Low back pain

The Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has an ongoing effort to create evidence-based practice guidelines for orthopaedic physical therapy management of patients with musculoskeletal impairments described in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The purpose of these low back pain clinical practice guidelines, in particular, is to describe the peer-reviewed literature and make recommendations related to (1) treatment matched to low back pain subgroup responder categories, (2) treatments that have evidence to prevent recurrence of low back pain, and (3) treatments that have evidence to influence the progression from acute to chronic low back pain and disability.     

Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty

Background contextStudies involving factor analysis (FA) of the items in the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome assessment instrument have revealed inconsistent factor structures for the individual items.PurposeThis study examined whether the factor structure of the NASS varied in relation to the severity of the back/neck problem and differed from that originally recommended by the developers of the questionnaire, by analyzing data before and after surgery in a large series of patients undergoing lumbar or cervical disc arthroplasty.Study design/settingProspective multicenter observational case series.Patient sampleThree hundred ninety-one patients with low back pain and 553 patients with neck pain completed questionnaires preoperatively and again at 3 to 6 and 12 months follow-ups (FUs), in connection with the SWISSspine disc arthroplasty registry.Outcome measuresNorth American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument.MethodsFirst, an exploratory FA without a priori assumptions and subsequently a confirmatory FA were performed on the 17 items of the NASS-lumbar and 19 items of the NASS-cervical collected at each assessment time point. The item-loading invariance was tested in the German version of the questionnaire for baseline and FU.ResultsBoth NASS-lumbar and NASS-cervical factor structures differed between baseline and postoperative data sets. The confirmatory analysis and item-loading invariance showed better fit for a three-factor (3F) structure for NASS-lumbar, containing items on “disability,” “back pain,” and “radiating pain, numbness, and weakness (leg/foot)” and for a 5F structure for NASS-cervical including disability, “neck pain,” “radiating pain and numbness (arm/hand),” “weakness (arm/hand),” and “motor deficit (legs).”ConclusionsThe best-fitting factor structure at both baseline and FU was selected for both the lumbar- and cervical-NASS questionnaires. It differed from that proposed by the originators of the NASS instruments. Although the NASS questionnaire represents a valid outcome measure for degenerative spine diseases, it is able to distinguish among all major symptom domains (factors) in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty; overall, the item structure could be improved. Any potential revision of the NASS should consider its factorial structure; factorial invariance over time should be aimed for, to allow for more precise interpretations of treatment success.     

Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures.

STUDY DESIGN: Postal questionnaire to individuals with back pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability, validity, and reliability of two existing back pain outcome measures, the Roland-Morris Questionnaire and the Von Korff scales, modified to measure the preceding 4 weeks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ideal outcome measure for studies of low back pain and disability remains elusive. Most existing measures assess current pain and disability. Measuring these factors over a preceding 4-week period may be more appropriate. METHODS: Individuals with back pain identified in a community survey were asked to complete the modified questionnaires. Validity was assessed by comparison with the Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36 and two general comparator questions on self-reported pain and disability. Repeatability was assessed using retest questionnaires. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 95 individuals with chronic back pain. The modified Roland-Morris Questionnaire and Von Korff pain and Von Korff disability scales were completed satisfactorily by 83 (87%), 89 (94%), and 87 (92%) participants, respectively. Mean scores of the modified measures changed significantly and in a predictable manner with increasing ratings of pain and disability. They also correlated with aspects of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36 questionnaire. Retest data suggest that these measures are repeatable. The modified Roland-Morris Questionnaire provided adequate analyzable data only if missing values were imputed, and it explained less of the variance in the comparator questions than the modified Von Korff scales. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Von Korff scales were completed easily and appear to be valid and repeatable in this format.     

