Prognosis and Course of Disability in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A 5- and 12-Month Follow-up Cohort Study

Background Few data are available on the course of and predictors for disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). Objective The purpose of this study was to describe the course of disability and identify clinically important prognostic factors of low-back-pain–specific disability in patients with CNSLBP receiving multidisciplinary therapy. Design A prospective cohort study was conducted. Methods A total of 1,760 patients with CNSLBP who received multidisciplinary therapy were evaluated for their course of disability and prognostic factors at baseline and at 2-, 5-, and 12-month follow-ups. Recovery was defined as 30% reduction in low back pain–specific disability at follow-up compared with baseline and as absolute recovery if the score on the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) was ≤20 points at follow-up. Potential prognostic factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Mean patient-reported disability scores on the QBPDS ranged from 51.7 (SD=15.6) at baseline to 31.7 (SD=15.2), 31.1 (SD=18.2), and 29.1 (SD=20.0) at 2, 5, and 12 months, respectively. The prognostic factors identified for recovery at 5 and 12 months were younger age and high scores on disability and on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (Physical and Mental Component Summaries) at baseline. In addition, at 5-month follow-up, a shorter duration of complaints was a positive predictor, and having no comorbidity and less pain at baseline were additional predictors at 12-month follow-up. Limitations Missing values at 5- and 12-month follow-ups were 11.1% and 45.2%, respectively. Conclusion After multidisciplinary treatment, the course of disability in patients with CNSLBP continued to decline over a 12-month period. At 5- and 12-month follow-ups, prognostic factors were identified for a clinically relevant decrease in disability scores on the QBPDS.

Download Full-text

Identifying prognostic factors to determine the level of recovery in servicemembers with chronic low back pain: a prospective cohort study.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-23472/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bianca Maria Pietertje Mourits ◽

Mariette Zwanette Meulekamp ◽

Peter van der Wurff ◽

Cees Lucas

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Back Pain ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Rehabilitation Program ◽

Service Members ◽

Low Back ◽

Regression Analyses

Abstract Background In the Dutch Armed Forces (DAF), low back pain is the third most reported musculoskeletal disorder. For the prognosis of chronic low back pain (CLBP) only limited evidence is available. This observation results in a lack of clarity on prognostic factors that might affect recovery from CLBP in service members.The main objective is to identify general and military-related factors that are associated with the level of recovery in DAF service members with CLBP who followed a rehabilitation program. Methods One hundred five consecutive service members with CLBP who completed the rehabilitation program have been included in this prospective observational cohort study. The primary outcome measurement, level of disability, was used to distinguish a recovered and non-recovered group. Level of pain and self-perceived recovery were used as secondary outcome measurements. Disability and pain were measured at baseline and 12 weeks follow-up and self-perceived recovery only at follow-up. Differences were evaluated within and between the groups using the Student’s t-test, according to the normality of the data distribution. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were used for identifying the prognostic factors related to various outcomes of recovery. Results After following the rehabilitation program, 64.8% of the service members recovered from CLBP. In the recovered group, there are significant effect sizes of -6.72 (CI: -7.57 - -5.87) in the level of disability and − 2.58 (CI: -3.17- -1.98) in level of pain, whereas the non-recovered group shows a non-significant effect size of -0.49 (CI: -1.27 - -0.29) in level of disability and a significant effect size of -0.94 (CI: -1.62 - -0.25) in level of pain. The self-perceived recovery in the recovered group is on average “much improved” and in the non-recovered group “slightly improved”. The results of the bivariate regression analyses show no significant independent prognostic factors related to recovery. Conclusion In this study, no significant independent prognostic factors could be identified that are associated to the various outcomes of recovery in service members with CLBP who followed a rehabilitation program.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L versions in low back pain patients

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes ◽

10.1186/s12955-021-01792-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

A. M. Garratt ◽

H. Furunes ◽

C. Hellum ◽

T. Solberg ◽

J. I. Brox ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Missing Data ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Low Back ◽

Improve Measurement ◽

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Ceiling Effects

Abstract Background The EuroQol EQ-5D is one of the most widely researched and applied patient-reported outcome measures worldwide. The original EQ-5D-3L and more recent EQ-5D-5L include three and five response categories respectively. Evidence from healthy and sick populations shows that the additional two response categories improve measurement properties but there has not been a concurrent comparison of the two versions in patients with low back pain (LBP). Methods LBP patients taking part in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of lumbar total disc replacement and conservative treatment completed the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in an eight-year follow-up questionnaire. The 3L and 5L were assessed for aspects of data quality including missing data, floor and ceiling effects, response consistency, and based on a priori hypotheses, associations with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Pain-Visual Analogue Scales and Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25). Results At the eight-year follow-up, 151 (87%) patients were available and 146 completed both the 3L and 5L. Levels of missing data were the same for the two versions. Compared to the EQ-5D-5L, the 3L had significantly higher floor (pain discomfort) and ceiling effects (mobility, self-care, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression). For these patients the EQ-5D-5L described 73 health states compared to 28 for the 3L. Shannon’s indices showed the 5L outperformed the 3L in tests of classification efficiency. Correlations with the ODI, Pain-VAS and HSCL-25 were largely as hypothesized, the 5L having slightly higher correlations than the 3L. Conclusion The EQ-5D assesses important aspect of health in LBP patients and the 5L improves upon the 3L in this respect. The EQ-5D-5L is recommended in preference to the 3L version, however, further testing in other back pain populations together with additional measurement properties, including responsiveness to change, is recommended. Trial registration: retrospectively registered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01704677.

Download Full-text