Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (40)
- Postprint (27)
- Other (7)
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Review (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (81)
Keywords
- yellow flags (8)
- allostatic load (6)
- low back pain (6)
- Functional ankle instability (5)
- MiSpEx (5)
- exercise (5)
- Ankle sprain (4)
- Chronic back pain (4)
- neuroplasticity (4)
- osteoporosis (4)
- psychosocial moderators (4)
- stress (4)
- Ankle injury (3)
- Anti-doping guideline (3)
- Anti-doping program (3)
- Basketball (3)
- Doping (3)
- Elite sports schools (3)
- Exercise (3)
- Perceived ankle instability (3)
- Prevention (3)
- Survey (3)
- chronic back pain (3)
- Aftercare (2)
- Back pain diagnosis (2)
- Back pain prognosis (2)
- Chronic low back pain (2)
- Chronic pain (2)
- Education (2)
- HDL (2)
- Income (2)
- Indicators of socioeconomic status, Health inequality (2)
- Individualized therapy (2)
- Job position (2)
- LDL (2)
- Low back pain (2)
- MRI (2)
- Metabolic syndrome (2)
- MiSpEx Network (2)
- MiSpEx-network (2)
- Mobile diagnostics (2)
- Nutrition (2)
- Office chair (2)
- PROGRESS/TRIPOD (2)
- Pain screening (2)
- Physical activity (2)
- Prediction of disability/intensity (2)
- Pressure distribution (2)
- Prognosis (2)
- Psychosocial risk factors (2)
- RSI (2)
- Randomized controlled trial (2)
- Rehabilitation (2)
- Rural health (2)
- Screening (2)
- Sensorimotor training (2)
- Socioeconomic status (2)
- Sports injury (2)
- Yellow flags (2)
- allostatic load index (2)
- antidepressants (2)
- back pain (2)
- back-pain screening (2)
- biomechanics (2)
- bone mineral density (2)
- bone pathologies (2)
- bone remodeling (2)
- bone–brain–nervous system interactions (2)
- cardiac catheterization (CC) (2)
- childhood (2)
- cholesterol (2)
- chronic low back pain (2)
- chronic pain (2)
- classical conditioning (2)
- clinical pain research (2)
- cortisol (2)
- dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (2)
- disability (2)
- distress (2)
- endocrine pathways (2)
- epinephrine (2)
- executive function (2)
- hair cortisol (2)
- high density lipoprotein cholesterol (2)
- hypocortisolemic symptom triad (2)
- invalidation (2)
- life events (2)
- lipids (2)
- long-term effects (2)
- low density lipoprotein cholesterol (2)
- low-back pain (2)
- low-back-pain (2)
- major depressive disorder (2)
- metabolic syndrome (2)
- microRNA (2)
- mindfulness-based stress reduction (2)
- motor-control-exercise (2)
- multidisciplinary intervention (2)
- multidisciplinary pain treatment (2)
- multidisciplinary-therapy (2)
- multimodal intervention (2)
- neuroendocrine (2)
- norepinephrine (2)
- osteoblast (2)
- osteoclast (2)
- pain matrix (2)
- physical activity (2)
- primary marker (2)
- psychoeducation (2)
- psychosocial risk factors (2)
- psychosocial stress (2)
- relaxation (2)
- self-efficacy (2)
- sensorimotor exercise training (2)
- sensorimotor training intervention (2)
- social pain (2)
- social rejection (2)
- standardized patient information (2)
- stress intervention (2)
- stress management (2)
- stress types (2)
- study protocol (2)
- sustainability (2)
- translation-reliability (2)
- triglycerides (2)
- Ankle sprain; (1)
- CAIT (1)
- CLBP (1)
- Central nervous system (1)
- Chronic ankle instability (1)
- Chronic illness (1)
- Chronische Krankheit (1)
- Chronischer Rückenschmerz (1)
- Cognitive behavioral therapy (1)
- Combined modality therapy (1)
- Dynamic sitting (1)
- Functional capacity (1)
- Indicators of socioeconomic status (1)
- Individualized intervention (1)
- Lebensspanne (1)
- Lifespan (1)
- Medical rehabilitation (1)
- Medizinische Rehabilitation (1)
- Motor control (1)
- Musculoskeletal disorders (1)
- Neuronal plasticity (1)
- PROGRESS (1)
- Pain management (1)
- Peripheral nervous system (1)
- Personalisierte Medizin (1)
- Personalized medicine (1)
- Prognose (1)
- Prävention (1)
- Psychoeducation (1)
- Psychosoziale Risikofaktoren (1)
- Sitting behaviour (1)
- back pain diagnosis (1)
- diagnostics (1)
- education (1)
- exercise treatment (1)
- functional ankle instability (1)
- functional capacity (1)
- health inequality (1)
- income (1)
- individualized intervention (1)
- job position (1)
- low back painExercise (1)
- motor control (1)
- pain screening (1)
- self-report questionnaire (1)
- sensorimotor training (1)
- socioeconomic status (1)
- validity and reliability (1)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (37)
- Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften (16)
- Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften (10)
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (10)
- Extern (7)
- Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät (2)
- Bürgerliches Recht (1)
- Department Psychologie (1)
- Hochschulambulanz (1)
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (1)
Introduction: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disability; early diagnosis and stratification of care remain challenges.