Assessing outcome in lumbar disc surgery using patient completed measures

Measuring outcome after spinal surgery is difficult. The objective of this study was to assess the use of four measures in establishing outcome in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy. Forty-six consecutive patients who had undergone two operations for lumbar disc prolapse and 54 patients who had undergone one operation for the same condition over the same period were identified. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to assess general health. The Roland-Morris questionnaire and a simple modification of the Roland-Morris questionnaire were used to assess back and leg related disability, respectively. Analogue pain scales were used to measure back pain and sciatica. The SF-36 scores revealed significantly worse health status in the two operation compared with the one operation patients and in all patients compared with the normal population. Using the Roland-Morris and the leg disability questionnaires, patients who had undergone two operations reported significantly worse disability (Roland-Morris, 53%, poor outcome) than those who had undergone one operation (Roland-Morris, 19%, poor outcome). There was significantly greater back disability than leg disability in both groups of patients and this was confirmed by the analogue pain scales. In patients who had undergone two operations, 25% classified their back pain as very bad or unbearable, and 22.5% described very bad or unbearable leg pain. For the one operation patients these figures were 9.5 and 2.4%, respectively. The results demonstrate that both generic and condition specific patient completed measures have the potential to detect differences in outcome between patients who have undergone either one or two lumbar disc operations. The study provides support for the use of these patient completed measures in assessing outcome in lumbar disc surgery.     

Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study assessing the responsiveness of two disease-specific questionnaires and a generic health questionnaire for patients with low back pain and sciatica. OBJECTIVES: To compare the responsiveness of the eight scales and two summery scales of the SF-36 questionnaire with that of the Oswestry Disability Index and Low Back Outcome Score questionnaires. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evaluation of treatment outcome is being determined more frequently from a patient's perspective, particularly the impact treatment has on current health status. METHODS: Patients were recruited from two orthopedic back pain clinics in a tertiary hospital. Patients completed the pretreatment questionnaire 1 month before treatment and follow-up questionnaires a minimum of 2-6 months after treatment. Patients undergoing surgery were also observed for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Overall, the Oswestry Disability Index was most responsive; however, individual scales from the SF-36 questionnaire showed equal or greater sensitivity to change than the Oswestry Disability Index in each of the patient subgroups. The SF-36 Role Physical scale was prone to floor effects (a high percentage of respondents score zero), and the change scores from the SF-36 Role Emotional scale varied by 100 points in either direction in each of the patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: Responsiveness varied according to which method was used in its calculation. The responsiveness of the SF-36 questionnaire shows that it can be a useful adjunct in the assessment of patients with low back pain when combined with disease-specific questionnaires.     

Personal risk factors for first-time low back pain

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of personal risk factors for first-time low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To construct and validate a multivariate model to predict low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various physical and psychological factors have been reported to increase the risk of low back pain, but conflicting results may be attributable to inaccurate "clinical" measures and to poorly validated statistical models. METHODS: A total of 403 health care workers aged 18-40 years volunteered for the study. None had any history of "serious" back pain requiring medical attention or time off work. The volunteers completed the following questionnaires: the modified somatic perception questionnaire, the Zung depression scale, and the Health Locus of Control. Anthropometric factors were quantified using standard techniques. The 3Space Isotrak device (Polhemus, VT) was used to measure lumbar curvature and hip and lumbar spine mobility. Leg and back strength and back muscle fatiguability were measured in functional postures. Postal follow-up questionnaires, sent after 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months, inquired about back pain, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors at each follow-up. RESULTS: The response rate fell from 99% at 12 months to 90% at 36 months, at which time 90 volunteers reported "serious" back pain and 266 reported "any" back pain. The following were consistent predictors of serious back pain: reduced range of lumbar lateral bending, a long back, reduced lumbar lordosis, increased psychological distress, and previous nonserious low back pain. Only the latter three were consistent predictors of "any" back pain. Physical factors had the most influence in a sub-population of volunteers who were new to the job. CONCLUSIONS: Personal risk factors explained up to 12% of first-time low back pain.     

