A large number of prognostic factors have been associated with recovery from an episode of back pain. The literature has placed much emphasis on psychosocial prognostic factors. The large number of prognostic factors and the lack of comparative analysis of different factors make their use difficult in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative usefulness of a range of factors to predict outcome using data from a randomized controlled trial. 312 patients with sub-acute to chronic back pain received a mechanical evaluation and were sub-grouped based on the presence or absence of directional preference (DP). Patients were then randomized to treatment that was matched or unmatched to that DP. Patients with a minimal reduction of 30% in RMDQ score were defined as the ‘good outcome’ group. 17 baseline variables were entered into a step-wise logistic regression analysis for their ability to predict a good outcome. 84 patients met the good outcome criteria and had a mean RMDQ decrease of 58.2% (9.8 points) in 4 visits. Leg pain, work status, depression, pain location, chronicity, and treatment assignment were significant predictors of outcome in univariate analysis. Only leg bothersomeness rating and treatment assignment survived multivariate analysis. Subjects with DP/centralization who received matched treatment had a 7.8 times greater likelihood of a good outcome. Matching patients to their DP is a stronger predictor of outcome than a range of other biopsychosocial factors.

Background: The main aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a brief intervention based on cognitive-behavioural principles (Solution Finding Approach – SFA) with the McKenzie approach (McK). A secondary aim was to determine if there were any clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who responded best to the McKenzie method.

Methods: Eligible patients who were referred by GPs to physiotherapy departments in the UK with neck or back pain were randomly allocated to McK (n= 161) or to SFA (n=154) and their outcome compared at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. In addition, putative predictors within the McKenzie group were compared using univariate analysis to examine the relationship between variables and outcomes. Significant variables were assessed using multiple logistic regression analyses.

Results: Both groups demonstrated modest improvements in outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes, except 2 small but significant differences at 6 weeks. At 6 weeks, patient satisfaction was greater for McK (median 90% compared with 70% for SFA). The number of treatment successes in the McK group depended upon the definition used, but were limited. Less chronic back pain (rather than neck pain) in patients demonstrating centralisation responded best.

Conclusion: In the original RCT there were few differences between McK and SFA though modest improvements in both. In a secondary analysis of the results for the McK group there were few treatment successes according to our definition of success; these were most likely to occur in back pain patients with shorter duration symptom who demonstrated centralisation response.