Pragmatic Application of a Clinical Prediction Rule in Primary Care to Identify Patients with Low Back Pain with a Good Prognosis Following a Brief Spinal Manipulation Intervention

Overview

Journal BMC Fam Pract

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Health Services
Public Health

Date 2005 Jul 16

PMID 16018809

Citations 35

Authors

Julie M Fritz

John D Childs

Timothy W Flynn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Patients with low back pain are frequently encountered in primary care. Although a specific diagnosis cannot be made for most patients, it is likely that sub-groups exist within the larger entity of nonspecific low back pain. One sub-group that has been identified is patients who respond rapidly to spinal manipulation. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between two factors (duration and distribution of symptoms) and prognosis following a spinal manipulation intervention.

Methods: Data were taken from two previously published studies. Patients with low back pain underwent a standardized examination, including assessment of duration of the current symptoms in days, and the distal-most distribution of symptoms. Based on prior research, patients with symptoms of <16 days duration and no symptoms distal to the knee were considered to have a good prognosis following manipulation. All patients underwent up to two sessions of spinal manipulation treatment and a range of motion exercise. Oswestry disability scores were recorded before and after treatment. If >or= 50% improvement on the Oswestry was achieved, the intervention was considered a success. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were calculated for the association of the two criteria with the outcome of the treatment.

Results: 141 patients (49% female, mean age = 35.5 (+/- 11.1) years) participated. Mean pre- and post-treatment Oswestry scores were 41.9 (+/- 10.9) and 24.1 (+/- 14.2) respectively. Sixty-three subjects (45%) had successful treatment outcomes. The sensitivity of the two criteria was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.67), specificity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), and the positive likelihood ratio was 7.2 (95% CI: 3.2, 16.1).

Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that two factors; symptom duration of less than 16 days, and no symptoms extending distal to the knee, were associated with a good outcome with spinal manipulation.

Citing Articles

Effect of Risk-Stratified Care on Disability Among Adults With Low Back Pain Treated in the Military Health System: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rhon D, Greenlee T, Poehlein E, Beneciuk J, Green C, Hando B JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(7):e2321929.

PMID: 37410465 PMC: 10326636. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.21929.

Alternating lumbar lateral shift: a case report.

Peterson S, Laslett M J Man Manip Ther. 2020; 29(1):59-66.

PMID: 32615882 PMC: 7889245. DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2020.1787747.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Spanish fear-avoidance components scale and clinical implications in primary care.

Cuesta-Vargas A, Neblett R, Gatchel R, Roldan-Jimenez C BMC Fam Pract. 2020; 21(1):44.

PMID: 32106823 PMC: 7047382. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01116-x.

Optimizing treatment protocols for spinal manipulative therapy: study protocol for a randomized trial.

Fritz J, Sharpe J, Lane E, Santillo D, Greene T, Kawchuk G Trials. 2018; 19(1):306.

PMID: 29866131 PMC: 5987587. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2692-6.

Exploring the definition of «acute» neck pain: a prospective cohort observational study comparing the outcomes of chiropractic patients with 0-2 weeks, 2-4 weeks and 4-12 weeks of symptoms.

Nyiro L, Peterson C, Humphreys B Chiropr Man Therap. 2017; 25:24.

PMID: 28815015 PMC: 5558701. DOI: 10.1186/s12998-017-0154-y.

References

Sackett D . The rational clinical examination. A primer on the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination. JAMA. 1992; 267(19):2638-44. View

Beffa R, Mathews R . Does the adjustment cavitate the targeted joint? An investigation into the location of cavitation sounds. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004; 27(2):e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2003.12.014. View

Shekelle P, Adams A, Chassin M, Hurwitz E, Brook R . Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117(7):590-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-7-590. View

Mann 3rd N, Brown M, Hertz D, Enger I, Tompkins J . Initial-impression diagnosis using low-back pain patient pain drawings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(1):41-53. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199301000-00008. View

Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main C . A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993; 52(2):157-168. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B. View

Werneke M, Harris D, Lichter R . Clinical effectiveness of behavioral signs for screening chronic low-back pain patients in a work-oriented physical rehabilitation program. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(16):2412-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199312000-00008. View

Jensen M, Brant-Zawadzki M, Obuchowski N, Modic M, Malkasian D, Ross J . Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331(2):69-73. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199407143310201. View

Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Gobeille D, Bonvalot Y, Fines P, Scott S . The prognostic consequences in the making of the initial medical diagnosis of work-related back injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(7):791-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199504000-00010. View

Delitto A, Erhard R, BOWLING R . A treatment-based classification approach to low back syndrome: identifying and staging patients for conservative treatment. Phys Ther. 1995; 75(6):470-85; discussion 485-9. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/75.6.470. View

10.

Beurskens A, de Vet H, Koke A, Van Der Heijden G, Knipschild P . Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(9):1017-28. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199505000-00008. View

11.

Deyo R, Phillips W . Low back pain. A primary care challenge. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(24):2826-32. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00003. View

12.

Borkan J, Cherkin D . An agenda for primary care research on low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(24):2880-4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00019. View

13.

Frank J, Brooker A, DeMaio S, Kerr M, Maetzel A, Shannon H . Disability resulting from occupational low back pain. Part II: What do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(24):2918-29. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00025. View

14.

Leboeuf-Yde C, Lauritsen J, Lauritzen T . Why has the search for causes of low back pain largely been nonconclusive?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22(8):877-81. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199704150-00010. View

15.

Kent P, Keating J . Do primary-care clinicians think that nonspecific low back pain is one condition?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(9):1022-31. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200405010-00015. View

16.

Ross J, Bereznick D, McGill S . Determining cavitation location during lumbar and thoracic spinal manipulation: is spinal manipulation accurate and specific?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(13):1452-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000129024.95630.57. View

17.

Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, OBrien J . The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980; 66(8):271-3. View

18.

Frymoyer J . An overview of the incidences and costs of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 1991; 22(2):263-71. View

19.

Borkan J, Koes B, Reis S, Cherkin D . A report from the Second International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain. Reexamining priorities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23(18):1992-6. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00016. View

20.

Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B . Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23(18):2003-13. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018. View