A cross-sectional study correlating lumbar spine degeneration with disability and pain

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between degeneration in the lumbar spine and self-reported disability and pain levels in patients with and without a history of trauma. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The link between lumbar spine degeneration and low back pain remains controversial, as does the correlation between trauma and spinal degeneration. METHODS: Radiographic and questionnaire data were collected from 172 consecutive patients with low back pain. Back pain severity was measured using two scales: one for pain over the entire episode and one for pain during the previous week. All patients also completed the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire before radiography was performed. Further questions concerning the chronicity of symptoms and trauma were included. RESULTS: Controlling for age, patients with low back pain with a history of trauma had a statistically significant increase in the severity of facet degeneration (P < 0.02) compared with nontrauma patients with low back pain. However, there was no difference in disability and pain scores between the trauma and nontrauma patients or between the genders. A weak correlation between pain severity ratings and the number of levels of degeneration and the severity of the degeneration at the disc and facets was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low back pain with a history of trauma had more severe facet arthrosis than do nontrauma patients with low back pain, but there were no differences in pain and disability. There was a weak correlation between the quantity and severity of lumbar degeneration with pain levels, but not with disability scores. These findings are discussed in the light of recent reports regarding the cervical spine.     

Clinical and psychological correlates of lumbar motion abnormalities in low back disorders.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) and low back disorders (LBDs) identify a complex constellation of conditions that frustrate both diagnosis and therapy. Dynamic quantitative assessment and questionnaire instruments directed toward psychosocial and situational variables provide potentially powerful tools for determining functional pathology and potentially outcome. PURPOSE: Our goal was to independently assess clinical correlates of a trunk motion measurement device, the lumbar motion monitor (LMM). The reliability of the LMM as a clinical test was assessed by comparison with an independent medical examination and biobehavioral questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: There were three study components. A multispecialty physician panel that administered a structured physical examination contributed to a clinical correlation case series study. Standardized outcomes and risk identification questionnaires were administered to the case population. Finally, the LMM was administered in a customary fashion to the same population. PATIENT SAMPLE: Nineteen subjects were recruited on the basis of criteria that included symptoms of chronic recurrent low back pain. This was an employed and active, although impaired, population. Eighteen of the subjects were currently employed with limited lost work time, but chronic and recurrent pain was a common feature. OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire outcome measures were both characterologic and situation based. In addition to providing diagnoses, the physician panel was also asked to offer certain qualitative assessments, such as rehabilitative potential and functional level pertinent to activities of daily living. The impact of LMM measures on physician decision making was also assessed. Trunk angular measurements were used to assess function of patients with chronic low back disorders. METHODS: Kinematic performance on the LMM was expressed as three probability scores. These were the likelihood of abnormality, the "sincerity of effort" (exacerbation or aggravation of impairment), and the likelihood of structural anatomic disease. These variables were examined against established self-report measures of pain and disability. RESULTS: The LMM and physician panels were in agreement on the presence or absence of abnormality. LMM findings tended to be more consistent with clinical history than the clinical examination. The LMM results were also generally consistent with the self-reported measures of pain and disability: a high likelihood of structural disease was associated with depression, somatization, poor health perception and diminished vitality. CONCLUSIONS: The LMM appears to be a useful assessment tool for gauging the presence of LBP and LBD. It was accurate in detecting abnormality when abnormality was determined by clinical history and physician diagnosis. The LMM's differentiation of mechanical low back disease (nonanatomically specific disorders) from structurally specific low back disease was not consistent with a parallel clinical differentiation. Larger trials in a prospective format and studies on a chronically disabled population seem warranted. In an impaired but less disabled population, elevated pain and somatization did not appear to weaken the effort during testing.     

Fragebögen für Patienten mit Rückenschmerzen

Self-assessment questionnaires are becoming increasingly important in the evaluation and outcome-assessment of low back pain patients, both in the research environment and in everyday clinical practice. Questionnaires allow a standardised, patient-orientated examination of the symptoms and effects of the disease as well as the assessment of change following treatment. The aim of the current review was to provide a summary of the questionnaires that are currently available in the German language for the assessment of patients with low back pain; the review focuses on those that have been shown to be reliable and valid and widely-used on an international basis. The following topics are considered: (1) current pain experience and pain history, (2) disability due to low back pain, (3) coping with pain and psychological disturbance, (4) general health status and (5) outcome. Depending on the aim of the study, the evaluation of outcome may involve disease-specific symptoms (pain and disability), general health status, the ability to work, and the utilisation of health care resources (medical consultations, treatment, use of medication). For the analysis of treatment effects, prospective assessment of the relevant characteristics is recommended - that is, assessments should be made before the treatment and again with identical questionnaires at follow-up. Especially within the context of scientific studies, instruments should be chosen that enable an international comparison of the data generated. In everyday clinical routine, a short standardised documentation of the most important dimensions is recommended.     

A prospective follow-up study of low back pain in the community

STUDY DESIGN: Opportunistic prospective follow-up study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the natural history of low back pain in the community and to model the factors predictive of recovered versus persistent low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A two-phase questionnaire was mailed to adults in the Bradford Metropolitan Health District in 1994. Valid respondents were surveyed again in 1997. Analysis is based on the combined results of these two surveys. METHODS: Unifactorial and multifactorial statistics were analyzed based on 1455 adults, with and without low back pain. RESULTS: One third of respondents reported no lifetime low back pain. Average lifetime prevalence was 59% and average annual prevalence 41%. Of those who reported lifetime low back pain, 42% reported persistent annual low back pain, 18% reported a first episode in 1997, resulting in a 4% population incidence rate, and 40% reported intermittent low back pain. The likelihood of having had low back pain increased significantly with age. Those who reported a new case of low back pain in 1997 were significantly more likely to be 25-34 years of age, and these persons were most likely to report acute low back pain with very little disability. Those with persistent low back pain were significantly more likely to report chronic low back pain with some disability. Logistic regression modeling was unable to predict recovered versus persistent low back pain, given the person, pain, and treatment factors available. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that low back pain is a mutable problem with acute episodes blending into longer periods resulting in more disability as time progresses. A wide range of demographic, pain, consultation, and treatment factors were not predictive of low back pain recovery.     

Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires

Disability questionnaires are increasingly used for clinical assessment, outcome measurement of treatment and research methodology of low back pain. Their use in different countries and cultural groups must follow certain guidelines for translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The translation of such an instrument must be tested for its reliability and validity to be applied and to allow comparability of data. The Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire are two disability questionnaires most commonly used as outcome measures in patients with low back pain. The two questionnaires were translated for use with the Greek population, were back translated and tested, and became available in a final version. The Greek versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire were tested in 697 patients with low back pain. Internal consistency reliability for the Greek translation of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire reached a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.833 and 0.885 respectively. Face validity and content validity were ensured. Concurrent validity was assessed using a six-point pain scale as a criterion. The correlation of both scales was significant. The Greek translation of these disability questionnaires provided reliable and valid instruments for the evaluation of Greek-speaking patients with low back pain.     

The natural history of trunk list, its associated disability and the influence of McKenzie management

Lumbosacral list is a clinical sign that is frequently associated with low back pain and intervertebral disc lesions. This study examines the influence of McKenzie management on the natural history of trunk list. Patients with trunk list and low back pain were randomised into two groups: a control group receiving non-specific back massage and general back care advice, and a group treated according to the McKenzie protocol. Trunk list was measured over a period of 90 days and patients completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaires. There was a significantly greater resolution of list after 90 days in the group receiving McKenzie treatment compared to the control group. There was poor correlation between list magnitude and Oswestry scores. These data support previous observations that trunk list is not necessarily related to the degree of physical disability. The McKenzie method of assessment and treatment may assist in the resolution of trunk list, but it was ineffective in improving clinical condition. Received: 29 August 1997 Revised: 11 May 1998 Accepted: 28 May 1998     

Neck and back pain specific outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language: a systematic literature review

Background contextAccurate measurement of functional improvement in clinical practice is becoming increasingly recognized as essential in demonstrating whether patients are deriving meaningful benefit from care. Several simple questionnaires have been developed for this purpose. The majority of these have been developed in English. In North America, there is a growing need for clinical tools, including outcome assessment tools that are available in the Spanish language.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding spine-specific outcome assessment questionnaires that are available in Spanish and to examine the evidence on their clinical utility.Study designSystematic review.MethodsThe Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and MANTIS databases were searched for any studies on the topic of outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language. Relevant articles were reviewed, and the data on reliability, validity, time to completion, and any other properties of the questionnaire was extracted.ResultsThe search strategy identified 287 articles, of which 10 were deemed relevant. With regard to neck pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Core Outcome Measure for neck pain. With regard to low back pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), and the North American Spine Society—American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons questionnaire.ConclusionsSeveral reliable and valid outcome assessment questionnaires are available in the Spanish language. All were originally developed in English. It appears from the data reviewed that the most useful instruments are the NDI for neck pain patients and the ODI and RMQ for low back pain patients. The current trend is for the development of culturally adapted versions of these questionnaires that are specific to a particular country or region.     

Reliability and validity of Punjabi version of Oswestry Disability Index in patients with mechanical low back pain

ObjectiveOswestry disability Index(ODI) is the commonest patient reported outcome for assessment of disability due to low back pain. Its application to non-English speaking Punjabi population is limited as a validated and cross culturally adapted Punjabi version of ODI is not available. The purpose of the study was to analyse the psychometric properties of Punjabi version of Oswestry disability index (ODI-P) in patients with mechanical low back pain.Materials and methodsThe translation and cross-cultural adaptation of Punjabi version of ODI was done according to well recommended guidelines. The prefinal version was tested on a set of 15 patients and suitable modifications were made. The final version was administered to 113 patients with mechanical low back pain of more than two weeks duration. Psychometric properties comprising of internal consistency, test retest reliability, floor and ceiling effect, construct validity and factorial structure of the questionnaire were determined.ResultsODI-P showed excellent internal consistency (Chronbach alpha of ODI-P is 0.72), test retest reliability (ICC 0.891) and construct validity (Spearman correlation coefficient with VAS 0.424). Factor analysis proved the questionnaire to be having a 1-factor structure with a total variance of 48.61%.ConclusionsODI (P) is a reliable and valid instrument for measurement of disability related to mechanical low back pain in Punjabi population. It can be used both in research and clinical care settings in future.     

Relationship between severity of lumbar disc disease and disability scores in sciatica patients

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between the clinical examination and the radiological assessment of lumbar disc disease in patients with sciatica. METHODS: The study included 394 consecutive sciatica patients. The patients' disabilities were evaluated by a visual analog pain scale, the Prolo functional-economic rating scale, the modified Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and the health-related quality of life short form (SF-36) questionnaire. Radiological imaging findings were independently classified according to the Modic criteria into five groups of increasing severity of disc disease. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was used to determine which scores were significant independent predictors of a severe disc disease (extrusion or sequestration). RESULTS: Of these patients, 9.6% had no disc disease, 3.3% had a bulging, 11.4% had a protrusion, 68.5% had an extrusion, and 7.1% had a disc sequestration. Statistically significant positive linear associations with the severity of disc disease were found for the leg pain scale, the Roland-Morris and Prolo disability scales, and the SF-36 scores related to physical functioning, physical role, and bodily pain (all P < 0.005). A poor (<5) Prolo score (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-4.87), a higher leg pain score (odds ratio, 1.16 per centimeter increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.27), and a lower low back pain score (odds ratio, 0.90 per centimeter decrease; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.98) were retained in the multivariate logistic model as independent predictors of severe disc disease. CONCLUSION: The positive correlation between disability status and imaging findings validates both assessment methods. Routine use of disability scores brings a useful contribution to the assessment of sciatica patients.     

