Adrian C Traeger

How does pain lead to disability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies in people with back and neck pain

Abstract Disability is an important outcome from a clinical and public health perspective. However, it is unclear how disability develops in people with low back pain or neck pain. More specifically, the mechanisms by which pain leads to disability are not well understood. Mediation analysis is a way of investigating these mechanisms by examining the extent to which an intermediate variable explains the effect of an exposure on an outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and examine the extent to which putative mediators explain the effect of pain on disability in people with low back pain or neck pain. Five electronic databases were searched. We found 12 studies (N = 2961) that examined how pain leads to disability with mediation analysis. Standardized regression coefficients (&bgr;) of the indirect and total paths were pooled. We found evidence to show that self-efficacy (&bgr; = 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.34), psychological distress (&bgr; = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.18), and fear (&bgr; = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.14) mediated the relationship between pain and disability, but catastrophizing did not (&bgr; = 0.07, 95% CI = −0.06 to 0.19). The methodological quality of these studies was low, and we highlight potential areas for development. Nonetheless, the results suggest that there are significant mediating effects of self-efficacy, psychological distress, and fear, which underpins the direct targeting of these constructs in treatment.

Effect of Primary Care–Based Education on Reassurance in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Reassurance is a core aspect of daily medical practice, yet little is known on how it can be achieved. OBJECTIVE To determine whether patient education in primary care increases reassurance in patients with acute or subacute low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and PsychINFO databases were searched to June 2014. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. STUDY SELECTION To be eligible, studies needed to be controlled trials of patient education for LBP that were delivered in primary care and measured reassurance after the intervention. Eligibility criteria were applied, and studies were selected by 2 independent authors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were reassurance in the short and long term and health care utilization at 12 months. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted by 2 independent authors and entered into a standardized form. A random-effects meta-analysis tested the effects of patient education compared with usual care on measures of reassurance. To investigate the effect of study characteristics, we performed a preplanned subgroup analysis. Studies were stratified according to duration, content, and provider of patient education. RESULTS We included 14 trials (n=4872) of patient education interventions. Trials assessed reassurance with questionnaires of fear, worry, anxiety, catastrophization, and health care utilization. There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that patient education increases reassurance more than usual care/control education in the short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.21; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.06) and long term (SMD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.03). Interventions delivered by physicians were significantly more reassuring than those delivered by other primary care practitioners (eg, physiotherapist or nurse). There is moderate-quality evidence that patient education reduces LBP-related primary care visits more than usual care/control education (SMD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.00 at a 12-month follow-up). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 LBP-related visit to primary care was 17. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that patient education in primary care can provide long-term reassurance for patients with acute or subacute LBP.

Pain education to prevent chronic low back pain: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Of those patients who present to primary care with acute LBP, 40% continue to report symptoms 3 months later and develop chronic LBP. Although it is possible to identify these patients early, effective interventions to improve their outcomes are not available. This double-blind (participant/outcome assessor) randomised controlled trial will investigate the efficacy of a brief educational approach to prevent chronic LBP in ‘at-risk’ individuals. Methods/analysis Participants will be recruited from primary care practices in the Sydney metropolitan area. To be eligible for inclusion participants will be aged 18–75 years, with acute LBP (<4 weeks’ duration) preceded by at least a 1 month pain-free period and at-risk of developing chronic LBP. Potential participants with chronic spinal pain and those with suspected serious spinal pathology will be excluded. Eligible participants who agree to take part will be randomly allocated to receive 2×1 h sessions of pain biology education or 2×1 h sessions of sham education from a specially trained study physiotherapist. The study requires 101 participants per group to detect a 1-point difference in pain intensity 3 months after pain onset. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of chronic LBP, disability, pain intensity, depression, healthcare utilisation, pain attitudes and beliefs, global recovery and recurrence and are measured at 1 week post-intervention, and at 3, 6 and 12 months post LBP onset. Ethics/dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the University of New South Wales Human Ethics Committee in June 2013 (ref number HC12664). Outcomes will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conference meetings. Trial registration number https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12612001180808

Estimating the Risk of Chronic Pain: Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model (PICKUP) for Patients with Acute Low Back Pain

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Globally it is responsible for the most years lived with disability. The most problematic type of LBP is chronic LBP (pain lasting longer than 3 mo); it has a poor prognosis and is costly, and interventions are only moderately effective. Targeting interventions according to risk profile is a promising approach to prevent the onset of chronic LBP. Developing accurate prognostic models is the first step. No validated prognostic models are available to accurately predict the onset of chronic LBP. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate the risk of chronic LBP. Methods and Findings We used the PROGRESS framework to specify a priori methods, which we published in a study protocol. Data from 2,758 patients with acute LBP attending primary care in Australia between 5 November 2003 and 15 July 2005 (development sample, n = 1,230) and between 10 November 2009 and 5 February 2013 (external validation sample, n = 1,528) were used to develop and externally validate the model. The primary outcome was chronic LBP (ongoing pain at 3 mo). In all, 30% of the development sample and 19% of the external validation sample developed chronic LBP. In the external validation sample, the primary model (PICKUP) discriminated between those who did and did not develop chronic LBP with acceptable performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.69]). Although model calibration was also acceptable in the external validation sample (intercept = −0.55, slope = 0.89), some miscalibration was observed for high-risk groups. The decision curve analysis estimated that, if decisions to recommend further intervention were based on risk scores, screening could lead to a net reduction of 40 unnecessary interventions for every 100 patients presenting to primary care compared to a “treat all” approach. Limitations of the method include the model being restricted to using prognostic factors measured in existing studies and using stepwise methods to specify the model. Limitations of the model include modest discrimination performance. The model also requires recalibration for local settings. Conclusions Based on its performance in these cohorts, this five-item prognostic model for patients with acute LBP may be a useful tool for estimating risk of chronic LBP. Further validation is required to determine whether screening with this model leads to a net reduction in unnecessary interventions provided to low-risk patients.

Contributions of mood, pain catastrophizing, and cold hyperalgesia in acute and chronic low back pain: a comparison with pain-free controls.

Objectives:Quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been used to elucidate the peripheral and central mechanisms that underlie changes in pain sensitivity associated with low back pain (LBP). However, it remains unclear to what degree peripheral and central changes contribute to the generation and maintenance of LBP. The aim of this study was to compare thermal pain sensitivity, measured using QST, in participants with acute LBP, chronic LBP, and pain-free controls. Materials and Methods:Participant groups with acute LBP (N=20), chronic LBP (N=30), and pain-free controls (N=30) were assessed by thermal QST. The unique contributions of pain-related psychological and QST variables to predict membership to the acute and chronic pain groups were also determined. Results:We found that participants with chronic LBP demonstrated significantly lower cold pain threshold (CPT) in the primary area of pain (low back) as well as in an area anatomically remote from the primary area of pain (forearm) when compared with controls. Participants with acute LBP did not show significantly elevated pain sensitivity. CPT at the remote site was a significant independent predictor of membership to the chronic pain group, after the adjustment for mood and pain catastrophizing. CPT explained 8% of the total variance of 46% related to group membership. Discussion:We found evidence for localized and generalized cold hyperalgesia in chronic, but not acute LBP. We might speculate that hyperalgesia develops as a consequence of long-lasting LBP, but prospective studies are needed to confirm this assumption.

STarT Back Screening Tool

The STarT (Subgroups for Targeted Treatment) Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a brief screening questionnaire designed for directing initial treatment for low back pain (LBP) in primary care. There are 9 items that assess physical (leg pain, co-morbid pain, and disability) and psychosocial (bothersomeness, catastrophising, fear, anxiety, and depression) factors previously found to be strong indicators of poor prognosis. As the tool was developed with the primary purpose of guiding initial treatment, only prognostic factors deemed to be modifiable were included.

Development and validation of a screening tool to predict the risk of chronic low back pain in patients presenting with acute low back pain: a study protocol

Introduction Around 40% of people presenting to primary care with an episode of acute low back pain develop chronic low back pain. In order to reduce the risk of developing chronic low back pain, effective secondary prevention strategies are needed. Early identification of at-risk patients allows clinicians to make informed decisions based on prognostic profile, and researchers to select appropriate participants for secondary prevention trials. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a prognostic screening tool that identifies patients with acute low back pain in primary care who are at risk of developing chronic low back pain. This paper describes the methods and analysis plan for the development and validation of the tool. Methods/analysis The prognostic screening tool will be developed using methods recommended by the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) Group and reported using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. In the development stage, we will use data from 1248 patients recruited for a prospective cohort study of acute low back pain in primary care. We will construct 3 logistic regression models to predict chronic low back pain according to 3 definitions: any pain, high pain and disability at 3 months. In the validation stage, we will use data from a separate sample of 1643 patients with acute low back pain to assess the performance of each prognostic model. We will produce validation plots showing Nagelkerke R2 and Brier score (overall performance), area under the curve statistic (discrimination) and the calibration slope and intercept (calibration). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval from the University of Sydney Ethics Committee was obtained for both of the original studies that we plan to analyse using the methods outlined in this protocol (Henschke et al, ref 11-2002/3/3144; Williams et al, ref 11638).

Diagnosis and management of low-back pain in primary care

KEY POINTS Low-back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide.[1][1] It is the second most common symptom-related reason for seeking care from a primary care physician.[2][2] In Australia, low-back pain is the number one cause of early retirement and income poverty.[3][3] Although most

Wise choices: making physiotherapy care more valuable

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. For more information, or if you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact the Bond University research repository coordinator.

Do schoolbags cause back pain in children and adolescents? A systematic review

Objective To investigate whether characteristics of schoolbag use are risk factors for back pain in children and adolescents. Data sources Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases up to April 2016. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional and randomised controlled trials conducted with children or adolescents. The primary outcome was an episode of back pain and the secondary outcomes were an episode of care seeking and school absence due to back pain. We weighted evidence from longitudinal studies above that from cross-sectional. The risk of bias of the longitudinal studies was assessed by a modified version of the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Results We included 69 studies (n=72 627), of which five were prospective longitudinal and 64 cross-sectional or retrospective. We found evidence from five prospective studies that schoolbag characteristics such as weight, design and carriage method do not increase the risk of developing back pain in children and adolescents. The included studies were at moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence from cross-sectional studies aligned with that from longitudinal studies (ie, there was no consistent pattern of association between schoolbag use or type and back pain). We were unable to pool results due to different variables and inconsistent results. Summary/conclusion There is no convincing evidence that aspects of schoolbag use increase the risk of back pain in children and adolescents.