No abstract

Objective To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care. Design Cohort study with one year follow-up. Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks' duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors. Main outcome measures Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression. Results The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery. Conclusions In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.

No abstract

Objective. To determine the prevalence of serious pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of recommended "red flag" screening questions.Methods. An inception cohort of 1,172 consecutive patients receiving primary care for acute low back pain was recruited from primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. At the initial consultation, clinicians recorded responses to 25 red flag questions and then provided an initial diagnosis. The reference standard was a 12-month followup supplemented with a specialist review of a random subsample of participants.Results. There were 11 cases (0.9%) of serious pathology, including 8 cases of fracture. Despite the low prevalence of serious pathology, most patients (80.4%) had at least 1 red flag (median 2, interquartile range 1-3). Only 3 of the red flags for fracture recommended for use in clinical guidelines were informative: prolonged use of corticosteroids, age >70 years, and significant trauma. Clinicians identified 5 of the 11 cases of serious pathology at the initial consultation and made 6 false-positive diagnoses. The status of a diagnostic prediction rule containing 4 features (female sex, age >70 years, significant trauma, and prolonged use of corticosteroids) was moderately associated with the presence of fracture (the area under the curve for the rule score was 0.834 [95% confidence interval 0.654-1.014]; P ‫؍‬ 0.001).Conclusion. In patients presenting to a primary care provider with back pain, previously undiagnosed serious pathology is rare. The most common serious pathology observed was vertebral fracture. Approximately half of the cases of serious pathology were identified at the initial consultation. Some red flags have very high false-positive rates, indicating that, when used in isolation, they have little diagnostic value in the primary care setting.

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain.

While research on chronic ankle instability (CAI) and awareness of its impact on society and health care systems has grown substantially in the last 2 decades, the inconsistency in participant or patient selection criteria across studies presents a potential obstacle to addressing the problem properly. This major gap within the literature limits the ability to generalize this evidence to the target patient population. Therefore, there is a need to provide standards for patient or participant selection criteria in research focused on CAI with justifications using the best available evidence. The International Ankle Consortium provides this position paper to present and discuss an endorsed set of selection criteria for patients with CAI based on the best available evidence to be used in future research and study designs. These recommendations will enhance the validity of research conducted in this clinical population with the end goal of bringing the research evidence to the clinician and patient.

Positive therapeutic alliance ratings between physical therapists and patients are associated with improvements of outcomes in LBP. Future research should investigate the factors explaining this relationship and the impact of training interventions aimed at optimizing the alliance.

Context: The Hertel model of chronic ankle instability (CAI) is commonly used in research but may not be sufficiently comprehensive. Mechanical instability and functional instability are considered part of a continuum, and recurrent sprain occurs when both conditions are present. A modification of the Hertel model is proposed whereby these 3 components can exist independently or in combination.Objective: To examine the fit of data from people with CAI to 2 CAI models and to explore whether the different subgroups display impairments when compared with a control group.Design: Cross-sectional study.Patients or Other Participants: Community-dwelling adults and adolescent dancers were recruited: 137 ankles with ankle sprain for objective 1 and 81 with CAI and 43 controls for objective 2.Intervention(s): Two balance tasks and time to recover from an inversion perturbation were assessed to determine if the subgroups demonstrated impairments when compared with a control group (objective 2).Main Outcome Measure(s): For objective 1 (fit to the 2 models), outcomes were Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool score, anterior drawer test results, and number of sprains. For objective 2, outcomes were 2 balance tasks (number of foot lifts in 30 seconds, ability to balance on the ball of the foot) and time to recover from an inversion perturbation. The Cohen d was calculated to compare each subgroup with the control group.Results: A total of 56.5% of ankles (n 5 61) fit the Hertel model, whereas all ankles (n 5 108) fit the proposed model. In the proposed model, 42.6% of ankles were classified as perceived instability, 30.5% as recurrent sprain and perceived instability, and 26.9% as among the remaining groups. All CAI subgroups performed more poorly on the balance and inversionperturbation tasks than the control group. Subgroups with perceived instability had greater impairment in single-leg stance, whereas participants with recurrent sprain performed more poorly than the other subgroups when balancing on the ball of the foot. Only individuals with hypomobility appeared unimpaired when recovering from an inversion perturbation.Conclusions: The new model of CAI is supported by the available data. Perceived instability alone and in combination characterized the majority of participants. Several impairments distinguished the sprain groups from the control group.Key Words: ankle injuries, joint instability, postural balance, recurrent ankle sprains Key PointsN The proposed new model of chronic ankle instability is supported by data from previous studies and the current study.More subgroups are identified than in previous models, with perceived instability as a common link.N On balance tests, all groups with chronic ankle instability performed more poorly than control groups. N The model will allow the development of specific injury-rehabilitation and injury-prevention programs for subgroups of chronic ankle instability.