Responsiveness of the Brazilian–Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in subjects with low back pain

When quality of life questionnaires are used as measures of treatment outcomes, it is essential to know how well these can respond to clinical changes. The objective of this study is to examine the responsiveness of the Brazilian–Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-Brazil) in subjects with chronic low back pain submitted to a physical therapy program. Thirty subjects with chronic low back pain completed the ODI-Brazil questionnaire, along with an 11-point pain visual analogue scale (Pain VAS), and the Brazilian–Portuguese version of Roland–Morris disability questionnaire before and after the program. All patients also completed a global perception of change Likert scale in condition after the program. This scale was collapsed to produce a dichotomous variable outcome: improved and non-improved. Responsiveness was determined using effect size statistics and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve), with best cut-point analysis. The best change score cut-off was identified when equally balanced sensitivity and specificity was found, as an expression of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). After treatment, 19 patients considered themselves improved. Both the effect size (0.37) and the area under the ROC curve (0.73) for ODI-Brazil score in relation to global outcome after program indicated that the ODI-Brazil showed responsiveness. The ROC curve for ODI-Brazil was distributed at the upper corners of the diagonal line, indicating that the questionnaire presents discriminative ability. The best cut-off point for ODI-Brazil was approximately 4.45 points (63.2% sensitivity, 81.8% specificity). The Brazilian–Portuguese version of ODI has comparable responsiveness to other commonly used functional status measures and is appropriate for use in chronic low back pain patients receiving conservative care.     

Conservative treatment of lumbar disc disease: patient’s quality of life compared to an unexposed cohort

Summary Background. Lumbar disc disease is a very common condition with a substantial socioeconomic impact. Studies have shown the importance of a multilevel assessment of this disease, as its course is influenced by many factors. Most follow-up studies use the degree of physical impairment to measure the outcome of a certain treatment. This remains unsatisfactory, as physical impairment itself seems to be influenced by the social, psychological and personal condition of a patient. We believe that an overall quality of life assessment is required to evaluate success of treatment. The SF-36 questionnaire seemed appropriate, as it provides consistent data of a patient’s overall health status. To ensure measurement of disability due to back pain we combined the SF-36 with the NASS (North American Spine Society) questionnaire, an instrument specific for lumbar spine disorders. Method. One year after the last outpatient consultation in our neurosurgical clinic, a SF-36 questionnaire was sent to 636 patients with conservatively treated lumbar disc disease. We used the Mann Whitney Test to compare patient’s data with a standard group. The demographics of the standard group were matched with the study cohort. Findings. A total of 486 patients (66.5% males and 33.5% females), mean age 49 years (range 21–82 years), returned the questionnaire. The SF-36 data was usable in 76.4% of the patients. Statistical testing reported a significant impact of the disease on all 8 items of the SF-36 questionnaire. The “Role Functioning – Physical (RF)” item was the most, the “Mental Health (MH)” item the less affected. No statistical difference was found between males and females regarding the impact on single items. The NASS scores were also affected suggesting that lumbar back disorder was the influencing factor for the low SF-36 scores. Conclusions. Besides impairment in the execution of daily physical tasks, patients with lumbar disc disease also showed a significant impact on the “Mental Health (MH)” item. Early SF-36 assessment could identify subjects with high probability of prolonged recovery and development of chronic pain syndromes. In these patients, an early rheumatologic, rehabilitative and psychiatric treatment might be the key to improve their coping abilities and should become an integral part of the treatment strategy.     

