Assessing sleep disturbance in low back pain: the validity of portable instruments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Alsaadi SM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3998977 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Low back pain (LBP) is the most common problem worldwide. There are several negative consequences of LBP, such as sleep disorders, work leave, disability, depression, anxiety, and poor quality of life. In this study, we designed to evaluate the prevalence of sleep disturbance in patients with non-specific LBP(NSLBP), and cross-correlation among sleep disorder, anxiety, depression and pain intensity in patients with NSLBP.In this study, we designed to evaluate the prevalence of sleep disturbance in patients with NSLBP, and cross-correlation among sleep disorder, anxiety, depression and pain intensity in patients with NSLBP.A cross-sectional self-assessment questionnaire survey was carried out in an outpatient clinic. Anonymous assessments were used to characterize the presence of NSLBP, PSQI, VAS, SF-36 form, ODI, BAI and BDI. Cross-correlation among the severity of NSLBP and sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression and life quality were evaluated.Patients with NSLBP have a higher incidence of sleep disorder, anxiety and depression, and higher ODI scores than healthy people without LPB (P < 0.01). NSLBP patients with sleep disorders have more severe anxiety, depression, an increased VAS score and poor daily living (P < 0.05). NSLBP patients with anxiety have declined sleep quality, poor daily living, decreased work and social skills, and increased LBP severity (P < 0.05). NSLBP patients with depression have declined sleep quality, poor daily living, decreased work and social skills (P < 0.05). Significant associations were found between the severity of NSLBP and sleep disorders, anxiety and ODI scores.Psychological and social factors play an important role in the development of NSLBP. NSLBP leads to sleep disorders, which decrease the sleep quality and increase the unpleasant emotions and memories in return; these can exacerbate the severity of LBP, with the cycle repeating to form a vicious circle.
| S-EPMC5436560 | biostudies-other
Project description:Back pain in athletes varies with sport, age, and sex, which can impair athletic performance, thereby contributing to retirement. Studies on back pain in this population use questionnaires to assess components, such as pain intensity and location and factors associated with pain, among others. This study aimed to review validated questionnaires that have assessed back pain in athletes. This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) by searching the databases Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus. The articles were selected regardless of language and date of publication. Titles and abstracts were independently selected by two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. All the steps were conducted using the software Rayyan. The methodological quality of the questionnaire validation articles was assessed using a critical appraisal tool checklist proposed by Brink and Louw. The search returned 4748 articles, of which 60 were selected for this review, including 5 questionnaire validation studies. These articles were published between 2004 and 2022, which were performed in more than 20 countries, particularly Germany (14) and Sweden (5). Thirteen different instruments were identified, of which 46.1% were developed in Europe. The most commonly used questionnaires were the Oswestry Disability Index and Nordic Standardized Questionnaire. In addition, five questionnaire validation studies were selected for methodological quality assessment, with only two studies demonstrating high methodological quality. The following three instruments were identified for assessing back pain specifically in athletes: Micheli Functional Scale, Persian Functional Rating Index, and Athlete Disability Index. This review confirmed that all three instruments were specifically designed to assess this condition.
| S-EPMC10624266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesExamine the validity of an induced pain paradigm in which people stand while performing simulated light work tasks (standing paradigm).Materials and methodsInitially, people with low back pain (LBP) reported the quality and location of their typical symptoms on a body pain diagram. Then, people with LBP and back-healthy people stood for 2 hours and reported the intensity, quality, and location of symptoms at baseline and every 15 minutes. Quality and location of typical symptoms of people with LBP were compared with their symptoms during standing. Back-healthy people were separated into pain developers (PDs) and nonpain developers. Symptom quality and location were compared between people with LBP and PDs.ResultsThere were no differences in the quality and location of typical symptoms and symptoms during standing in people with LBP (P>0.05). Three symptom descriptors were used by >30% of people with LBP to describe typical symptoms. Only 2 people with LBP used these descriptors to describe typical symptoms but not during standing. There were no differences in the quality and location of symptoms reported in standing between people with LBP and PDs (P>0.05). Four symptom descriptors were used by >30% of participants with LBP during standing. There were no symptoms reported by PDs that were not reported by people with LBP.DiscussionThis study provides evidence that symptoms experienced during the standing paradigm are similar to symptoms experienced by people with LBP and, thus, provides support for the validity of the paradigm.
