Refine
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15)
Keywords
- Exercise (3)
- Back pain diagnosis (2)
- Back pain prognosis (2)
- Chronic back pain (2)
- MiSpEx (2)
- MiSpEx Network (2)
- PROGRESS/TRIPOD (2)
- Pain screening (2)
- Prediction of disability/intensity (2)
- Prognosis (2)
Background:
Arising from the relevance of sensorimotor training in the therapy of nonspecific low back pain patients and from the value of individualized therapy, the present trial aims to test the feasibility and efficacy of individualized sensorimotor training interventions in patients suffering from nonspecific low back pain.
Methods and study design:
A multicentre, single-blind two-armed randomized controlled trial to evaluate the
effects of a 12-week (3 weeks supervised centre-based and 9 weeks home-based) individualized sensorimotor exercise program is performed. The control group stays inactive during this period. Outcomes are pain, and pain-associated function as well as motor function in adults with nonspecific low back pain. Each participant is scheduled to five measurement dates: baseline (M1), following centre-based training (M2), following home-based training (M3) and at two follow-up time points 6 months (M4) and 12 months (M5) after M1. All investigations and the assessment of the primary and secondary outcomes are performed in a standardized order: questionnaires – clinical examination – biomechanics (motor function). Subsequent statistical procedures are executed after the examination of underlying assumptions for parametric or rather non-parametric testing.
Discussion:
The results and practical relevance of the study will be of clinical and practical relevance not only for researchers and policy makers but also for the general population suffering from nonspecific low back pain.
Trial registration:
Identification number DRKS00010129. German Clinical Trial registered on 3 March 2016.
BACK PAIN: THE STUDY OF MECHANISMS AND THE TRANSLATION IN INTERVENTIONS WITHIN THE MISPEX NETWORK
(2016)
Background: Arising from the relevance of sensorimotor training in the therapy of nonspecific low back pain patients and from the value of individualized therapy, the present trial aims to test the feasibility and efficacy of individualized sensorimotor training interventions in patients suffering from nonspecific low back pain. Methods and study design: A multicentre, single-blind two-armed randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of a 12-week (3 weeks supervised centre-based and 9 weeks home-based) individualized sensorimotor exercise program is performed. The control group stays inactive during this period. Outcomes are pain, and pain-associated function as well as motor function in adults with nonspecific low back pain. Each participant is scheduled to five measurement dates: baseline (M1), following centre-based training (M2), following home-based training (M3) and at two follow-up time points 6 months (M4) and 12 months (M5) after M1. All investigations and the assessment of the primary and secondary outcomes are performed in a standardized order: questionnaires - clinical examination biomechanics (motor function). Subsequent statistical procedures are executed after the examination of underlying assumptions for parametric or rather non-parametric testing. Discussion: The results and practical relevance of the study will be of clinical and practical relevance not only for researchers and policy makers but also for the general population suffering from nonspecific low back pain.
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.
Hintergrund
Lumbale Ruckenschmerzen und ihre Neigung zur Chronifizierung stellen nicht nur in der Allgemeinbevolkerung, sondern auch im Leistungssport ein bedeutendes Gesundheitsproblem dar. Im Gegensatz zu Nichtathleten ist die Erforschung psychosozialer Risikofaktoren sowie von Screeningfragebogen, die moglichst fruhzeitig die Entwicklung chronischer Schmerzen erkennen und vorhersagen konnen, im Leistungssport noch in den Anfangen. Das vorliegende systematische Review gibt einen uberblick uber den Stand der Risikofaktorenforschung in beiden Feldern und untersucht die pradiktive Qualitat verschiedener Screeningfragebogen bei Nichtathleten.
Methodik
Die Literatursuche erfolgte zwischen Marz und Juni 2016 in den Datenbanken MEDLINE, PubMed und PsycINFO mit den Suchbegriffen psychosocial screening, low back pain, sciatica und prognosis, athletes. Eingeschlossen wurden prospektive Studien an Patienten mit lumbalen Ruckenschmerzen mit und ohne Ausstrahlung in das Bein, 18Jahre und mit einem Follow-up von mindestens 3-monatiger Dauer.
Ergebnisse
In das Review zu Screeninginstrumenten wurden 16Studien einbezogen. Alle waren an klinischen Stichproben der Allgemeingesellschaft durchgefuhrt worden. Zu den am haufigsten publizierten Screeningfragebogen gehoren der orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (oMPSQ) mit einer zufriedenstellenden Fruherkennung der Wiederherstellung der Arbeitsfahigkeit sowie das STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) mit guter Vorhersage schmerzbedingter Beeintrachtigung. Fur die Vorhersage kunftiger Schmerzen eignen sich die Risikoanalyse der Schmerzchronifizierung (RISC-R) und der Heidelberger Kurzfragebogen (HKF).
Schlussfolgerungen
Psychosoziale Risikofaktoren fur chronische Ruckenschmerzen, wie z.B. chronischer Stress, ungunstige Schmerzverarbeitung und depressive Stimmungslagen, werden zunehmend auch im Leistungssport erkannt. Screeninginstrumente, die sich in der Allgemeingesellschaft als hinreichend vorhersagestark erwiesen haben, werden aktuell im MiSpEx-Forschungsverbund auf ihre Eignung uberpruft.
Psychosocial risk factors for chronic back pain in the general population and in competitive sports
(2018)
Lumbar back pain and the high risk of chronic complaints is not only an important health concern in the general population but also in high performance athletes. In contrast to non-athletes, there is a lack of research into psychosocial risk factors in athletes. Moreover, the development of psychosocial screening questionnaires that would be qualified to detect athletes with a high risk of chronicity is in the early stages. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of research into psychosocial risk factors in both populations and to evaluate the performance of screening instruments in non-athletes. The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycINFO were searched from March to June 2016 using the keywords "psychosocial screening", "low back pain", "sciatica" and "prognosis", "athletes". We included prospective studies conducted in patients with low back pain with and without radiation to the legs, aged ae<yen>18 years and a follow-up of at least 3 months. We identified 16 eligible studies, all of them conducted in samples of non-athletes. Among the most frequently published screening questionnaires, the A-rebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (A-MPSQ) demonstrated a sufficient early prediction of return to work and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) revealed acceptable performance predicting pain-related impairment. The prediction of future pain was sufficient with the Risk Analysis of Back Pain Chronification (RISC-BP) and the Heidelberg Short Questionnaire (HKF). Psychosocial risk factors of chronic back pain, such as chronic stress, depressive mood, and maladaptive pain processing are becoming increasingly more recognized in competitive sports. Screening instruments that have been shown to be predictive in the general population are currently being tested for suitability in the German MiSpEx research consortium.
Screeninginstrumente
(2018)
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.