Dataset Information

Acute low back pain is marked by variability: An internet-based pilot study.

ABSTRACT: Pain variability in acute LBP has received limited study. The objectives of this pilot study were to characterize fluctuations in pain during acute LBP, to determine whether self-reported 'flares' of pain represent discrete periods of increased pain intensity, and to examine whether the frequency of flares was associated with back-related disability outcomes.We conducted a cohort study of acute LBP patients utilizing frequent serial assessments and Internet-based data collection. Adults with acute LBP (lasting ?3 months) completed questionnaires at the time of seeking care, and at both 3-day and 1-week intervals, for 6 weeks. Back pain was measured using a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), and disability was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). A pain flare was defined as 'a period of increased pain lasting at least 2 hours, when your pain intensity is distinctly worse than it has been recently'. We used mixed-effects linear regression to model longitudinal changes in pain intensity, and multivariate linear regression to model associations between flare frequency and disability outcomes.42 of 47 participants (89%) reported pain flares, and the average number of discrete flare periods per patient was 3.5 over 6 weeks of follow-up. More than half of flares were less than 4 hours in duration, and about 75% of flares were less than one day in duration. A model with a quadratic trend for time best characterized improvements in pain. Pain decreased rapidly during the first 14 days after seeking care, and leveled off after about 28 days. Patients who reported a pain flare experienced an almost 3-point greater current NPRS than those not reporting a flare (mean difference [SD] 2.70 [0.11]; p < 0.0001). Higher flare frequency was independently associated with a higher final ODI score (ß [SE} 0.28 (0.08); p = 0.002).Acute LBP is characterized by variability. Patients with acute LBP report multiple distinct flares of pain, which correspond to discrete increases in pain intensity. A higher flare frequency is associated with worse disability outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Suri P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3198993 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Acute low back pain is marked by variability: An internet-based pilot study.

Suri Pradeep P Rainville James J Fitzmaurice Garrett M GM Katz Jeffrey N JN Jamison Robert N RN Martha Julia J Hartigan Carol C Limke Janet J Jouve Cristin C Hunter David J DJ

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20111005

<h4>Background</h4>Pain variability in acute LBP has received limited study. The objectives of this pilot study were to characterize fluctuations in pain during acute LBP, to determine whether self-reported 'flares' of pain represent discrete periods of increased pain intensity, and to examine whether the frequency of flares was associated with back-related disability outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cohort study of acute LBP patients utilizing frequent serial assessments and Internet-bas ...[more]

PMID: 21974962

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chronic pain, especially back pain, is a prevalent condition that is associated with disability, poor health status, anxiety and depression, decreased quality of life, and increased health services use and costs. Current evidence suggests that exercise is an effective strategy for managing chronic pain. However, there are few clinical programs that use generally available tools and a relatively low-cost approach to help patients with chronic back pain initiate and maintain an exercise program.The objective of the study was to determine whether a pedometer-based, Internet-mediated intervention can reduce chronic back pain-related disability.A parallel group randomized controlled trial was conducted with 1:1 allocation to the intervention or usual care group. 229 veterans with nonspecific chronic back pain were recruited from one Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Participants randomized to the intervention received an uploading pedometer and had access to a website that provided automated walking goals, feedback, motivational messages, and social support through an e-community (n=111). Usual care participants (n=118) also received the uploading pedometer but did not receive the automated feedback or have access to the website. The primary outcome was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) at 6 months (secondary) and 12 months (primary) with a difference in mean scores of at least 2 considered clinically meaningful. Both a complete case and all case analysis, using linear mixed effects models, were conducted to assess differences between study groups at both time points.Baseline mean RDQ scores were greater than 9 in both groups. Primary outcome data were provided by approximately 90% of intervention and usual care participants at both 6 and 12 months. At 6 months, average RDQ scores were 7.2 for intervention participants compared to 9.2 for usual care, an adjusted difference of 1.6 (95% CI 0.3-2.8, P=.02) for the complete case analysis and 1.2 (95% CI -0.09 to 2.5, P=.07) for the all case analysis. A post hoc analysis of patients with baseline RDQ scores ?4 revealed even larger adjusted differences between groups at 6 months but at 12 months the differences were no longer statistically significant.Intervention participants, compared with those receiving usual care, reported a greater decrease in back pain-related disability in the 6 months following study enrollment. Between-group differences were especially prominent for patients reporting greater baseline levels of disability but did not persist over 12 months. Primarily, automated interventions may be an efficient way to assist patients with managing chronic back pain; additional support may be needed to ensure continuing improvements.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00694018; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00694018 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6IsG4Y90E).

