Low back pain patients in Sweden, Denmark and the UK share similar characteristics and outcomes: a cross-national comparison of prospective cohort studies

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the world’s leading cause of disability and yet poorly understood. Cross-national comparisons may motivate hypotheses about outcomes being condition-specific or related to cultural differences and can inform whether observations from one country may be generalised to another. This analysis of data from three cohort studies explored whether characteristics and outcomes differed between LBP patients visiting chiropractors in Sweden, Denmark and the UK. METHODS: LBP patients completed a baseline questionnaire and were followed up after 3, 5, 12 and 26 weeks. Outcomes were LBP intensity (0–10 scales) and LBP frequency (0–7 days the previous week). Cohort differences were tested in mixed models accounting for repeated measures. It was investigated if any differences were explained by different baseline characteristics, and interaction terms between baseline factors and nations tested if strength of prognostic factors differed across countries. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 262, 947 and 453 patients from Sweden, Denmark and the UK respectively. Patient characteristics were largely similar across cohorts although some statistically significant differences were observed. The clinical course followed almost identical patterns across nations and small observed differences were not present after adjusting for baseline factors. The associations of LBP intensity and episode duration with outcome differed in strength between countries. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic patients with low back pain had similar characteristics and clinical course across three Northern European countries. It is unlikely that culture have substantially different impacts on the course of LBP in these countries and the results support knowledge transfer between the investigated countries

Clustering patients on the basis of their individual course of low back pain over a six month period

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several researchers have searched for subgroups in the heterogeneous population of patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). To date, subgroups have been identified based on psychological profiles and the variation of pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This multicentre prospective observational study explored the 6- month clinical course with measurements of bothersomeness that were collected from weekly text messages that were sent by 176 patients with LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis, Ward's method, was used to cluster patients according to the development of their pain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four clusters with distinctly different clinical courses were described and further validated against clinical baseline variables and outcomes. Cluster 1, a "stable" cluster, where the course was relatively unchanged over time, contained young patients with good self- rated health. Cluster 2, a group of "fast improvers" who were very bothered initially but rapidly improved, consisted of patients who rated their health as relatively poor but experienced the fewest number of days with bothersome pain of all the clusters. Cluster 3 was the "typical patient" group, with medium bothersomeness at baseline and an average improvement over the first 4-5 weeks. Finally, cluster 4 contained the "slow improvers", a group of patients who improved over 12 weeks. This group contained older individuals who had more LBP the previous year and who also experienced most days with bothersome pain of all the clusters.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It is possible to define clinically meaningful clusters of patients based on their individual course of LBP over time. Future research should aim to reproduce these clusters in different populations, add further clinical variables to distinguish the clusters and test different treatment strategies for them.</p

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program: when do chiropractors recommend secondary and tertiary preventive care for low back pain?

BACKGROUND: Among chiropractors the use of long-term treatment is common, often referred to as "maintenance care". Although no generally accepted definition exists, the term has a self-explanatory meaning to chiropractic clinicians. In public health terms, maintenance care can be considered as both secondary and tertiary preventive care. The objective of this study was to explore what factors chiropractors consider before recommending maintenance care to patients with low back pain (LBP). METHOD: Structured focus group discussions with Swedish chiropractors were used to discuss pre-defined cases. A questionnaire was then designed on the basis of the information obtained. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to grade the importance of several factors when considering recommending maintenance care to a patient. The grading was done on a straight line ranging from "Very important" to "Not at all important". All members of the Swedish Chiropractors' Association (SCA) were invited to participate in the discussions and in the questionnaire survey. RESULTS: Thirty-six (22%) of SCA members participated in the group discussions and 129 (77%) returned the questionnaires. Ninety-eight percent of the questionnaire respondents claimed to believe that chiropractic care can prevent future relapses of back pain. According to the group discussions tertiary preventive care would be considered appropriate when a patient improves by 75% or more. According to the results of the questionnaire survey, two factors were considered as "very important" by more than 70% of the respondents in recommending secondary preventive care, namely frequency past year and frequency past 10 years of the low back pain problem. Eight other factors were considered "very important" by 50-69% of the respondents, namely duration (over the past year and of the present attack), treatment (effect and durability), lifestyle, work conditions, and psychosocial factors (including attitude). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of our respondents believe that chiropractic treatment can prevent relapses of back pain. When recommending secondary preventive care, past frequency of the problem is considered. For tertiary preventive care, the patient needs to improve considerably before a recommendation of maintenance care is made

