Presurgery physiotherapy decreases pain, risk of avoidance behavior, and worsening of psychological well-being, and improves quality of life and physical activity levels before surgery compared with waiting-list controls. These results were maintained only for activity levelspost surgery. Still, presurgery selection, content, dosage of exercises, and importance of being active in a presurgery physiotherapy intervention is of interest to study further to improve long-term outcome.

In a cohort of individuals of working age seeking primary care for nonspecific back or neck pain, it can be expected that about half of the population will report pain and disability at the 5-year follow-up. A significant proportion will report recurrence or continual pain and health care consumption. Pain and disability were associated with recurrence or continual pain and health care consumption. Further analysis is needed to identify additional predictors for 5-year outcome, taking into account 1-year follow-up results. Since many patients will have recurrence or continual pain, health policies and clinical decision models for long-term outcome must allow for these aspects.

Background Many studies have been performed to identify important prognostic factors for outcomes after rehabilitation of patients with chronic pain, and there is a need to synthesize them through systematic review. In this process, it is important to assess the study quality and risk of bias. The “Quality In Prognosis Studies” (QUIPS) tool has been developed for this purpose and consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low, moderate or high risk of bias). The aim of the present study was to determine the interrater agreement of the risk of bias assessment in prognostic studies of patients with chronic pain using QUIPS and to elaborate on the use of this instrument. Methods We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of prognostic factors for long-term outcomes after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain. Two researchers rated the risk of bias in 43 published papers in two rounds (15 and 28 papers, respectively). The interrater agreement and Cohen’s quadratic weighted kappa coefficient ( κ ) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated in all domains and separately for the first and second rounds. Results The raters agreed in 61% of the domains (157 out of 258), with similar interrater agreement in the first (59%, 53/90) and second rounds (62%, 104/168). The overall weighted kappa coefficient (kappa for all domains and all papers) was weak: κ = 0.475 (95%CI = 0.358–0.601). A “minimal agreement” between the raters was found in the first round, κ = 0.323 (95%CI = 0.129–0.517), but increased to “weak agreement” in the second round, κ = 0.536 (95%CI = 0.390–0.682). Conclusion Despite a relatively low interrater agreement, QUIPS proved to be a useful tool in assessing the risk of bias when performing a meta-analysis of prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation, since it demands of raters to discuss and investigate important aspects of study quality. Some items were particularly hard to differentiate in-between, and a learning phase was required to increase the interrater agreement. This paper highlights several aspects of the tool that should be kept in mind when rating the risk of bias in prognostic studies, and provides some suggestions on common pitfalls to avoid during this process. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42016025339 ; registered 05 February 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41512-019-0050-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundChronic pain patients frequently suffer from psychological symptoms. There is no consensus concerning the prevalence of severe anxiety and depressive symptoms and the strength of the associations between pain intensity and psychological distress. Although an important aspect of the clinical picture is understanding how the pain condition impacts life, little is known about the relative importance of pain and psychological symptoms for individual’s life impact. The aims of this study were to identify subgroups of pain patients; to analyze if pain, psychological distress, and life impact variables influence subgrouping; and to investigate how patients in the subgroups benefit from treatments.MethodsBackground variables, pain aspects (intensity/severity and spreading), psychological distress (depressive and anxiety symptoms), and two life impact variables (pain interference and perceived life control) were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation for chronic pain patients and analyzed mainly using advanced multivariate methods.ResultsBased on >35,000 patients, 35%–40% had severe anxiety or depressive symptoms. Severe psychological distress was associated with being born outside Europe (21%–24% vs 6%–8% in the category without psychological distress) and low education level (20.7%–20.8% vs 26%–27% in the category without psychological distress). Dose relationships existed between the two psychological distress variables and pain aspects, but the explained variances were generally low. Pain intensity/severity and the two psychological distress variables were significantly associated (R2=0.40–0.48; P>0.001) with the two life impact variables (pain interference and life control). Two subgroups of patients were identified at baseline (subgroup 1: n=15,901–16,119; subgroup 2: n=20,690–20,981) and the subgroup with the worst situation regarding all variables participated less in an MMRP (51% vs 58%, P<0.001) but showed the largest improvements in outcomes.ConclusionThe results emphasize the need to assess both pain and psychological distress and not take for granted that pain involves high psychological stress in the individual case. Not all patients benefit from MMRP. A better matching between common clinical pictures and the content of MMRPs may help improve results. We only partly found support for treatment resistance in patients with psychological distress burden.

BackgroundFor patients with chronic pain, the heterogeneity of clinical presentations makes it difficult to identify patients who would benefit from multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRP). Yet, there is limited knowledge regarding the predictors of MMRP’s outcomes. This study identifies predictors of outcome of MMRPs at a 12-month follow-up (FU-12) based on data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP).MethodsPatients with chronic pain from two clinical departments in Sweden completed the SQRP questionnaires—background, pain characteristics, psychological symptoms, function, activity/participation, health and quality of life—on three occasions: 1) during their first visit; 2) immediately after the completion of their MMRP; and 3) 12 months after completing the MMRP (n = 227). During the FU-12, the patients also retrospectively reported their global impressions of any changes in their perception of pain and their ability to handle their life situation in general.ResultsSignificant improvements were found for pain, psychological symptoms, activity/participation, health, and quality of life aspects with low/medium strong effects.A general pattern was observed from the analyses of the changes from baseline to FU-12; the largest improvements in outcomes were significantly associated with poor situations according to their respective baseline scores. Although significant regressors of the investigated outcomes were found, the significant predictors were weak and explained a minor part of the variation in outcomes (15–25%). At the FU-12, 53.6% of the patients reported that their pain had decreased and 80.1% reported that their life situation in general had improved. These improvements were associated with high education, low pain intensity, high health level, and work importance (only pain perception). The explained variations were low (9–11%).ConclusionsRepresenting patients in real-world clinical settings, this study confirmed systematic reviews that outcomes of MMRP are associated with broad positive effects. A mix of background and baseline variables influenced the outcomes investigated, but the explained variations in outcomes were low. There is still a need to develop standardized and relatively simple outcomes that can be used to evaluate MMRP in trials, in clinical evaluations at group level, and for individual patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1346-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Design An observational, retrospective cohort study reviewing medical records, and a separate consecutive non-randomized study of patient satisfaction.Setting Health care centre in primary care.Participants 432 patients with musculoskeletal disorders, primarily assessed by a physiotherapist. 51 of these patients and 42 patients assessed by a GP answered a patient satisfaction questionnaire.Interventions Primary assessment and management of patients with musculoskeletal disorders.Main outcome measures Data from medical records including a 3-month follow-up, and patient satisfaction questionnaire.Results Eighty-five percent of patients (367/432) did not need to see a GP. Serious pathologies were found among the 6% (26/432) of the patients whom the physiotherapist referred to a GP, while none were found among the other 9% (39/432) who later returned for a GP appointment. Patients assessed by a physiotherapist were more satisfied with the information received about their disorders and about self-care than those assessed by a GP.They also had higher confidence in the physiotherapist's ability to assess their disorder (p<0.002). ConclusionPhysiotherapists can be considered primary assessors of patients with musculoskeletal disorders in primary care as few patients needed additional assessment by a GP, patients with confirmed serious pathologies had been identified by the physiotherapist, and the patients were satisfied with the assessment by the physiotherapist.3

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Intensive aerobic exercise twice weekly early in subacute mild stroke improved aerobic capacity, walking, balance, health-related quality of life, and patient-reported recovery.