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) affects millions of people worldwide, and misconceptions about effective treatment options for this condition are very common. Websites sponsored by organizations recognized as trustworthy by the public, such as government agencies, hospitals, universities, professional associations, health care organizations and consumer organizations are an important source of health information for many people. However, the content of these websites regarding treatment recommendations for LBP has not been fully evaluated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the credibility, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations for LBP in noncommercial, freely accessible websites.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of websites from government agencies, hospitals, universities, professional associations, health care organizations and consumer organizations. We conducted searches on Google. Treatment recommendations were coded based on the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the 2017 American College of Physicians guideline on LBP. Primary outcomes were credibility of the website (4-item Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark), accuracy (proportion of website treatment recommendations that were appropriate), and comprehensiveness of website treatment recommendations (proportion of guideline treatment recommendations that were appropriately covered by a website).ResultsWe included 79 websites from 6 English-speaking countries. In terms of credibility, 31% (25/79) of the websites clearly disclosed that they had been updated after the publication of the NICE guidelines. Only 43.28% (487/1125) website treatment recommendations were judged as accurate. Comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations correctly covered by websites was very low across all types of LBP. For acute LBP, an average of 28% (4/14) guideline recommendations were correctly covered by websites. Websites for radicular LBP were the least comprehensive, correctly covering an average of 16% (2.3/14) recommendations.ConclusionsNoncommercial freely accessible websites demonstrated low credibility standards, provided mostly inaccurate information, and lacked comprehensiveness across all types of LBP.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a long-term health condition with an unpredictable pattern of symptomatic episodes, remission, and recurrence. Recently published systematic reviews suggest that exercise is the most effective intervention for preventing recurrences of LBP in persons that have recovered. Similar programs may also be effective in preventing flare-ups in persistent LBP. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of the Back to Living Well program (Physical activity + Education + Self-management) developed to prevent recurrence or flare-ups of LBP. The study evaluated feasibility in terms of recruitment rate, adherence, satisfaction with the exercise and education sessions, and the data collection procedures. We also aimed to evaluate barriers and facilitators to the engagement in the program.MethodsSeventeen participants with non-specific LBP recently discharged from care from physiotherapy, chiropractors or physician care (< 3 months) were referred to the study by health care providers or community advertisements between December 2018 and February 2019. Participants underwent a 12-week (1 session/week) individualized, group-based exercise in the community and 4 sessions (30 min each) of education. All participants completed an action plan weekly for 12 weeks and wore an activity monitor for 6 months. All participants responded to weekly pain measures and completed study questionnaires at baseline, 3- and 6-months. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, attrition rates and satisfaction. At the end of the intervention, participants completed an end-of-program survey.ResultsTwenty-nine participants were screened for eligibility; 20 were deemed eligible, while 17 were included over a 2-month period meeting our feasibility targets. In total, 16 completed follow-up study questionnaires at 3 months, and 15 completed the 6-month follow-up. Fourteen participants responded to weekly messages, while 3 participants reported not having a mobile device or Internet access. In total, 15 participants responded to our end-of-program survey. Average age was 54.9 (11.7); 9 were female (53%), and the mean duration of LBP was 62.9 (69.7) months. All satisfaction responses in relation to the exercise program, education program and data collection procedures reached our threshold of 70% out of 100%. Reported barriers to engagement in the program included fear of injury, lack of motivation and travel. Facilitators included proximity to home, low cost, flexible schedule and friendly location.ConclusionThe results show the program is feasible in terms of recruitment, low attrition, and patient satisfaction. Participants highlighted the excellent, relevant education program and the positive, personalized exercise. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention within a fully powered randomized controlled trial.Trial registrationNCT03328689.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify suggestions for future research on spinal movement variability (SMV) in individuals with low back pain (LBP) by investigating (1) the methodologies and statistical tools used to assess SMV; (2) characteristics that influence the direction of change in SMV; (3) the methodological quality and potential biases in the published studies; and (4) strategies for optimizing SMV in LBP patients.MethodsWe searched literature databases (CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) and comprehensively reviewed the relevant papers up to 5 May 2020. Eligibility criteria included studies investigating SMV in LBP subjects by measuring trunk angle using motion capture devices during voluntary repeated trunk movements in any plane. The Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias tool was used for data quality assessment. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.ResultsEighteen studies were included: 14 cross-sectional and 4 prospective studies. Seven linear and non-linear statistical tools were used. Common movement tasks included trunk forward bending and backward return, and object lifting. Study results on SMV changes associated with LBP were inconsistent. Two of the three interventional studies reported changes in SMV, one of which was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving neuromuscular exercise interventions. Many studies did not account for the potential risk of selection bias in the LBP population.ConclusionDesigners of future studies should recognize that each of the two types of statistical tools assesses functionally different aspects of SMV. Future studies should also consider dividing participants into subgroups according to LBP characteristics, as three potential subgroups with different SMV characteristics were proposed in our study. Different task demands also produced different effects. We found preliminary evidence in a RCT that neuromuscular exercises could modify SMV, suggesting a rationale for well-designed RCTs involving neuromuscular exercise interventions in future studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low back pain (LBP) is common, costly, and disabling. This study assesses a novel and simple LBP evaluation method and its merit in guiding the direction of a self-treatment exercise. METHODS:Randomized open-label intention is used to treat the study. Consecutive patients with LBP ≥ three months and pain ≥ 5/10 were evaluated in a Vancouver clinic with the sacroiliac forward flexion test (SIFFT) by comparing the height of posterior superior iliac spines using a level. Those with asymmetry ≥ 5 mm were offered participation. The assistant, who generated and encrypted the randomization, assigned participants: group 1 learned a two-minute, SIFFT-derived, sacroiliac-leveling exercise (SIFFT-E) as needed for LBP relief; group 2 used a pelvic stabilization belt as needed to prevent LBP, and group 3 continued the usual care. After one month, all participants used SIFFT-E and belt as needed for one month. The identifier number of this article in Clinicaltrials.gov is #NCT03888235. The trial is closed. Our primary outcome measure was the Oswestry disability index (ODI) (decrease) from baseline to one and two months. We also followed SIFFT improvement (decrease). FINDINGS:Of 72 LBP patients, 62 (86%) had ≥ 5 mm asymmetry. From zero to one month, the 21 (one dropout) SIFFT-E participants outperformed the 20 usual care participants for ODI improvement (12.5 ± 14.8 vs. -3.4 ± 14.9 points; mean difference 15.9 [CI 6.7-25.0]; P = 0.002 with number needed to treat (NNT) of 3.0 for ODI improvement ≥ 11). Belt use results were intermediate. At two months, after all the 62 participants used the exercise and belt as needed, combined ODI improvements were clinically significant (12.0 ± 18.4 points), and SIFFT asymmetry was reduced by 8.6 ± 8.6 mm. Five (8%) exercise and 12 (19%) belt wearers experienced mild side effects. INTERPRETATION:Sacroiliac asymmetry appears to be frequent. SIFFT may be clinically useful as an evaluation tool for prescribing a simple self-directed corrective exercise as seen by clinically significant improvements in function and asymmetry.

Dataset Information

Acute low back pain is marked by variability: An internet-based pilot study.

Publications

Acute low back pain is marked by variability: An internet-based pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets