Julie A Hides1,2, Michael Murphy3,4, Ellen Jang5,4, Linda Blackwell5,4, Margot Sexton6, Christopher Sexton7, M Dilani Mendis6,4. 1. School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, 4111, Australia. J.Hides@griffith.edu.au. 2. Mater Back Stability Research Clinic, Mater Health, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia. J.Hides@griffith.edu.au. 3. Mater Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia. 4. Physiotherapy Department, Mater Health, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia. 5. Mater Back Stability Research Clinic, Mater Health, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia. 6. School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, 4111, Australia. 7. School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Exercise therapy such as motor control training (MCT) has been shown to reduce pain and disability in people with low back pain (LBP). It is unknown which patients are most likely to benefit. This longitudinal cohort study aimed to: (1) retrospectively examine records from a large cohort of patients who received MCT treatment, (2) identify potentially important predictors of response to MCT and (3) test the predictors on an independent (split) sample derived from the original cohort of patients, using one group to identify the predictors and the other to test them. METHODS: The response of 775 patients with LBP to MCT was classified as 'improved' or 'not improved' based on self-reported change in pain levels and symptoms. Measures were examined for associations with improvement and entered into a logistic regression model to classify patients as low, medium or high benefits of improvement with MCT. The model was tested on an independent sample. RESULTS: A positive response was seen in patients with: no evidence of scoliosis [OR = 4.0, 95% CI (1.7, 9.6)], LBP without associated groin pain [OR = 2.2, 95% CI (1.0, 5.0)], LBP which was chronic recurrent in nature [OR = 3.1, 95% CI (1.8, 5.3)] and poor results on muscle testing of the multifidus muscle [OR = 2.0, 95% CI (1.1, 3.7)]. Testing on an independent sample confirmed that patients could be classified into benefit groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a first step towards assisting clinicians to select patients most likely to respond to MCT. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Exercise therapy such as motor control training (MCT) has been shown to reduce pain and disability in people with low back pain (LBP). It is unknown which patients are most likely to benefit. This longitudinal cohort study aimed to: (1) retrospectively examine records from a large cohort of patients who received MCT treatment, (2) identify potentially important predictors of response to MCT and (3) test the predictors on an independent (split) sample derived from the original cohort of patients, using one group to identify the predictors and the other to test them. METHODS: The response of 775 patients with LBP to MCT was classified as 'improved' or 'not improved' based on self-reported change in pain levels and symptoms. Measures were examined for associations with improvement and entered into a logistic regression model to classify patients as low, medium or high benefits of improvement with MCT. The model was tested on an independent sample. RESULTS: A positive response was seen in patients with: no evidence of scoliosis [OR = 4.0, 95% CI (1.7, 9.6)], LBP without associated groin pain [OR = 2.2, 95% CI (1.0, 5.0)], LBP which was chronic recurrent in nature [OR = 3.1, 95% CI (1.8, 5.3)] and poor results on muscle testing of the multifidus muscle [OR = 2.0, 95% CI (1.1, 3.7)]. Testing on an independent sample confirmed that patients could be classified into benefit groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a first step towards assisting clinicians to select patients most likely to respond to MCT. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Alex Antonio Florindo; Maria do Rosário Dias de Oliveira Latorre; Elisabete Cristina Morandi dos Santos; Carlos Eduardo Negrão; Luciene Ferreira Azevedo; Aluisio Augusto Cotrim Segurado Journal: Cad Saude Publica Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 1.632
Authors: Paul W Hodges; Gregory James; Linda Blomster; Leanne Hall; Annina Schmid; Cindy Shu; Chris Little; James Melrose Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Raymond W J G Ostelo; Rick A Deyo; P Stratford; Gordon Waddell; Peter Croft; Michael Von Korff; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C de Vet Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Bruno T Saragiotto; Christopher G Maher; Tiê P Yamato; Leonardo O P Costa; Luciola C Menezes Costa; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Luciana G Macedo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 3.468