary care alone; usual care plus the internet intervention; usual care plus the internet intervention with physiotherapist telephone support. The internet intervention delivers a 6-week, tailored programme focused on graded goal setting, self-monitoring, and provision of tailored feedback to encourage physical activity/exercise increases or maintenance. 22 patients with back pain from primary care took part in ‘think aloud’ interviews, to qualitatively explore the intervention, provide feedback on its relevance and quality and identify any extraneous content or omissions.Background:
Methods:
Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments.A statement of the purposes of the study and background:
A summary of the methods used and the results:
To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within patient risk subgroups (low, medium and high risk of persistent disabling pain determined by the STarT Back tool). Adopting a cost-utility framework alongside a prospective, sequential comparison of separate patient cohorts (922 patients in total) with six-month follow-up, the base case analysis estimated the incremental LBP-related healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) by risk subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses examined alternative approaches (a complete case analysis, the incorporation of non-LBP-related healthcare use and estimation of societal costs relating to work absence).Purpose and background
Methods
Over two-thirds of pregnant women experience low back pain (LBP) that interferes with everyday activities, work and sleep. Acupuncture appears a safe, promising intervention but there are no high quality trial data, regarding its clinical or cost-effectiveness in comparison to standard care. EASE Back was a feasibility and pilot RCT designed to inform a full trial evaluating the addition of acupuncture to standard care for pregnancy-related LBP. In preparation for the pilot trial, phase 1 of EASE Back consisted of semi-structured interviews exploring the views of pregnant women, midwives and physiotherapists about pregnancy-related LBP, use of acupuncture, and participation in clinical trials. Transcript data were anonymised and analysed using thematic analysis. Three members of the team independently coded a sample of transcripts to develop the coding framework.Purpose and background
Methods
Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) are not necessarily translated into practice. Multiple research studies have investigated different strategies to implement best evidence into practice yet no synthesis of these studies is available. To systematically review available studies to determine whether implementation efforts in this field have been successful; to identify which strategies have been most successful in changing healthcare practitioner behaviours and patient outcomes.Background
Objectives
A wide array of measures has been developed to assess the role of psychological factors in the development and persistence of pain. Yet there is likely to be considerable conceptual overlap between such measures, and consequently a lack of clarity about the importance of psychological factors. To investigate whether conceptual overlap exists within psychological measures used in back pain research.Background
Purpose
People with back pain often experience long-term pain with recurrences and fluctuations. However, few studies have considered which factors predict long-term outcomes. To determine the prognostic factors, measured around the time of a primary care back pain consultation, that predict clinically significant pain in both the short (6 months) and long-term (5 years).Background
Purpose
The STarT Back trial demonstrated benefits from a stratified primary care model that targets low back pain (LBP) treatment according to patient prognosis (low-, medium-, or high-risk). The current IMPaCT Back study implemented this approach in everyday primary care to investigate; i) changes in GPs' and physiotherapists' attitudes, confidence and behaviours, ii) patients' clinical outcomes, and iii) cost-effectiveness. This quality improvement study involved 5 GP practices (65 GPs and 34 physiotherapists) with before and after implementation cohorts of consecutive LBP consulters using an intention to treat analysis to compare patient data. Phase 1: Usual care data collection from clinicians and patients (pre-implementation). Phase 2: Introduction of prognostic screening and targeted treatment including a minimal GP intervention (low-risk group), systematic referral to physiotherapy (medium-risk group) and to psychologically informed physiotherapy (high-risk group). Phase 3: Post-implementation data collection from clinicians and patients.Background and purpose
Method
The physiotherapy profession has experienced a paradigm shift in recent years where mounting research evidence, indicating better patient outcomes, has led to an increase in popularity of a biopsychosocial model of care. In turn physiotherapists have begun to address psychosocial ‘obstacles’ to recovery, as means of improving outcomes for patients. To date, research has not examined how this change has affected the perceptions of physiotherapists about delivering care. The aim of this study was to explore these perceptions through exploratory interviews with physiotherapists in the UK. A qualitative interview study using a purposive sample of physiotherapists (n=12), nested within a larger study, exploring the attitudes and behaviours of UK general practitioners and physiotherapists about managing patients with low back pain. Interview transcripts were coded by the lead researcher and independently validated by a further team member. Transcripts were coded thematically using the constant comparative method to identify similarities and differences between the data and to determine fit and relevance.Background
Methods
One untested back pain treatment model is to stratify management depending on prognosis (low, medium or high-risk). This 2-arm RCT investigated: (i) overall clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention), versus non-stratified current best practice (control); and (ii) whether low-risk patients had non-inferior outcomes, and medium/high-risk groups had superior outcomes. 1573 adults with back pain (+/− radiculopathy) consulting at 10 general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic, at which 851 eligible participants were randomised (intervention n=568; control n=283). Primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis was the difference in change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 4-month RMDQ change between arms overall, and at risk-group level at both time-points. The economic evaluation estimated incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and back pain-related health care costs.Background
Methods
To compare the contribution of physical, psychological and social indicators to predicting disability after one year between consulters with low back pain (LBP) of less than 3 months duration and more than 3 months duration. Data from two large prospective cohort studies of consecutive patients consulting with LBP in general practices were merged, with disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). There were complete data for 258 cases with acute/subacute LBP and 668 cases with chronic LBP at 12 months follow-up. Univariate and adjusted multivariate regression analyses of various potential prognostic indicators for disability at 12 months were carried out.Purpose
Methods
Patient preferences have been shown to be associated with treatment effects ( To determine the treatment preferences of LBP patients and whether these affect clinical outcome.Background
Aim
LBP only, LBP + leg pain above knee only or LBP + leg pain extending below the knee.
