Literature DB >> 19680104

Predicting outcome in acute low back pain using different models of patient profiling.

Benedict M Wand1, James H McAuley, Louise Marston, Lorraine H De Souza.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective observational study of prognostic indicators, using data from a randomized, controlled trial of physiotherapy care of acute low back pain (ALBP) with follow-up at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which patient profile offers the most useful guide to long-term outcome in ALBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The evidence used to inform prognostic decision-making is derived largely from studies where baseline data are used to predict future status. Clinicians often see patients on multiple occasions so may profile patients in a variety of ways. It is worth considering if better prognostic decisions can be made from alternative profiles.
METHODS: Clinical, psychological, and demographic data were collected from a sample of 54 ALBP patients. Three clinical profiles were developed from information collected at baseline, information collected at 6 weeks, and the change in status between these 2 time points. A series of regression models were used to determine the independent and relative contributions of these profiles to the prediction of chronic pain and disability.
RESULTS: The baseline profile predicted long-term pain only. The 6-week profile predicted both long-term pain and disability. The change profile only predicted long-term disability (P < 0.01). When predicting long-term pain, after the baseline profile had been added to the model, the 6-week profile did not add significantly when forced in at the second step (P > 0.05). A similar result was obtained when the order of entry was reversed. When predicting long-term disability, after the 6-week profile was entered at the first step, the change profile was not significant when forced in at the second step. However, when the change profile was entered at the first step and the 6-week clinical profile was forced in at the second step, a significant contribution of the 6-week profile was found.
CONCLUSION: The profile derived from information collected at 6 weeks provided the best guide to long-term pain and disability. The baseline profile and change in status offered less predictive value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19680104     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181afeab7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  4 in total

1.  The STarT back screening tool and individual psychological measures: evaluation of prognostic capabilities for low back pain clinical outcomes in outpatient physical therapy settings.

Authors:  Jason M Beneciuk; Mark D Bishop; Julie M Fritz; Michael E Robinson; Nabih R Asal; Anne N Nisenzon; Steven Z George
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2012-11-02

2.  Predicting outcomes of acute low back pain patients in emergency department: A prospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Celia Ia Choo Tan; Jennifer Suet Ching Liaw; Bo Jiang; Sohil Equbal Pothiawala; Huihua Li; Mark Kwok Fai Leong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.889

3.  Brief pain re-assessment provided more accurate prognosis than baseline information for low-back or shoulder pain.

Authors:  G Mansell; K P Jordan; G M Peat; K M Dunn; D Lasserson; T Kuijpers; I Swinkels-Meewisse; D A W M van der Windt
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Education for Preventing and Treating Non-Specific Low Back Pain in the Hispanic Cultural Setting: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Francisco M Kovacs; Natalia Burgos-Alonso; Ana María Martín-Nogueras; Jesús Seco-Calvo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.