scholarly journals PSU5 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING INTRADISCAL ELECTROTHERMAL THERAPY (IDET) OR SPINAL FUSION FOR DISCOGENIC LOW BACK PAIN

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. A475
Author(s):  
GB Andersson ◽  
NA Mekhail ◽  
JE Block
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Low Back Pain ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Pharmacological target therapy of neuropathic pain and patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain in Korea

Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (35) ◽  
pp. e11919
Author(s):  
Jae Taek Hong ◽  
Jin-Hwan Kim ◽  
Keun-Su Kim ◽  
Chong-Suh Lee ◽  
Hyun-Chul Shin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Target Therapy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pharmacological Target

scholarly journals Prevalence of Neuropathic Pain and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Korean Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain Resulting from Neuropathic Low Back Pain

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 917-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Hwan Kim ◽  
Jae Taek Hong ◽  
Chong-Suh Lee ◽  
Keun-Su Kim ◽  
Kyung-Soo Suk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Functional Disability ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eq Vas

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>A noninterventional, multicenter, cross-sectional study.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>We investigated the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the quality of life (QoL) and functional disability in Korean adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP).</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>Among patients with CLBP, 20%–55% had NP.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Patients older than 20 years with CLBP lasting for longer than three months, with a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score higher than four, and with pain medications being used for at least four weeks before enrollment were recruited from 27 general hospitals between December 2014 and May 2015. Medical chart reviews were performed to collect demographic/clinical features and diagnosis of NP (douleur neuropathique 4, DN4). The QoL (EuroQoL 5-dimension, EQ-5D; EQ-VAS) and functional disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, QBPDS) were determined through patient surveys. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to compare PROs between the NP (DN4≥4) and non-NP (DN4&lt;4) groups.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>A total of 1,200 patients (females: 65.7%; mean age: 63.4±13.0 years) were enrolled. The mean scores of EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and QBPDS were 0.5±0.3, 55.7±19.4, and 40.4±21.1, respectively. Among all patients, 492 (41.0%; 95% confidence interval, 38.2%–43.8%) suffered from NP. The prevalence of NP was higher in male patients (46.8%; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01), in patients who had pain based on radiological and neurological findings (59.0%; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01), and in patients who had severe pain (49.0%; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01). There were significant mean differences in EQ-5D (NP group vs. non-NP group: 0.4±0.3 vs. 0.5±0.3; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01) and QBPDS (NP group vs. non-NP group: 45.8±21.2 vs. 36.3±20.2; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01) scores. In the multiple linear regression, patients with NP showed lower EQ-5D (β=−0.1; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01) and higher QBPDS (β=7.0; <italic>p</italic>&lt;0.01) scores than those without NP.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>NP was highly prevalent in Korean patients with CLBP. Patients with CLBP having NP had a lower QoL and more severe dysfunction than those without NP. To enhance the QoL and functional status of patients with CLBP, this study highlights the importance of appropriately diagnosing and treating NP.</p></sec>

scholarly journals “Keep it simple”: Perspectives of patients with low back pain on how to qualify a patient‐centred consultation using patient‐reported outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-326
Author(s):  
Charlotte Ibsen ◽  
Berit Schiøttz‐Christensen ◽  
Thomas Maribo ◽  
Claus Vinther Nielsen ◽  
Mogens Hørder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient Reported

Spinal fusion for chronic low back pain: systematic review on the accuracy of tests for patient selection

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C. Willems ◽  
J. Bart Staal ◽  
Geert H.I.M. Walenkamp ◽  
Rob A. de Bie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back

Effect of a Waiting Room Communication Strategy on Imaging Rates and Awareness of Public Health Messages for Low Back Pain

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sweekriti Sharma ◽  
Adrian C Traeger ◽  
Elise Tcharkhedian ◽  
Paul M Middleton ◽  
Louise Cullen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Communication Strategy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Waiting Room ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Campaign Messages