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

Reporting the standard error of the mean: a critical analysis of three journals in manual medicine

Abstract Background In the realm of biomedical research articles, authors typically utilize descriptive statistics to outline the characteristics of their study samples. The standard deviation (SD) serves to illustrate variability among the individuals in a sample, whereas the standard error of the mean (SEM) conveys the level of uncertainty associated with the sample mean’s representation of the population mean. It is not unusual for authors of scientific articles to incorrectly utilize the SEM rather than the SD when explaining data variability. This is problematic because the SEM is consistently smaller than the SD, which could cause readers to underestimate variation in the data. In medical journals, inappropriate use has been found in 14–64% of articles. Moreover, in the field of musculoskeletal health and manual medicine, there is a noticeable absence of literature on the appropriate presentation of statistics. Aim The aim of this study was to map the frequency of inappropriate reporting of SEM in articles published over a three-year period in three prominent journals in manual medicine. Methods In this critical analysis, all articles in three journals – BMC Chiropractic and Manual Therapies (CMT), Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) and Musculoskeletal Science and Practice: An International Journal of Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy (MSP) – published between 2017 and 2019 were analysed based on descriptive statistics that inappropriately or vaguely reported SEMs. Results In total, 790 articles were analysed from the three journals, 487 of which were found to report the SEM. Among these articles, we identified a frequency of 1.4% of inadequate SEM use. The investigation also showed that in 2.5% of the cases, authors did not clarify whether the ± sign presented in text, tables or figures expressed SDs or SEMs. Conclusion There was a low frequency (1.4%) of inaccurately reported SEMs in scientific journals focusing on manual medicine, which was notably lower than studies conducted in other fields. Additionally, it was noted that in 2.5% of the articles, the ± sign was not adequately defined, which could lead to confusion among readers and hinder the interpretation of the results

Ethical challenges from a problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement: a qualitative study among employees with common mental disorders, first-line managers, and rehabilitation coordinators

PurposeThis study aims to explore ethical challenges potentially arising from a problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement (PSI-WPI) in primary health care (with first-line manager involvement) for employees on sickness absence due to common mental disorders.MethodsA qualitative design guided by the theoretical framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects of healthcare technologies. Semi-structured interviews were performed with coordinators (n = 6), employees (n = 13), and first-line managers (n = 8). Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret themes.ResultsA main theme was identified "the workplace and healthcare hold different organizational value logics" and four sub-themes: "the PSI-WPI challenged the organizational goals and values of the workplace and healthcare", "the PSI-WPI challenged organizational values on fairness", "the PSI-WPI challenged the professional roles of first-line managers and rehabilitation coordinators" and "the PSI-WPI introduced a need for the employee to juggle the employee and patient roles".ConclusionDifferent organizational value logics, values, and goals can introduce ethical challenges. We advise clarifying stakeholders' roles and preparing employees and managers for the return to work process by providing sufficient information. The ethical challenges and suggested measures to minimize them, should be considered when planning return to work interventions that involve several stakeholders.Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2018-01252]</p

Using few and scattered time points for analysis of a variable course of pain can be misleading: an example using weekly text message data

Background context: Because low back pain (LBP) is a fluctuating condition, the diversity in the prediction literature may be due to when the outcome is measured.Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the prediction of LBP using an outcome measured at several time points.Study design/setting: A multicenter clinical observational study in Sweden.Patient sample: Data were collected on 244 subjects with nonspecific LBP. The mean age of the subjects was 44 years, the mean pain score at inclusion was 4.4/10, and 51% of the sample had experienced LBP for more than 30 days the previous year.Outcome measures: The outcome used in this study was the “number of days with bothersome pain” collected with weekly text messages for 6 months.Methods: In subjects with nonspecific LBP, weekly data were available for secondary analyses. A few baseline variables were chosen to investigate prediction at different time points: pain intensity, the presence of leg pain, duration of LBP the previous year, and self-rated health at baseline. Age and gender acted as additional covariates.Results: In the multilevel models, the predictive variables interacted with time. Thus, the risk of experiencing a day with bothersome LBP varied over time. In the logistic regression analyses, the predictive variable's previous duration showed a consistent predictive ability for all the time points. However, the variables pain intensity, leg pain, and self-rated health showed inconsistent predictive patterns.Conclusions: An outcome based on frequently measured data described the variability in the prediction of future LBP over time. Prediction depended on when the outcome was measured. These results may explain the diversity of the results of the predictor studies in the literature.</p