Dataset Information

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We explored differences in postural stability between subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) and varying risk levels for developing chronicity measured using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, single-session, double-blind experimental study among 65 participants who had LBP for more than 14 days. Postural stability was assessed by measuring the center of pressure (COP) range, displacement area, and velocity in anterior-posterior and mediolateral directions under four sensory and cognitive conditions: (i) eyes open and counting forward, (ii) eyes closed and counting forward, (iii) eyes closed and counting forward in multiples of seven, and (iv) eyes closed and counting backward in multiples of seven. The participants were stratified into low-/medium- (n = 53) and high-risk (n = 9) subgroups.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences among patients with LBP stratified as having a low/medium or high risk of chronicity in postural stability and sensory and cognitive conditions.

Conclusions

Impaired postural stability is important to consider when treating patients with LBP. However, we found that these impairments were not strongly aggravated in groups with a higher risk of chronicity, as measured using the STarT Back Tool.

SUBMITTER: Ingemann-Molden S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310071 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load.

Ingemann-Molden Stian S Pessoto Hirata Rogerio R Bach Jensen Martin M Graven-Nielsen Thomas T Riis Allan A

The Journal of international medical research 20220701 7

<h4>Objective</h4>We explored differences in postural stability between subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) and varying risk levels for developing chronicity measured using the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a cross-sectional, single-session, double-blind experimental study among 65 participants who had LBP for more than 14 days. Postural stability was assessed by measuring the center of pressure (COP) range, displacement area, and velocity ...[more]

PMID: 35854633

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the predictive validity of the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) tool for classifying people with back pain into categories of low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling back pain in U.S. primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of data from participants receiving usual care in a randomized clinical trial.SettingPrimary care clinics.ParticipantsAdults (N = 1109) ≥18 years of age with back pain. Those with specific causes of back pain (pregnancy, disc herniation, vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis) and work-related injuries were not included.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresThe original 9-item version of the STarT Back tool, administered at baseline, stratified patients by their risk (low, medium, high) of persistent disabling back pain (STarT Back risk group). Persistent disabling back pain was defined as Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of ≥7 at 6-month follow-up.ResultsThe STarT Back risk group was a significant predictor of persistent disabling back pain (P<.0001) at 6-month follow-up. The proportion of individuals with persistent disabling back pain at follow-up was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25) in the low-risk group, 62% (95% CI 57-67) in the medium-risk group, and 80% (95% CI 75-85) in the high-risk group. The relative risk of persistent disabling back pain was 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.5) in the medium-risk group compared to the low-risk group, and 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) in the high-risk group.ConclusionsThe STarT Back risk groups successfully separated people with back pain into distinct categories of risk for persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up in U.S. primary care. These results were very similar to those in the original STarT Back validation study. This validation study is a necessary first step toward identifying whether the entire STarT Back approach, including matched/targeted treatment, can be effectively used for primary care in the United States.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common cause of contact with the primary healthcare sector. In some patients, symptoms quickly resolve, but others develop long-lasting pain and disability. To improve the care pathway for patients with LBP, the STarT Back Tool (STarT) questionnaire has been developed. It helps initial decision-making by subgrouping patients on the basis of their prognosis and helps to target treatment according to prognosis. An assumption behind the use of STarT is the ability to predict functional improvement. This assumption has never been tested in a population that consists exclusively of patients enrolled when consulting a Danish general practitioner for LBP. The aim of this study was to investigate STarT's ability to predict a 30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score.MethodsThis was an ancillary analysis using data from a Danish guideline implementation study (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01699256). An inclusion criterion was age 18 to 65 years of age. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, fractures, and signs of underlying pathology. Patient-reported STarT score and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire were administered at baseline and again after 4, 8, and 52 weeks.ResultsBetween January 2013 and July 2014, 475 patients from the original trial participated with questionnaires. From this subpopulation, 441 (92.8%) patients provided information regarding STarT. Baseline and eight-week RMDQ data were available for 304 (64.0%) patients. After 8 weeks, 61 (65.6%) in the low-risk group, 67 (54.9%) in the medium-risk group, and 33 (37.1%) in the high-risk group had achieved a 30% improvement in the RMDQ score. After 8 weeks, high-risk patients were at 61% (95% CI: 20-125%, P < 0.001) higher risk of not achieving a 30% improvement in the RMDQ score compared with patients in either the low-risk group or the medium-risk group.ConclusionSTarT was predictive for functional improvement in patients from general practice with LBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01699256 , Nov 29, 2016 (registered retrospectively).

