Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Purposes of the study and background. Clinical assessment of spinal function is a routine part of low back pain (LBP) assessment, yet there is no clear consensus on what constitutes ‘spinal dysfunction’ and how this informs treatment. This study's aims to develop a spinal function classification framework by gaining expert academic and clinical consensus on (i) spinal function assessment tests (ii) encountered LBP motor control/movement impairment (MCI/MI) sub-types (iii) their characteristics and (iii) exercises and feedback for each sub-type. Methods and Results. An online 2-round Delphi-survey of 4 world-leading academic experts and 36 clinical physiotherapists world-wide was employed. A five-point response scale was used to rate level of agreement on 174 items with a priori consensus defined by a ≠>80% level of agreement (LOA). Out of 15 spinal function assessment tests, 5 reached consensus with forward bend and sitting/standing tests highest scoring. 7 MCI/MI sub-types reached consensus as clinically encountered. 12 out of 128 of posture/movement descriptors within the 7 sub-types reached consensus. 7 exercises gained consensus in being considered as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ with exercises involving sitting, standing, forward bend scoring highest. Consensus was reached on MCI/MI sub-type specific exercises, compensation strategies and feedback to remedy these compensations. Conclusion. Academic and clinical expert consensus derived list of movement/posture descriptors, assessment tests and exercises considered clinically important provides a first to date, spinal function assessment classification framework for non-specific LBP. This offers a conceptual model for developing technologies (e.g. wearable sensors) to harness clinically useful information relating to spinal function, exercise performance and feedback for effective implementation of exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. No conflicts of interest. Sources of Funding: Health and Care Research Wales, RCBC Postdoctoral Research Fellowship