Objectives: This article describes the development of a screening tool for the 1-year prognosis of patients with high chronic LBP risk (risk stratification index) and for treatment allocation according to treatment-modifiable yellow flag indicators (risk prevention indices, RPI-S).
Methods: Screening tools were derived from a multicentre longitudinal study (n = 1071, age >18, intermittent LBP). The greatest prognostic predictors of 4 flag domains ("pain," "distress," "social-environment," "medical care-environment") were determined using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis. Internal validity and prognosis error were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curves for discrimination (area under the curve) and cutoff values were determined.
Results: The risk stratification index identified persons with increased risk of chronic LBP and accurately estimated expected pain intensity and disability on the Pain Grade Questionnaire (0-100 points) up to 1 year later with an average prognosis error of 15 points. In addition, 3-risk classes were discerned with an accuracy of area under the curve = 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.85). The RPI-S also distinguished persons with potentially modifiable prognostic indicators from 4 flag domains and stratified allocation to biopsychosocial treatments accordingly.
Conclusion: The screening tools, developed in compliance with the PROGRESS and TRIPOD statements, revealed good validation and prognostic strength. These tools improve on existing screening tools because of their utility for secondary preventions, incorporation of exercise effect modifiers, exact pain estimations, and personalized allocation to multimodal treatments.
Introduction: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disability; early diagnosis and stratification of care remain challenges.
Objectives: This article describes the development of a screening tool for the 1-year prognosis of patients with high chronic LBP risk (risk stratification index) and for treatment allocation according to treatment-modifiable yellow flag indicators (risk prevention indices, RPI-S).
Methods: Screening tools were derived from a multicentre longitudinal study (n = 1071, age >18, intermittent LBP). The greatest prognostic predictors of 4 flag domains ("pain," "distress," "social-environment," "medical care-environment") were determined using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis. Internal validity and prognosis error were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curves for discrimination (area under the curve) and cutoff values were determined.
Results: The risk stratification index identified persons with increased risk of chronic LBP and accurately estimated expected pain intensity and disability on the Pain Grade Questionnaire (0-100 points) up to 1 year later with an average prognosis error of 15 points. In addition, 3-risk classes were discerned with an accuracy of area under the curve = 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.85). The RPI-S also distinguished persons with potentially modifiable prognostic indicators from 4 flag domains and stratified allocation to biopsychosocial treatments accordingly.
Conclusion: The screening tools, developed in compliance with the PROGRESS and TRIPOD statements, revealed good validation and prognostic strength. These tools improve on existing screening tools because of their utility for secondary preventions, incorporation of exercise effect modifiers, exact pain estimations, and personalized allocation to multimodal treatments.
Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common pain syndrome in athletes, responsible for 28% of missed training days/year. Psychosocial factors contribute to chronic pain development. This study aims to investigate the transferability of psychosocial screening tools developed in the general population to athletes and to define athlete-specific thresholds.