Project description:Background contextThe STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) categorizes risk of future disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Previous studies evaluating the use of SBST in physical therapy (PT) populations do not reflect the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity occurring in clinical practice and lack statistical power to evaluate factors associated with outcomes within each SBST risk category.PurposeThe purpose of this study is to further refine SBST risk categorization for predicting improvements in functional disability with attention toward patient level factors that might guide SBST use in routine outpatient physical therapy practice.Study design/settingThis was a retrospective cohort study that took place within a large academic, tertiary-care health system.Patient sampleThe study cohort consisted of 1,169 patients with LBP who completed a course of outpatient physical therapy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 and who completed the patient-reported SBST and modified low back pain disability questionnaire (MDQ) questionnaires as part of standard of care.Outcome measuresImprovement in functional disability defined as decrease in 10 or more points in the MDQ.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of improvement after PT, which included SBST risk category, baseline MDQ, a two-way interaction term between SBST category and baseline MDQ, prior level of function (independent vs. required assistance), demographic characteristics, number of completed PT visits, and duration of PT episode of care. In exploratory analyses, additional two-way interaction terms between SBST category and the significant predictors were added to the regression model.ResultsMean age of patients in the study cohort was 55.1 years (SD 16.1); 657 (56.2%) were female, 117 (10.0%) were black race, 127 (10.9%) had Medicaid insurance, and 353 (30.2%) had previously received PT for back pain. In all, 35.8% (n=419) patients categorized as low risk SBST category, 40.7% (n=476) medium risk SBST category, and 23.4% (n=274) high risk SBST category. There was an interaction between baseline MDQ and SBST risk category and improvement with PT. For all three SBST categories, higher baseline MDQ was associated with higher probability of improvement, but the effect was less pronounced as SBST risk category increased. Additional factors independently associated with reduced odds of improvement after PT included black race (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.72), Medicaid insurance (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), and prior PT (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67). In exploratory analyses, there was a significant interaction between insurance type and SBST risk category in predicting functional improvement after PT. Patients with Medicare and Medicaid insurance had similar rates of improvement in low and high risk SBST categories but different rates of improvement in the medium risk categories.ConclusionsThe SBST tool predicts outcomes of PT in a cohort of patients receiving outpatient PT for LBP. The odds of improvement varied according to baseline disability and SBST risk status. Race, insurance type, and history of previous PT influenced prediction independent of SBST risk status. Incorporating these variables and the interaction between SBST and baseline disability in outcome models has the potential to refine prediction of outcomes after PT.

Project description:BackgroundStratification strategies based on identifying patient's prognosis in order to guide patient care constitute one of the most prominent and recent approach in low back pain research. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) although promising, has not been studied in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Considering how challenging it is to translate research into practice, the value of integrating a new tool should be thoroughly assessed. The purpose was therefore to assess associations between the short- and long-terms clinical status and two types of variables, physiologic measures and the SBST, in participants with cLBP. The ability of both types of variables to discriminate between participants with and without higher levels of disability, pain, fear of movement and patient's global impression of change was also investigated.MethodsFifty-three volunteers with cLBP participated in an initial evaluation and follow-ups at 2-, 4-, 6- and 12-month. Physiologic measures (maximal voluntary contraction, maximal endurance and muscle activity evaluated during prone and lateral isometric tasks) and the SBST were assessed at baseline. Disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), pain intensity (101-point Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, TSK) and patient's global impression of change (7-point scale, PGIC) were evaluated at baseline and at each follow-up. Aside the use of correlation analyses to assess potential associations; ROC curves were performed to evaluate the discriminative ability of physiologic measures and the SBST.ResultsThe SBST allowed for the identification of participants presenting higher levels of disability (ODI ≥24 %), pain (NRS ≥37 %) or fear of movement (TSK ≥41/68) over a 12-month period (AUC = 0.71 to 0.84, ps < 0.05). The SBST score was also correlated with disability at each follow-up (τ = 0.22 to 0.33, ps < 0.05) and with pain intensity and fear of movement at follow-ups. Among physiologic measures, only maximal voluntary contraction was correlated to disability, pain intensity or fear of movement during the follow-up (|τ| = 0.26 to 0.32, ps < 0.05) and none was able to identify participants presenting higher levels of outcomes (AUC ps > 0.05).ConclusionPhysiologic measures obtained during prone and lateral tests have limited associations with the clinical status over a 12-month period in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. On the other hand, the STarT Back Screening Tool is useful for the identification of patients who will present higher levels of disability, pain intensity and fear of movement over a year.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02226692.

Dataset Information

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Difference in postural stability between STarT Back Tool subgroups of patients with low back pain under conditions of sensory deprivation and cognitive load.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets