Gerard P. Brennan

Identifying subgroups of patients with acute/subacute nonspecific low back pain : Results of a randomized clinical trial

Study Design. Randomized clinical trial. Objective. Compare outcomes of patients with low back pain receiving treatments matched or unmatched to their subgrouping based on initial clinical presentation. Summary of Background Data. Patients with “nonspecific” low back pain are often viewed as a homogeneous group, equally likely to respond to any particular intervention. Others have proposed methods for subgrouping patients as a means for determining the treatment most likely to benefit patients with particular characteristics. Methods. Patients with low back pain of less than 90 days’ duration referred to physical therapy were examined before treatment and classified into one of three subgroups based on the type of treatment believed most likely to benefit the patient (manipulation, stabilization exercise, or specific exercise). Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation, stabilization exercises, or specific exercise treatment during a 4-week treatment period. Disability was assessed in the short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (1 year) using the Oswestry. Comparisons were made between patients receiving treatment matched to their subgroup, versus those receiving unmatched treatment. Results. A total of 123 patients participated (mean age, 37.7 ± 10.7 years; 45% female). Patients receiving matched treatments experienced greater short- and long-term reductions in disability than those receiving unmatched treatments. After 4 weeks, the difference favoring the matched treatment group was 6.6 Oswestry points (95% CI, 0.70–12.5), and at long-term follow-up the difference was 8.3 points (95% CI, 2.5–14.1). Compliers-only analysis of long-term outcomes yielded a similar result. Conclusions. Nonspecific low back pain should not be viewed as a homogenous condition. Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making.

An Examination of the Reliability of a Classification Algorithm for Subgrouping Patients With Low Back Pain

Study Design. Test-retest design to examine interrater reliability. Objective. Examine the interrater reliability of individual examination items and a classification decision-making algorithm using physical therapists with varying levels of experience. Summary of Background Data. Classifying patients based on clusters of examination findings has shown promise for improving outcomes. Examining the reliability of examination items and the classification decision-making algorithm may improve the reproducibility of classification methods. Methods. Patients with low back pain less than 90 days in duration participating in a randomized trial were examined on separate days by different examiners. Interrater reliability of individual examination items important for classification was examined in clinically stable patients using kappa coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients. The findings from the first examination were used to classify each patient using the decision-making algorithm by clinicians with varying amounts of experience. The reliability of the classification algorithm was examined with kappa coefficients. Results. A total of 123 patients participated (mean age 37.7 [±10.7] years, 44% female), 60 (49%) remained stable between examinations. Reliability of range of motion, centralization/peripheralization judgments with flexion and extension, and the instability test were moderate to excellent. Reliability of centralization/peripheralization judgments with repeated or sustained extension or aberrant movement judgments were fair to poor. Overall agreement on classification decisions was 76% (kappa = 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.56, 0.64), with no significant differences based on level of experience. Conclusion. Reliability of the classification algorithm was good. Further research is needed to identify sources of disagreements and improve reproducibility.

Preliminary Examination of a Proposed Treatment-Based Classification System for Patients Receiving Physical Therapy Interventions for Neck Pain

Background and Purpose Neck pain frequently is managed by physical therapists. The development of classification methods for matching interventions to subgroups of patients may improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to describe a proposed classification system for patients with neck pain by examining data for consecutive patients receiving physical therapy interventions. Subjects and Methods Standardized methods for collecting baseline and intervention data were used for all patients receiving physical therapy interventions for neck pain over 1 year. Outcome variables were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric pain rating, and number of visits. Treatment was provided at the discretion of the physical therapist. After the completion of treatment, each patient was classified by use of baseline variables. The interventions received by the patient were categorized as being matched or not matched to the classification. Outcomes for patients who received matched interventions were compared with those for patients who received nonmatched interventions. The interrater reliability of the classification algorithm was examined with a subset of 50 patients. Results A total of 274 patients were included in this study (74% women; age [X̄±SD]=44.4±16.0 years). The most common classification was centralization (34.7%); next were exercise and conditioning (32.8%) and mobility (17.5%). The interrater reliability for classification decisions was high (kappa=.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87–1.0). A total of 113 patients (41.2%) received interventions matched to the classification. Receiving matched interventions was associated with greater improvements in the NDI (mean difference=5.6 points, 95% CI=2.6–8.6) and in pain ratings (mean difference=0.74 point, 95% CI=0.21–1.3) than receiving nonmatched interventions. Discussion and Conclusion The development of classification methods for patients with neck pain may improve the outcomes of physical therapy intervention. This study was done to examine a previously proposed classification system for patients receiving physical therapy interventions for neck pain. Receiving interventions matched to the classification system was associated with better outcomes than receiving nonmatched interventions. Although the design of this study prohibited drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the system, the results suggest that further research on the system may be warranted.

Is there a subgroup of patients with low back pain likely to benefit from mechanical traction? Results of a randomized clinical trial and subgrouping analysis.