| S-EPMC4344929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND CONTEXT:The US National Pain Strategy focused attention on high-impact chronic pain and its restrictions. Although many interventions have been studied for chronic low-back pain, results are typically reported for heterogeneous samples. To better understand chronic pain and target interventions to those who most need care, more granular classifications recognizing chronic pain's impact are needed. PURPOSE:To test whether chronic pain impact levels can be identified in chronic low-back pain clinical trial samples, examine the baseline patient mix across studies, and evaluate the construct validity of high-impact chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING:Descriptive analyses using 12 large study datasets. PATIENT SAMPLES:Chronic low-back pain patients in nonsurgical, nonpharmacologic trials in the US, Canada, and UK. OUTCOME MEASURES:Preference-based health utilities from the SF-6D and EQ-5D, employment status and absenteeism. METHODS:We used two logistic regression models to predict whether patients had high-impact chronic pain and whether the remainder had low- or moderate-impact chronic pain. We developed these models using two datasets. Models with the best predictive power were used to impute impact levels for six other datasets. Stratified by these estimated chronic pain impact levels, we characterized the case mix of patients at baseline in each dataset, and summarized their health-utilities and work productivity. This study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine grant. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest. RESULTS:The logistic models had excellent predictive power to identify those with high-impact chronic pain. Although studies were all of chronic low-back pain patients, the baseline mix of patients varied widely. Across all datasets, utilities, and productivity were similar for those with high-impact chronic pain and worsened as chronic pain impact increased. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to better categorize chronic pain patients to allow the targeting of optimal interventions for those with each level of chronic pain impact.
| S-EPMC6760858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is no agreement for the performance assessment of patients who practice exercises.. (2 points to withdraw) This assessment is currently left to the physiotherapist's personal judgement. We studied the agreement among physiotherapists in rating patient performance during exercises recommended for chronic low-back pain (LBP).MethodsA vignette-based method was used. We first identified ten exercises recommended for LBP in the literature. Then, 42 patients with chronic LBP participating in a rehabilitation program were videotaped during their performance of one of the ten exercises. A vignette was an exercise video preceded by clinical information. Ten physiotherapists from primary (4) and tertiary care (6) viewed the 42 vignettes twice, one month apart, and rated patient performance from zero (worse performance) to ten (excellent performance) by considering the position and duration of the contraction or stretching. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed to assess inter- and intra-rater reliability.ResultsThe overall inter-rater agreement was fair (ICC 0.48 [95% CI 0.33-0.56]) but was better for stretching exercises (0.55 [0.35-0.64]) than strengthening exercises (0.42 [0.20-0.52]) and for tertiary-care physiotherapists (0.66 [0.54-0.76]) than primary-care physiotherapists (0.28 [0.09-0.37]). The intra-rater agreement was overall good (0.72 [0.57-0.81] to 0.88 [0.79-0.94]). It was better for stretching exercises (from 0.68 [0.46-0.81] to 0.96 [0.91-0.98]) than strengthening exercises (from 0.68 [0.38-0.84]) to 0.82 [0.56-0.92]).ConclusionThe agreement in rating patient performance of exercises for LBP is good among physiotherapists trained in managing LBP but is low among non-trained physiotherapists.
| S-EPMC6064172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe provision of low-value physiotherapy services in low back pain management is a known but complex phenomenon. Thus, this scoping review aims to systematically map existing research designs and instruments of the field in order to discuss the current state of research methodologies and contextualize results to domains and perspectives of a referred low-value care typology. Ultimately, results will be illustrated and transferred to conditions of the German health care setting as care delivery conditions of physiotherapy in Germany face unique particularities.MethodsThe development of this review is guided by the analysis framework of Arksey and O'Malley. A two-stage, audited search strategy was performed in Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, and google scholar. All types of observational studies were included. Identified articles needed to address a pre-determined population, concept, and context framework and had to be published in English or German language. The publication date of included articles was not subject to any limitation. The applied framework to assess the phenomenon of low-value physiotherapy services incorporated three domains (care effectiveness; care efficiency; patient alignment of care) and perspectives (provider; patient; society) of care.ResultsThirty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-nine percent of articles focused on the appropriateness of physiotherapeutic treatments, followed by education and information (30%), the diagnostic process (15%), and goal-setting practice (12%). Study designs were predominantly cross-sectional (58%). Data sources were mainly survey instruments (67%) of which 50% were self-developed. Most studies addressed the effectiveness domain of care (73%) and the provider perspective (88%). The perspective of patient alignment was assessed by 6% of included articles. None of included articles assessed the society perspective. Four methodical approaches of included articles were rated to be transferrable to Germany.ConclusionIdentified research on low-value physiotherapy care in low back pain management was widely unidimensional. Most articles focused on the effectiveness domain of care and investigated the provider perspective. Most measures were indirectly and did not monitor low-value care trends over a set period of time. Research on low-value physiotherapy care in secondary care conditions, such as Germany, was scarce.RegistrationThis review has been registered on open science framework ( https://osf.io/vzq7k https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PMF2G ).
