Dataset Information

Distinguishing chronic low back pain in young adults with mild to moderate pain and disability using trunk compliance.

ABSTRACT: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) rates among younger individuals are rising. Although pain and disability are often less severe, underlying changes in trunk behavior may be responsible for recurrence. We examine the biomarker capacity of a simple Trunk Compliance Index (TCI) to distinguish individuals with and without cLBP. A random subset (n = 49) of the RELIEF RCT were matched to healthy controls for sex, age, height and weight. We measured TCI (as displacement/ weight-normalized perturbation force) using anthropometrically-matched, suddenly-applied pulling perturbations to the trunk segment, randomized across three planes of motion (antero-posterior, medio-lateral, and rotational). Mean differences between cLBP, sex and perturbation direction were assessed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Discriminatory accuracy of TCI was assessed using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Baseline characteristics between groups were equivalent (x̅ [range]): sex (57% female / group), age (23.0 [18-45], 22.8 [18-45]), height, cm (173.0 [156.5-205], 171.3 [121.2-197], weight, kg (71.8 [44.5-116.6], 71.7 [46.8-117.5]) with cLBP associated with significantly lower TCI for 5 of 6 directions (range mean difference, - 5.35: - 1.49, range 95% CI [- 6.46: - 2.18 to - 4.35: - 0.30]. Classification via ROC showed that composite TCI had high discriminatory potential (area under curve [95% CI], 0.90 [0.84-0.96]), driven by TCI from antero-posterior perturbations (area under curve [95% CI], 0.99 [0.97-1.00]). Consistent reductions in TCI suggests global changes in trunk mechanics that may go undetected in classic clinical examination. Evaluation of TCI in younger adults with mild pain and disability may serve as a biomarker for chronicity, leading to improved preventative measures in cLBP.Trial Registration and Funding RELIEF is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01854892) and funded by the NIH National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (R01AT006978).

SUBMITTER: Stamenkovic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8026630 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Manual therapy is a common treatment of LBP, yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs nonthrust (spinal mobilization) techniques. Objective:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP. Design, Setting, and Participants:This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Recruitment began on June 1, 2013, and the primary completion date was August 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, to January 20, 2020. Interventions:Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period. Main Outcomes and Measures:Coprimary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments. Results:A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized. Fifty-four participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group, 54 to the spinal mobilization group, and 54 to the placebo group. There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P?=?.45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P?=?.92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P?=?.39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P?=?.14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P?=?.92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P?=?.17). Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01854892.

Project description:Objectives: Numerous recently published clinical care guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) Guideline for Low Back Pain (LBP), call for nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. However, little data exist regarding the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted by patients and medical doctors. The study objective was to determine patient-reported treatment recommendations by medical doctors for LBP and patient compliance with those recommendations. Design: This study used a cross-sectional web and mail survey. Settings/Location: The study was conducted among Gallup Panel members across the United States. Subjects: Survey participants included 5377 U.S. adults randomly selected among Gallup Panel members. Of those, 545 reported a visit to a medical doctor within the past year for low back pain and were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding treatment recommendations. Interventions: Participants were asked about medical doctor recommendations for both drug (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, and cortisone injections) and nondrug (self-care treatments, massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and physical therapy) treatments. Outcome Measures: Participants were asked to indicate if their medical doctor recommended each drug and nondrug therapy for their LBP and if they had followed each of those treatment recommendations. Results: Ninety-six percent of patients who visited a medical doctor for LBP received a recommendation for one or more pain treatments, with 81% reporting that their medical doctor recommended both drug and nondrug therapies. Seventy-six percent of respondents were recommended acetaminophen or NSAIDs, 79% were recommended self-care treatments, 37% were recommended massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation, and 60% were recommended physical therapy. Nearly two-thirds of our sample reported that their doctor had recommended prescription medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, or cortisone injections. Reported adherence to treatment recommendations ranged from 68% for acupuncture to 94% for NSAIDs. Conclusions: One year after publication of the ACP's Guideline on LBP, patients report that medical doctors recommended both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment approaches to patients with LBP. In the majority of cases, a combination of prescription medications and self-care were recommended, illustrating the need for additional research on the effectiveness of multi-modal treatment strategies. Patients reported that they were largely compliant with medical doctor recommendations, underscoring the influence that medical doctors have in directing patient care for LBP. These findings indicate that further work is also needed to explore the impact of personal experience, training, clinical evidence, sociocultural factors, and health plans on medical doctors therapeutic recommendations in the context of back pain.

Project description:Background:The one-month prevalence of back pain in children and adolescents has been reported at 33, 28 and 48% at ages 9, 13 and 15 respectively. There are many suspected risk factors and triggers of back pain in young people. Objective:The purpose of this scoping review was to identify potential risk factors and potential triggers for back pain in young people. The purpose of part I was to identify potential risk factors for incident and episodic back pain in young people. Part II included all eligible studies with unclear or mixed types of back pain. Methods:Due to the vast number of studies on "risk factors" for back pain, a two-part scoping review of the literature was chosen as the best way to summarise the evidence. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guideline for scoping reviews. General potential risk factors and triggers for back pain in children and young adults (? 24?years) were included, incorporating physical, environmental, and/or physiological factors. A search was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2018, limited to the English language. Within part I, and because of their importance, only the results of the studies that investigated risk factors of incident back pain and back pain episodes are presented. Results:The search identified 7356 articles, of which 91 articles were eligible for this scoping review. The majority of the eligible articles had an unclear definition of back pain (results presented in scoping review part II). There were 7 inception cohort studies included and 1 cohort study that met the criteria for part I. The most consistent risk factors for incident and episodic back pain are female sex and older age. Conclusion:Due to inconsistent ways of reporting on the type of back pain, no definitive risk factor for back pain has been identified. In general, females often report more symptoms, also for other diseases, and older age is not a useful risk factor as it merely indicates that the onset may not be in childhood. Clearly, the time has come to study the causes of back pain from different angles.

Project description:Background:Back pain is a global problem in terms of disability and financially, with a large burden both to the individual and to society. Back pain was previously believed to be uncommon in children. However, there is a growing body of evidence that this is not the case. Objective:Part I of this scoping review studied risk factors of incident and episodic back pain. In this part II we aimed to identify all risk factors and triggers with unclear or mixed type back pain in young people and to identify any gaps in the literature. Methods:A scoping review design was selected to summarise the evidence, as there are many studies on "risk factors" for back pain. The scoping review followed the PRISMSA-ScR guidelines. We considered all studies that tested potential risk factors and triggers for thoracic and/or lumbar spine pain, in children, adolescents, and young adults (? 24?years). PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to September 2018, to identify relevant English language articles. The results regarding potential risk factors were separated into temporal precursors and bidirectional risk factors and the studies were classified by study design. Results:Our comprehensive search strategy identified 7356 articles, of which 83 articles were considered eligible for this review (part II). There were 53 cross-sectional studies and 30 cohort studies. Potential risk factors for back pain were: female sex, older age, later pubertal status, positive family history of back pain, increased growth, and a history of back pain, most of which are temporal precursor variables. There was limited research for the illness factors, spinal posture, and muscle endurance in the development of back pain. Conclusion:Many of the included studies approached risk factors in similar ways and found factors that were associated with back pain but were not obvious risk factors as causality was uncertain. Future research should be more rigorous and innovative in the way that risk factors are considered. This could be through statistical approaches including cumulative exposures, or longitudinal approaches including multi-trajectory methods. Additionally, data on proposed risk factors should be collected before the onset of back pain.

Dataset Information

Distinguishing chronic low back pain in young adults with mild to moderate pain and disability using trunk compliance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets