scholarly journals Clinical evaluation and red flags of acute low back pain in primary care

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwah Y. Abdullah ◽  
Reem A. Bana ◽  
Seham O. Aldogil ◽  
Mutlaq A. Alsolami ◽  
Reem A. Alshihri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Primary Care Settings

Back pain has been reported as a common cause for various patients to present in an emergency or primary care settings. Besides, the management of back pain has been associated with a huge economic burden and remarkably impacts the quality of life of the affected patients. The diagnosis of acute low-back pain can be adequately achieved by conducting proper clinical evaluation and knowing the characteristics of each condition. The present review discusses the clinical evaluation and red flags for diagnosing patients presenting with acute low-back pain. An adequate examination of patients is conducted by obtaining a thorough history and successful physical examination. It should be noted that obtaining an adequate history might not be enough in some cases, and physical examination might not show any diagnostic clues. However, we also reported various red flags for detecting serious conditions, including malignancy, infections, inflammation, and others. These might help establish a further assessment of these patients, including imaging and laboratory studies. Therefore, these cases should be managed as early as possible to enhance the prognosis and intervene against any potential complications. 

scholarly journals Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 3072-3080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Henschke ◽  
Christopher G. Maher ◽  
Kathryn M. Refshauge ◽  
Robert D. Herbert ◽  
Robert G. Cumming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Primary Care Settings

Quality of Primary Care Guidelines for Acute Low Back Pain

Spine ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (17) ◽  
pp. E357-E362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurits W. van Tulder ◽  
Mariska Tuut ◽  
Victoria Pennick ◽  
Claire Bombardier ◽  
Willem JJ Assendelft
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Quality Of Primary Care ◽  
Care Guidelines

scholarly journals Isokinetic Trunk Strength in Acute Low Back Pain Patients Compared to Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 2576
Author(s):  
Waleska Reyes-Ferrada ◽  
Luis Chirosa-Rios ◽  
Angela Rodriguez-Perea ◽  
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga ◽  
Ignacio Chirosa-Rios
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Isokinetic Strength ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Trunk Strength

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to: (I) determine the quality of evidence from studies assessing trunk isokinetic strength in subjects with acute low back pain (ALBP) compared to healthy subjects and (II) establish reference values of isokinetic trunk strength in subjects with ALBP. Methodology: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements were followed using keywords associated with trunk, strength and low back pain. Four databases were used: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). Results: A total of 1604 articles were retrieved, four included in this review. All were evaluated as high risk of bias (Rob). Due to the high Rob and the diversity of protocols, instruments and variables used, it was not possible to determine reference values for subjects with ALBP, we can only establish a range of flexion peak torque (PT) between 175.1 and 89.7 Nm at 60°/s and between 185 and 81.5 Nm at 120°/s, and for extension PT between 240.0 and 91.5 Nm at 60°/s and between 217.5 and 69.2 Nm at 120°/s in subjects with ALBP. Conclusions: Due to the low quality of the evidence and the diversity of protocols used when measuring trunk isokinetic strength, it is necessary to carry out new high-quality research to establish reference values of trunk strength in subjects with ALBP.

scholarly journals Prognostic ability of STarT Back Screening Tool combined with work-related factors in patients with low back pain in primary care: a prospective study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046446
Author(s):  
Monica Unsgaard-Tøndel ◽  
Ottar Vasseljen ◽  
Tom Ivar Lund Nilsen ◽  
Gard Myhre ◽  
Hilde Stendal Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Work Ability ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Related Factors

ObjectivePrimary care screening tools for patients with low back pain may improve outcome by identifying modifiable obstacles for recovery. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) consists of nine biological and psychological items, with less focus on work-related factors. We aimed at testing the prognostic ability of SBST and the effect of adding items for future and present work ability.MethodsProspective observational study in patients (n=158) attending primary care physical therapy for low back pain. The prognostic ability of SBST and the added prognostic value of two work items; expectation for future work ability and current work ability, were calculated for disability, pain and quality of life outcome at 3 months follow-up. The medium and high-risk group in the SBST were collapsed in the analyses due to few patients in the high-risk group. The prognostic ability was assessed using the explained variance (R2) of the outcomes from univariable and multivariable linear regression and beta values with 95% CIs were used to assess the prognostic value of individual items.ResultsThe SBST classified 107 (67.7%) patients as low risk and 51 (32.3%) patients as medium/high risk. SBST provided prognostic ability for disability (R2=0.35), pain (R2=0.25) and quality of life (R2=0.28). Expectation for return to work predicted outcome in univariable analyses but provided limited additional prognostic ability when added to the SBST. Present work ability provided additional prognostic ability for disability (β=−2.5; 95% CI=−3.6 to −1.4), pain (β=−0.2; 95% CI=−0.5 to −0.002) and quality of life (β=0.02; 95% CI=0.001 to 0.04) in the multivariable analyses. The explained variance (R2) when work ability was added to the SBST was 0.60, 0.49 and 0.47 for disability, pain and quality of life, respectively.ConclusionsAdding one work ability item to the SBST gives additional prognostic information across core outcomes.Clinical trial number:NCT03626389

scholarly journals Acute low back pain management in primary care: a simulated patient approach

2015 ◽  
pp. cmv030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Lorenzo ◽  
Pauline Schildt ◽  
Mathieu Lorenzo ◽  
Hector Falcoff ◽  
Fréderique Noel
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Simulated Patient ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain Management

The Outcomes and Costs of Care for Acute Low Back Pain among Patients Seen by Primary Care Practitioners, Chiropractors, and Orthopedic Surgeons

1995 ◽  
Vol 333 (14) ◽  
pp. 913-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy S. Carey ◽  
Joanne Garrett ◽  
Anne Jackman ◽  
Curtis McLaughlin ◽  
John Fryer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Acute Low Back Pain ◽  
Costs Of Care ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document