Evaluation of a Treatment-Based Classification Algorithm for Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background. Several studies have investigated criteria for classifying patientswith low back pain (LBP) into treatment-based subgroups. A comprehensive algorithm was created to translate these criteria into a clinical decision-making guide. Objective. This study investigated the translation of the i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Physical Therapy Vol. 91; no. 4; pp. 496 - 510
Autores principales: Stanton, Tasha R., Fritz, Julie M., Hancock, Mark J., Latimer, Jane, Maher, Christopher G., Wand, Benedict M., Parent, Eric C.
Formato: algorithm research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Apr2011
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=104868988&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 104868988
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00319023
        PTH
      jtl: Physical Therapy
      issn: 00319023
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2011
      vid: 91
      iid: 4
      pid: 10398
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        104868988
        59908331
        10.2522/ptj.20100272
        NLM21330450
        104868988
      ppf: 496
      ppct: 14
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Evaluation of a Treatment-Based Classification Algorithm for Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.
      aug:
        au:
          Stanton, Tasha R.
          Fritz, Julie M.
          Hancock, Mark J.
          Latimer, Jane
          Maher, Christopher G.
          Wand, Benedict M.
          Parent, Eric C.
        affil: PhD student in the Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health and Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney.
      sug:
        subj:
          Low Back Pain Classification
          Physical Therapy
          Low Back Pain Symptoms
          Human
          Cross Sectional Studies
          Nonexperimental Studies
          Acute Disease
          Utah
          New South Wales
          Exercise Test
          Prevalence
          Test-Retest Reliability
          Interrater Reliability
          Clinical Assessment Tools
          Questionnaires
          Scales
          Physical Examination
          Adult
          Female
          Male
          Sample Size
          kappa Statistic
          Confidence Intervals
          Low Back Pain Therapy
          External Validity
          Funding Source
          Low Back Pain Physiopathology
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Female
          Male
      ab: Background. Several studies have investigated criteria for classifying patientswith low back pain (LBP) into treatment-based subgroups. A comprehensive algorithm was created to translate these criteria into a clinical decision-making guide. Objective. This study investigated the translation of the individual subgroup criteria into a comprehensive algorithm by studying the prevalence of patients meeting the criteria for each treatment subgroup and the reliability of the classification. Design. This was a cross-sectional, observational study. Methods. Two hundred fifty patients with acute or subacute LBP were recruited from the United States and Australia to participate in the study. Trained physical therapists performed standardized assessments on all participants. The researchers used these findings to classify participants into subgroups. Thirty-one participants were reassessed to determine interrater reliability of the algorithm decision. Results. Based on individual subgroup criteria, 25.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]19.8%-30.6%) of the participants did not meet the criteria for any subgroup, 49.6% (95% CI43.4%-55.8%) of the participants met the criteria for only one subgroup, and 25.2% (95% CI19.8%-30.6%) of the participants met the criteria for more than one subgroup. The most common combination of subgroups was manipulation specific exercise (68.4% of the participants who met the criteria for 2 subgroups). Reliability of the algorithm decision was moderate (kappa0.52, 95% CI0.27- 0.77, percentage of agreement67%).Limitations. Due to a relatively small patient sample, reliability estimates aresomewhat imprecise. Conclusions. These findings provide important clinical data to guide future research and revisions to the algorithm. The finding that 25% of the participants met the criteria for more than one subgroup has important implications for the sequencing of treatments in the algorithm. Likewise, the finding that 25% of the participants did not meet the criteria for any subgroup provides important information regarding potential revisions to the algorithm's bottom table (which guides unclear classifications). Reliability of the algorithm is sufficient for clinical use.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        algorithm
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N