Study Design. Randomized Clinical Trial. Objective. To identify a subgroup of patients with low back pain who are likely to respond favorably to an intervention including mechanical traction. Summary of Background Data. Previous research has failed to find evidence supporting traction for patients with low back pain. Previous studies have used heterogeneous samples, although clinical experts tend to recommend traction for a more limited subgroup of patients with low back pain. Methods. Sixty-four subjects (mean age 41.1 year, 56.3% female) with low back and leg pain and signs of nerve root compression were randomized to receive a 6-week extension-oriented intervention with or without mechanical traction during the first 2 weeks. Between-group comparisons were conducted for changes in pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs. Baseline variables were explored for potential as subgrouping criteria defining a subgroup of subjects likely to benefit from traction. Results. The group receiving traction showed greater improvements in disability (adjusted mean difference in Oswestry change 7.2 points) and fear-avoidance beliefs (adjusted mean difference in FABQPA change 2.6 points) after 2 weeks. There were no between-group differences after 6 weeks. Two baseline variables were associated with greater improvements with traction treatment; peripheralization with extension movements and a crossed straight leg raise. Conclusion. A subgroup of patients likely to benefit from mechanical traction may exist. The results of this study suggest this subgroup is characterized by the presence of leg symptoms, signs of nerve root compression, and either peripheralization with extension movements or a crossed straight leg raise. Further research is needed to validate this finding.

Physical therapy for acute low back pain: associations with subsequent healthcare costs.

Study Design. Case-control. Objective. To examine the association between adherence to the evidence-based recommendation for active physical therapy care and clinical outcomes along with subsequent healthcare utilization and charges for 1 year after completion of physical therapy. Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition associated with high costs. Many patients with acute LBP receive physical therapy. The type of physical therapy care provided may impact subsequent healthcare costs. Methods. A retrospective review was undertaken of patients age 18–60 with acute (<90 days) LBP receiving physical therapy covered by 1 insurance provider. Adherence to the recommendation for active care was determined from billing records. Disability (Oswestry) and pain (numerical pain rating) were assessed at the beginning and completion of physical therapy. Subsequent healthcare utilization for LBP and charges were recorded from insurer’s databases. Results. Four hundred and seventy-one patients were included (mean age 41.2 years [SD = 11.0], 54% female), 28.0% received adherent care. Patients receiving adherent care had fewer physical therapy visits (mean difference 1.3 visits, P < 0.05) with lower charges (nontransformed mean difference

Predictive validity of initial fear avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy: is the FABQ a useful screening tool for identifying patients at risk for a poor recovery?

167, P < 0.05), greater improvement in pain (mean difference 12.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.2–21.3) and disability (mean difference 17.6%, 95% CI: 11.1–24.1). During the year after discharge, receiving adherent care was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving prescription medication (46.2% vs. 57.2%, P < 0.05), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (8.3% vs. 15.9%, P < 0.05), or epidural injections (5.3% vs. 12.1%, P < 0.05). Conclusion. Adherence to the recommendation for active care was associated with better clinical outcomes and decreased subsequent use of prescription medication, MRI, and injections. Improving adherence to this recommendation may present an opportunity to improve the cost-effectiveness of care for acute LBP.

Early Physical Therapy vs Usual Care in Patients With Recent-Onset Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Several prospective studies examining patients receiving physical therapy support the predictive validity of FABQ subscale scores. This has lead to the proposition that the FABQ would be a useful screening tool, permitting early identification of patients at risk for a poor outcome with an opportunity to modify the treatment accordingly. However, the predictive validity of the FABQ within physical therapy practice has yet to be examined. Predictive validity was analyzed between the FABQ-PA, FABQ-W using both disability and pain as the dependent variables using Pearson correlation coefficients and stepwise hierarchical linear regression modeling controlling for baseline variables. Separate analyses were run for patients with private health insurance and those receiving workers’ compensation. Further analysis of predictive validity was performed by dichotomizing the outcome of physical therapy. Patients were coded as having a poor outcome if they failed to achieve a minimum clinically important change in disability over the course of treatment. The accuracy of previously reported cut-off scales for both the FABQ-W and FABQ-PA were examined for both payor types. Results of the hierarchical linear regression analyses for patients with private insurance showed neither the FABQ-PA nor the FABQ-W score significantly improved the explained variance in change in pain or disability. For patients receiving workers’ compensation, only the FABQ-W subscale score significantly contributed to the model after controlling for the other baseline variables for both changes in disability and pain. Only the FABQ-W subscale was predictive of poor outcome and this was only identified in the worker’s compensation group. The results suggest that the work subscale of the FABQ might be an appropriate screening tool to identify patients with work-related LBP who are at risk for a poor outcome with routine physical therapy. Neither FABQ subscale was predictive of outcome for patients with private insurance, and the use of the FABQ, as a screening tool for patients with non-work-related LBP was not supported.

The effects of aerobic exercise after lumbar microdiscectomy.