Longitudinal validation of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) in a Swiss-German sample of low back pain patients

Work and activity-specific fear-avoidance beliefs have been identified as important predictor variables in relation to the development of, and treatment outcome for, chronic low back pain. The objective of this study was to provide a cross-cultural German adaptation of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and to investigate its psychometric properties (reliability, validity) and predictive power in a sample of Swiss-German low back pain patients. Questionnaires from 388 operatively and non-operatively treated patients were administered before and 6 months after treatment to assess: socio-demographic data, disability (Roland and Morris), pain severity, fear-avoidance beliefs, depression (ZUNG) and heightened somatic awareness (MSPQ). Complete baseline and follow-up questionnaires were available from 255 participants. The corrected item-total correlations, coefficients of test-retest reliability and internal consistencies of the two scales of the questionnaire were highly satisfactory. In a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), all items loaded on the appropriate factor with minor loadings on the other. Cross-sectional regression analysis with disability and work loss as the dependent variables yielded results that were highly comparable with those reported for the original version. Prognostic regression analysis replicated the findings for work loss. The cross-cultural German adaptation of the FABQ was very successful and yielded psychometric properties and predictive power of the scales similar to the original version. The inclusion of fear-avoidance beliefs as predictor variables in studies of low back pain is highly recommended, as they appear to have unique predictive power in analyses of disability and work loss. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Patient and physician-assessed shoulder function after arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: We found no information in the literature regarding the relationship between patient and physician-derived outcome assessments with a shoulder questionnaire. In this study, we examined a group of patients who were assessed with patient and physician-administered questionnaires following shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: From August 2003 to February 2004, sixty-seven consecutive patients who had been followed for a minimum of six months after shoulder arthroplasty were evaluated with a self-administered and an identical physician-directed shoulder questionnaire that assessed clinical and functional outcomes at the time of routine follow-up. An assessment of the agreement between physicians and patients as well as the factors that affected agreement was performed. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation indicated almost perfect physician-patient agreement (>0.80) on items related to overall pain, pain at night, pain with activity, stability, and active elevation and substantial agreement (intraclass correlation, 0.66 and 0.69) between the physician and patient assessments of pain without activity and strength. While the differences were small, on the average physician ratings for pain were lower (indicating less pain) than patient ratings for pain, physicians rated stability and strength as being closer to normal, and they reported less active elevation. There was substantial agreement between the physician and patient assessments of outcome with the modified Neer system (intraclass correlation = 0.75), with 87% agreement if excellent and satisfactory outcomes were combined. CONCLUSIONS: A patient-derived questionnaire can provide a high level of agreement with surgeon assessments of outcome following shoulder surgery. Patient-administered methods should continue to be evaluated as a means of assessment of these patients.     

Development of an assessment schedule for patients with low back-associated leg pain in primary care: a Delphi consensus study

Purpose

The objectives of this study were to develop consensus on (i) the content of a clinical assessment for adults presenting to primary care with low back and leg pain, and (ii) the most important items for diagnosing spinal nerve root involvement.

Methods

Existing literature and expert knowledge was used to compile a list of items pertaining to clinical history questions and examination tests employed in the assessment of patients with low back pain with suspected spinal nerve involvement. A Delphi consensus method was employed to rate the importance of items for clinical assessment and for diagnosis in two web-based rounds. A multidisciplinary group of 42, including GPs, physiotherapists, osteopaths, rheumatologists, spinal orthopaedic surgeons and chiropractors took part. Items were included in the final assessment when over 70% of participants rated them as important.

Results

Thirty-four items were included in the clinical assessment, and 15 items for diagnosis. History items included pain distribution in the leg, pain quality and behaviour, altered sensation, functional limitations and yellow flags, previous history of similar symptoms and outcome of previous treatment/management. Examination items included typical neurological tests including neural tension and ‘demonstration of movement that produces symptoms’.

Conclusions

We have developed a clinical assessment schedule for patients with low back pain and leg pain presenting in primary care. History and clinical items considered important for their contribution in the diagnosis of nerve root involvement were also established.