Abstract Background Few studies have investigated the effects of waiting room communication strategies on healthcare behavior. We aimed to determine the effect of a waiting room communication strategy, designed to raise awareness of potential harms of unnecessary imaging, on lumbar imaging rates in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods We conducted a controlled experimental study with BABA or ‘replicated time series’ design. Design included a 6-week run-in time. Following this there were alternating one-week intervention and control periods. The intervention group received a communication strategy describing the potential harms of unnecessary imaging for low back pain, shown on the same 55” screen as the standard messaging. The communication strategy was designed by a creative innovation agency and included five digital posters and a patient leaflet. The control group received standard messaging for the waiting room at the time, shown on a 55” LCD screen, and the patient leaflet. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of people presenting to ED with low back pain who received at least one lumbar imaging test, measured using routinely collected ED data. Secondary patient-reported outcomes (patient satisfaction, awarenesss of campaign messages) were collected from a sample of people presenting for any condition who responded to a text message-based survey. Results For the imaging outcome, 337 people presenting to ED with low back pain were included over a 4-month period (intervention n= 99; control n= 238). All had available data on lumbar imaging. Use of lumbar imaging was 25% in those exposed to the communication strategy (95% CI= 18% to 35%) compared with 29% in those exposed to the standard waiting room messaging (95% CI= 23% to 35%) (OR= 0.83; 95% CI= 0.49 to 1.41). For the patient-reported outcomes, 349 patients presenting to ED for any condition responded to the survey (intervention n=170; control n=179; response rate =33%). There was uncertain evidence that the intervention increased awareness of the communication strategy leaflet (OR= 2.00, 95% CI= 0.90 to 4.47). Other measures did not suggest between-group differences in patient satisfaction or awareness of the campaign messages. Conclusion A communication strategy displayed in the emergency department waiting room may slightly reduce the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive lumbar imaging; though there is uncertainty due to imprecision. The campaign did not appear to increase awareness of campaign messages or affect patient satisfaction in a sample of patients presenting to the ED for any reason. Larger studies should investigate whether simple, low-cost waiting room communication strategies can raise awareness of unnecessary healthcare and influence healthcare quality. Trial registration : ACTRN12620000300976, 05/03/2020

Psychometric Properties of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in Patients with Low-Back Pathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. e20200042
Author(s):  
Goris Nazari ◽  
Pavlos Bobos ◽  
Steve Lu ◽  
Stephanie Reischl ◽  
Pedro H. Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Functional Scale ◽  
Patient Reported

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis identifies, critically appraises, synthesizes, and meta-analyses the reported psychometric properties of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with low back pain or pathology. Method: The MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases were searched from their inception to September 2019. We included prospective measurement studies that reported on the psychometric properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness) of the PSFS in people with low back pain or pathology. We followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments 2018 guideline for systematic reviews. We performed both quantitative and qualitative syntheses in which the results were summarized on the basis of the reported measurement properties and study quality. Results: Ten eligible studies were included. The pooled PSFS reliability measure was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.95). Validity measures displayed correlations that ranged from −0.47 to 0.69 when compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or other tests. Eight studies had assessed the responsiveness of the PSFS. Effect sizes reported were large (≥ 0.91). Conclusions: The PSFS is a reliable, valid, and responsive PROM for patients with low back pain or pathology.

scholarly journals ‘Progressive-Onset’ versus Injury-Associated Discogenic Low Back Pain: Features of Disc Internal Derangement in Patients Studied with Provocation Lumbar Discography

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.S. Bartynski ◽  
L.M. Dejohn ◽  
W.E. Rothfus ◽  
P.C. Gerszten
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Internal Derangement ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Equal Frequency ◽  
Discogenic Low Back Pain ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Radial Fissure ◽  
Ct Features

Chronic low back pain (LBP) can be ‘progressive onset’ or injury-related. This study compares the patient-reported cause of chronic LBP to features of disc internal derangement at painful concordant discs evaluated by provocation lumbar discography. Concordant LBP was identified in 114 patients with chronic LBP studied by provocation discography. LBP cause, discogram pain response and discogram/post-discogram CT features of internal derangement were retrospectively reviewed. ‘Progressive-onset’ LBP was reported in 32 (28%) patients, injury-related LBP in 75 (66%) with LBP equated to non-specific causes in seven. Injury-related LBP was more commonly identified in men (52 of 63 [83%]) with women reporting near-equal frequency of ‘progressive-onset’ (23 of 44 [52%]) and injury-related (21 of 44 [48%]) LBP (p=0.002). In 172 concordant painful discs, near-equal frequency of severely degenerative (Dallas grade-3: 82 of 172 [47.3%]) and full-thickness radial fissure discs (Dallas grade-3: 90 of 172 [52.7%]) were identified. Women with ‘progressive-onset’ LBP demonstrated more frequent severely degenerative discs (24 of 37 [65%]); women with injury-related LBP demonstrated more frequent radial-defect discs (21 of 31 [68%]; p=0.01). In men with injury-related LBP, severe degeneration-only (44 of 89 [49%]) and radial defect discs (45 of 89 [51%] were seen with equal frequency. In men with ‘progressive-onset’ LBP, radial defects are more common (11 of 15 [73%]). ‘Progressive-onset’ and injury-related chronic LBP subgroups are definable. Gender-related differences in incidence and internal derangement features at concordant discs are identified at discogram/post-discogram CT. These differences may have implications related to LBP origin/treatment-response.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document