C M Williams1, M J Hancock, C G Maher, J H McAuley, C W C Lin, J Latimer. 1. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute and School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules can assist clinicians to identify patients with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to recover quickly with minimal treatment; however, there is a paucity of validated instruments to assist with this task. METHOD: We performed a pre-planned external validation study to assess the generalizability of a simple 3-item clinical prediction rule developed to estimate the probability of recovery from acute LBP at certain time points. The accuracy of the rule (calibration and discrimination) was determined in a sample of 956 participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: The calibration of the rule was reasonable in the new sample with predictions of recovery typically within 5-10% of observed recovery. Discriminative performance of the rule was poor to moderate and similar to that found in the development sample. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the rule can be used to provide accurate information about expected recovery from acute LBP, within the first few weeks of patients presenting to primary care. Impact analysis to determine if the rule influences clinical behaviours and patient outcomes is required.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules can assist clinicians to identify patients with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to recover quickly with minimal treatment; however, there is a paucity of validated instruments to assist with this task. METHOD: We performed a pre-planned external validation study to assess the generalizability of a simple 3-item clinical prediction rule developed to estimate the probability of recovery from acute LBP at certain time points. The accuracy of the rule (calibration and discrimination) was determined in a sample of 956 participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: The calibration of the rule was reasonable in the new sample with predictions of recovery typically within 5-10% of observed recovery. Discriminative performance of the rule was poor to moderate and similar to that found in the development sample. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the rule can be used to provide accurate information about expected recovery from acute LBP, within the first few weeks of patients presenting to primary care. Impact analysis to determine if the rule influences clinical behaviours and patient outcomes is required.
Authors: Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Qiang Li; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Richard O Day; Mark J Hancock; Jane Latimer; Andrew J Mclachlan; Stephen Jan Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Adrian Traeger; Nicholas Henschke; Markus Hübscher; Christopher M Williams; Steven J Kamper; Chris G Maher; G Lorimer Moseley; James H McAuley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Emma L Karran; James H McAuley; Adrian C Traeger; Susan L Hillier; Luzia Grabherr; Leslie N Russek; G Lorimer Moseley Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Anne Molgaard Nielsen; Lise Hestbaek; Werner Vach; Peter Kent; Alice Kongsted Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Charles Philip Gabel; Hamid Reza Mokhtarinia; Jonathan Hoffman; Jason Osborne; E-Liisa Laakso; Markus Melloh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Luke C Jenkins; Wei-Ju Chang; Valentina Buscemi; Matthew Liston; Barbara Toson; Michael Nicholas; Thomas Graven-Nielsen; Michael Ridding; Paul W Hodges; James H McAuley; Siobhan M Schabrun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; Nicholas Henschke; Markus Hübscher; Christopher M Williams; Steven J Kamper; Christopher G Maher; G Lorimer Moseley; James H McAuley Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Fernanda Gonçalves Silva; Tatiane Mota da Silva; Gabriele Alves Palomo; Mark Jonathan Hancock; Lucíola da Cunha Menezes Costa; Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.692