| S-EPMC9949696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess treatment preference and attributes of 2 exercise-based treatments for people with chronic low back pain (LBP).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAcademic research setting.ParticipantsIndividuals (N=154) with chronic LBP.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresParticipants completed a treatment preference assessment (TPA) measure that described 2 treatments for chronic LBP (strength and flexibility [SF] and motor skill training [MST]). Participants rated each treatment on 4 attributes: effectiveness, acceptability/logicality, suitability/appropriateness, and convenience. An overall score for each treatment was calculated as the mean of the 4 attribute ratings. The participants indicated either (1) no treatment preference or (2) preference for SF or MST.ResultsOne hundred four participants (67.5%) had a treatment preference; of those, 95 (91.3%) preferred SF and 9 (8.7%) preferred MST. The SF preference group rated SF higher than MST overall and on all attributes (all Ps <.01, ds ranged from .48-1.07). The MST preference group did not rate the treatments differently overall or on any of the attributes (all Ps >.05, ds ranged from .43-.66). Convenience of SF (P=.05, d=.79) and effectiveness (d=1.20), acceptability/logicality (d=1.27), and suitability/appropriateness (d=1.52) of MST (all Ps <.01) were rated differently between the 2 preference groups.ConclusionsWhen presented with 2 treatment options, a majority of patients preferred SF over MST. Convenience was a particularly important attribute affecting preference. Assessing treatment preference and attributes prior to treatment initiation allows the clinician to identify factors that may need to be addressed to enhance adherence to, and outcomes of, treatment.
| S-EPMC6650271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:For many years, low back pain has been both the leading cause of days lost from work and the leading indication for medical rehabilitation. The goal of the German Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on nonspecific low back pain is to improve the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS:The current update of the NDMG on non-specific low back pain is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search of the literature for systematic reviews. Its recommendations for diagnosis and treatment were developed by a collaborative effort of 29 scientific medical societies and organizations and approved in a formal consensus process. RESULTS:If the history and physical examination do not arouse any suspicion of a dangerous underlying cause, no further diagnostic evaluation is indicated for the time being. Passive, reactive measures should be taken only in combination with activating measures, or not at all. When drugs are used for symptomatic treatment, patients should be treated with the most suitable drug in the lowest possible dose and for as short a time as possible. CONCLUSION:A physician should be in charge of the overall care process. The patient should be kept well informed over the entire course of his or her illness and should be encouraged to adopt a healthful lifestyle, including regular physical exercise.
| S-EPMC5769319 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Individuals afflicted with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) exhibit altered fundamental movement patterns. However, there is a lack of validated analysis tools. The present study aimed to elucidate the measurement properties of a functional movement analysis (FMA) in patients with CLBP. METHODS:In this validation (cross-sectional) study, patients with CLPB completed the FMA. The FMA consists of 11 standardised motor tasks mimicking activities of daily living. Four investigators (two experts and two novices) evaluated each item using an ordinal scale (0-5 points, one live and three video ratings). Interrater reliability was computed for the total score (maximum 55 points) using intra class correlation and for the individual items using Cohen's weighted Kappa and free-marginal Kappa. Validity was estimated by calculating Spearman's Rho correlations to compare the results of the movement analysis and the participants' self-reported disability, and fear of movement. RESULTS:Twenty-one participants (12 females, 9 males; 42.7?±?14.3?years) were included. The reliability analysis for the sum score yielded ICC values between .92 and.94 (p?<?.05). The classification of individual scores are categorised 'slight' to 'almost perfect' agreement (.10-.91). No significant associations between disability or fear of movement with the overall score were found (p?>?.05). The study population showed comparably low pain levels, low scores of kinesiophobia and disability. CONCLUSION:The functional movement analysis displays excellent reliability for both, live and video rating. Due to the low levels of disability and pain in the present sample, further research is necessary to conclusively judge validity.
| S-EPMC6717644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Low back pain (LBP) is a common ailment in most developed countries. Because most cases of LBP are known as 'non-specific', it has been challenging to develop experimental pain models of LBP which reproduce patients' clinical pain. In addition, previous models have limited applicability in a steady-pain-state neuroimaging environment. Thus, this study aims to devise a low back pain model with a simple methodology to induce experimental LBP, which has similar pain properties to patients' clinical pain, and to apply the model in a steady-pain-state neuroimaging study. METHODS:Our low back extension (LBE) pain model was tested on 217 LBP patients outside the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner to determine the reproducibility of endogenous pain and the similarity to their own clinical pain (STUDY1), and applied in a steady-pain-state functional MRI study (47 LBP patients and 23 healthy controls) to determine its applicability (induced head motions and brain functional connectivity changes; STUDY2). RESULTS:By the LBE pain model, 68.2% of the LBP patients reported increased LBP with high similarity of sensations to their own clinical pain (STUDY1), and the head motions were statistically similar to and correlated with those in resting state (STUDY2). Furthermore, the LBE model altered brain functional connectivity by decreasing the default-mode and the sensorimotor networks, and increasing the salience network, which was significantly associated with the intensity of the induced pain. Conversely, the healthy controls showed increased somatosensory network (but not of the cognitive pain processing). CONCLUSION:Our investigations suggest that our LBE pain model, which increased LBP with high similarity to the LBP patients' own pain sensation and induced patient-specific brain responses with acceptable head motion, could be applied to neuroimaging studies investigating brain responses to different levels of endogenous LBP.
| S-EPMC7263586 | biostudies-literature