Methods Data from a prospective multicentre study on LBP were collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up (n=52 athletes, n=289 recreational athletes and n=246 non-athletes). Pain was assessed using the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire. The psychosocial Risk Stratification Index (RSI) was used to obtain prognostic information regarding the risk of chronic LBP (CLBP). Individual psychosocial risk profile was gained with the Risk Prevention Index – Social (RPI-S). Differences between groups were calculated using general linear models and planned contrasts. Discrimination thresholds for athletes were defined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.
Results Athletes and recreational athletes showed significantly lower psychosocial risk profiles and prognostic risk for CLBP than non-athletes. ROC curves suggested discrimination thresholds for athletes were different compared with non-athletes. Both screenings demonstrated very good sensitivity (RSI=100%; RPI-S: 75%–100%) and specificity (RSI: 76%–93%; RPI-S: 71%–93%). RSI revealed two risk classes for pain intensity (area under the curve (AUC) 0.92(95% CI 0.85 to 1.0)) and pain disability (AUC 0.88(95% CI 0.71 to 1.0)).
Conclusions Both screening tools can be used for athletes. Athlete-specific thresholds will improve physicians’ decision making and allow stratified treatment and prevention.
Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common pain syndrome in athletes, responsible for 28% of missed training days/year. Psychosocial factors contribute to chronic pain development. This study aims to investigate the transferability of psychosocial screening tools developed in the general population to athletes and to define athlete-specific thresholds.
Methods Data from a prospective multicentre study on LBP were collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up (n=52 athletes, n=289 recreational athletes and n=246 non-athletes). Pain was assessed using the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire. The psychosocial Risk Stratification Index (RSI) was used to obtain prognostic information regarding the risk of chronic LBP (CLBP). Individual psychosocial risk profile was gained with the Risk Prevention Index – Social (RPI-S). Differences between groups were calculated using general linear models and planned contrasts. Discrimination thresholds for athletes were defined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.
Results Athletes and recreational athletes showed significantly lower psychosocial risk profiles and prognostic risk for CLBP than non-athletes. ROC curves suggested discrimination thresholds for athletes were different compared with non-athletes. Both screenings demonstrated very good sensitivity (RSI=100%; RPI-S: 75%–100%) and specificity (RSI: 76%–93%; RPI-S: 71%–93%). RSI revealed two risk classes for pain intensity (area under the curve (AUC) 0.92(95% CI 0.85 to 1.0)) and pain disability (AUC 0.88(95% CI 0.71 to 1.0)).
Conclusions Both screening tools can be used for athletes. Athlete-specific thresholds will improve physicians’ decision making and allow stratified treatment and prevention.
Objective: To investigate associations between socioeconomic status (SES) indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and the genesis of chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Design: Longitudinal field study (baseline and 6-month follow-up).
Setting: Four medical clinics across Germany.
Participants: 352 people were included according to the following criteria: (1) between 18 and 65 years of age, (2) intermittent pain and (3) an understanding of the study and the ability to answer a questionnaire without help. Exclusion criteria were: (1) pregnancy, (2) inability to stand upright, (3) inability to give sick leave information, (4) signs of serious spinal pathology, (5) acute pain in the past 7 days or (6) an incomplete SES indicators questionnaire.
Outcome measures: Subjective intensity and disability of CLBP.
Results Analysis: showed that job position was the best single predictor of CLBP intensity, followed by a multidimensional index. Education and income had no significant association with intensity. Subjective disability was best predicted by job position, succeeded by the multidimensional index and education, while income again had no significant association.
Conclusion: The results showed that SES indicators have different strong associations with the genesis of CLBP and should therefore not be used interchangeably. Job position was found to be the single most important indicator. These results could be helpful in the planning of back pain care programmes, but in general, more research on the relationship between SES and health outcomes is needed.
Objective: To investigate associations between socioeconomic status (SES) indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and the genesis of chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Design: Longitudinal field study (baseline and 6-month follow-up).
Setting: Four medical clinics across Germany.
Participants: 352 people were included according to the following criteria: (1) between 18 and 65 years of age, (2) intermittent pain and (3) an understanding of the study and the ability to answer a questionnaire without help. Exclusion criteria were: (1) pregnancy, (2) inability to stand upright, (3) inability to give sick leave information, (4) signs of serious spinal pathology, (5) acute pain in the past 7 days or (6) an incomplete SES indicators questionnaire.