IMPORTANCE Low back pain (LBP) is common in primary care. Guidelines recommend delaying referrals for physical therapy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether early physical therapy (manipulation and exercise) is more effective than usual care in improving disability for patients with LBP fitting a decision rule. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial with 220 participants recruited between March 2011 and November 2013. Participants with no LBP treatment in the past 6 months, aged 18 through 60 years (mean age, 37.4 years [SD, 10.3]), an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 20 or higher, symptom duration less than 16 days, and no symptoms distal to the knee in the past 72 hours were enrolled following a primary care visit. INTERVENTIONS All participants received education. Early physical therapy (n = 108) consisted of 4 physical therapy sessions. Usual care (n = 112) involved no additional interventions during the first 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was change in the ODI score (range: 0-100; higher scores indicate greater disability; minimum clinically important difference, 6 points) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in the ODI score at 4-week and 1-year follow-up, and change in pain intensity, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) score, fear-avoidance beliefs, quality of life, patient-reported success, and health care utilization at 4-week, 3-month, and 1-year follow-up. RESULTS One-year follow-up was completed by 207 participants (94.1%). Using analysis of covariance, early physical therapy showed improvement relative to usual care in disability after 3 months (mean ODI score: early physical therapy group, 41.3 [95% CI, 38.7 to 44.0] at baseline to 6.6 [95% CI, 4.7 to 8.5] at 3 months; usual care group, 40.9 [95% CI, 38.6 to 43.1] at baseline to 9.8 [95% CI, 7.9 to 11.7] at 3 months; between-group difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -5.9 to -0.47], P = .02). A significant difference was found between groups for the ODI score after 4 weeks (between-group difference, -3.5 [95% CI, -6.8 to -0.08], P = .045]), but not at 1-year follow-up (between-group difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -5.0 to 1.0], P = .19). There was no improvement in pain intensity at 4-week, 3-month, or 1-year follow-up (between-group difference, -0.42 [95% CI, -0.90 to 0.02] at 4-week follow-up; -0.38 [95% CI, -0.84 to 0.09] at 3-month follow-up; and -0.17 [95% CI, -0.62 to 0.27] at 1-year follow-up). The PCS scores improved at 4 weeks and 3 months but not at 1-year follow-up (between-group difference, -2.7 [95% CI, -4.6 to -0.85] at 4-week follow-up; -2.2 [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.49] at 3-month follow-up; and -0.92 [95% CI, -2.7 to 0.61] at 1-year follow-up). There were no differences in health care utilization at any point. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with recent-onset LBP, early physical therapy resulted in statistically significant improvement in disability, but the improvement was modest and did not achieve the minimum clinically important difference compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01726803.

Does Continuing Education Improve Physical Therapists’ Effectiveness in Treating Neck Pain? A Randomized Clinical Trial

Study Design This study determined whether lumbar discectomy patients could endure an aerobic exercise program sufficient to achieve a training effect, and whether any functional advantages were derived. Methods. Trained volunteers (n = 19) were compared with untrained control subjects (n = 18) after a 12-week aerobic and rehabilitation exercise program. Subjects completed a maximal graded exercise test, a hydrostatic weighing test, and a battery of self-report inventories. Results. Using a discriminant analysis, as a post hoc test, maximal oxygen consumption was found to be the factor responsible for the difference between the groups (P < 0.006). Conclusion. Oxygen consumption was more than three times as important as any other single variable in differentiating between the groups.

Impact of Continuing Education Interventions on Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Neck Pain Who Received Physical Therapy

Background and Purpose: Physical therapists often attend continuing education (CE) courses to improve their overall clinical performance and patient outcomes. However, evidence suggests that CE courses may not improve the outcomes for patients receiving physical therapy for the management of neck pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of an ongoing educational intervention for improving the outcomes for patients with neck pain. Participants: The study participants were 19 physical therapists who attended a 2-day CE course focusing on the management of neck pain. All patients treated by the therapists in this study completed the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and a pain rating scale at the initial examination and at their final visit. Methods: Therapists from 11 clinics were invited to attend a 2-day CE course on the management of neck pain. After the CE course, the therapists were randomly assigned to receive either ongoing education consisting of small group sessions and an educational outreach session or no further education. Clinical outcomes achieved by therapists who received ongoing education and therapists who did not were compared for both pretraining and posttraining periods. The effects of receiving ongoing education were examined by use of linear mixed-model analyses with time period and group as fixed factors; improvements in disability and pain as dependent variables; and age, sex, and the patients initial NDI and pain rating scores as covariates. Results: Patients treated by therapists who received ongoing education experienced significantly greater reductions in disability during the study period (pretraining to posttraining) than those treated by therapists who did not receive ongoing training (mean difference=4.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.69, 7.7). Changes in pain did not differ for patients treated by the 2 groups of therapists during the study period (mean difference=0.47 point; 95% CI=−0.11, 1.0). Therapists in the ongoing education group also used fewer visits during the posttraining period (mean difference=1.5 visits; 95% CI=0.81, 2.3). Discussion and Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated that ongoing education for the management of neck pain was beneficial in reducing disability for patients with neck pain while reducing the number of physical therapy visits. However, changes in pain did not differ for patients treated by the 2 groups of therapists. Although it appears that a typical CE course does not improve the overall outcomes for patients treated by therapists attending that course, more research is needed to evaluate other educational strategies to determine the most clinically effective and cost-effective interventions.