Literature DB >> 9112715

Predicting poor outcomes for back pain seen in primary care using patients' own criteria.

D C Cherkin1, R A Deyo, J H Street, W Barlow.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of patients seen in primary care for low back pain.
OBJECTIVES: A new measure of back pain outcomes is used to describe the status of back problems at various intervals after visits to primary care physicians and to identify subsets of patients with worse prognoses. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most previous studies of the prognosis of back pain in primary care have failed to provide clinically useful information.
METHODS: Baseline data were collected from 219 patients making an initial visit for an episode of low back pain to a primary care clinic. A measure of how patients reported they would feel if they had their current back symptoms for the rest of their lives ("Symptom Satisfaction") was used to distinguish good from poor outcomes. Patient outcomes were assessed 1, 3, 7, and 52 weeks after the index visit.
RESULTS: Only 67% of patients reported good outcomes after 7 weeks, and only 71% were satisfied with their condition 1 year later. After controlling for the effects of other variables measured during the initial physician visit, only younger age, depression, and pain below the knee were significant predictors of poor outcome at 7 weeks, and only pain below the knee and depression were significant predictors at 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of primary care patients with back pain who have poor outcomes appears to be higher than generally recognized. Ways of improving how primary care responds to patients with persisting pain should be investigated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9112715     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00023

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


  61 in total

1.  The relation between expectations and outcomes in surgery for sciatica.

Authors:  G K Lutz; M E Butzlaff; S J Atlas; R B Keller; D E Singer; R A Deyo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Differences among outcome measures in occupational low back pain.

Authors:  Sue A Ferguson; William S Marras; Deborah L Burr
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-09

Review 3.  [Minimally invasive injection therapy in lumbar syndromes].

Authors:  O Linhardt; M Madl; D Boluki; T Renkawitz; J Matussek; U Quint; J Grifka
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Responding to the challenge of clinically relevant osteopathic research: efficacy and beyond.

Authors:  John C Licciardone
Journal:  Int J Osteopath Med       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.149

5.  [Minimally invasive injection therapy for patients with radicular lumbar spine syndrome. First results of an minimally invasive treatment for patients with lumbar radiculopathy].

Authors:  M Madl; O Linhardt; D Boluki; J Matussek; T Renkawitz; J Grifka
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.107

6.  Nonsurgical Treatment Choices by Individuals with Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Herniation in the United States: Associations with Long-term Outcomes.

Authors:  Anne Thackeray; Julie M Fritz; Jon D Lurie; Wenyan Zhao; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.159

7.  Sub-group Classification of Low Back Related Leg Pain: Is this the Catalyst Needed for Other Challenging Conditions?

Authors:  Chad Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2009

8.  Outcome of low back pain in general practice. Evidence based practice can improve outcome.

Authors:  M Deane; D Crick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-17

9.  A randomized placebo-controlled trial of single-dose IM corticosteroid for radicular low back pain.

Authors:  Benjamin W Friedman; David Esses; Clemencia Solorzano; Hong K Choi; Michael Cole; Michelle Davitt; Polly E Bijur; E J Gallagher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The comparative prognostic value of directional preference and centralization: a useful tool for front-line clinicians?

Authors:  Audrey Long; Stephen May; Tak Fung
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.