Outcome measures: Subjective intensity and disability of CLBP.
Results: Analysis showed that job position was the best single predictor of CLBP intensity, followed by a multidimensional index. Education and income had no significant association with intensity. Subjective disability was best predicted by job position, succeeded by the multidimensional index and education, while income again had no significant association.
Conclusion: The results showed that SES indicators have different strong associations with the genesis of CLBP and should therefore not be used interchangeably. Job position was found to be the single most important indicator. These results could be helpful in the planning of back pain care programmes, but in general, more research on the relationship between SES and health outcomes is needed.
Bone pathology is frequent in stressed individuals. A comprehensive examination of mechanisms linking life stress, depression and disturbed bone homeostasis is missing. In this translational study, mice exposed to early life stress (MSUS) were examined for bone microarchitecture (μCT), metabolism (qPCR/ELISA), and neuronal stress mediator expression (qPCR) and compared with a sample of depressive patients with or without early life stress by analyzing bone mineral density (BMD) (DXA) and metabolic changes in serum (osteocalcin, PINP, CTX-I). MSUS mice showed a significant decrease in NGF, NPYR1, VIPR1 and TACR1 expression, higher innervation density in bone, and increased serum levels of CTX-I, suggesting a milieu in favor of catabolic bone turnover. MSUS mice had a significantly lower body weight compared to control mice, and this caused minor effects on bone microarchitecture. Depressive patients with experiences of childhood neglect also showed a catabolic pattern. A significant reduction in BMD was observed in depressive patients with childhood abuse and stressful life events during childhood. Therefore, future studies on prevention and treatment strategies for both mental and bone disease should consider early life stress as a risk factor for bone pathologies.
Bone pathology is frequent in stressed individuals. A comprehensive examination of mechanisms linking life stress, depression and disturbed bone homeostasis is missing. In this translational study, mice exposed to early life stress (MSUS) were examined for bone microarchitecture (μCT), metabolism (qPCR/ELISA), and neuronal stress mediator expression (qPCR) and compared with a sample of depressive patients with or without early life stress by analyzing bone mineral density (BMD) (DXA) and metabolic changes in serum (osteocalcin, PINP, CTX-I). MSUS mice showed a significant decrease in NGF, NPYR1, VIPR1 and TACR1 expression, higher innervation density in bone, and increased serum levels of CTX-I, suggesting a milieu in favor of catabolic bone turnover. MSUS mice had a significantly lower body weight compared to control mice, and this caused minor effects on bone microarchitecture. Depressive patients with experiences of childhood neglect also showed a catabolic pattern. A significant reduction in BMD was observed in depressive patients with childhood abuse and stressful life events during childhood. Therefore, future studies on prevention and treatment strategies for both mental and bone disease should consider early life stress as a risk factor for bone pathologies.
Background
Recent research emphasized the role of inflammatory processes in the pathophysiology of depression. Theories hypothesizes that life events (LE) can affect the immune system and trigger depressive symptoms. LE are also considered as one of the best predictors for the onset and course of depressive disorders.
Methods
Observational study across three treatment settings: n=208 depressive patients (75.5%f, M 46.6 y) were examined on depression (BDI-II), life events (ILE) and inflammatory markers (IL-6, CRP, fibrinogen, ICAM-1, TNF-alpha, E-selectin) at baseline (t0), 5-week(t1) and 5-month(t2) follow-up. Effects and interactions were analyzed with regression models.
Results
LE were associated with depressive symptoms at t0 (beta=.209; p=.002) and both follow-ups. Except for CRP, which was linked to depression symptoms at t2 (betai=-.190; p=.032), there were no effects of inflammatory markers on depressive symptoms. At t1, an interaction between CRP and LE in total (beta=-.249; p=.041) was found as well as for LE in the past five years (beta=-.122; p=.027). Similar interactions were found between cumulative LE and ICAM-1 (beta=-.197; p=.003) and IL-6 (beta=-.425; p=.001).
Conclusion
The cumulative burden of LE effects symptoms and treatment outcome in depressive patients. There is some evidence that inflammatory marker may have long-term effects on treatment outcome as they seem to weaken the determining relation between LE and depression.