Sansom Institute for Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia 5001.
Phys Ther. 2013 Mar;93(3):345-55. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120263. Epub 2012 Nov 8.
A treatment-based classification algorithm for low back pain (LBP) was created to help clinicians select treatments to which people are most likely to respond. To allow the algorithm to classify all people with LBP, additional criteria can help therapists make decisions for people who do not clearly fit into a subgroup (ie, unclear classifications). Recent studies indicated that classifications are unclear for approximately 34% of people with LBP.
To guide improvements in the algorithm, it is imperative to determine whether people with unclear classifications are different from those with clear classifications.
This study was a secondary analysis of data from 3 previous studies investigating the algorithm.
Baseline data from 529 people who had LBP were used (3 discrete cohorts). The primary outcome was type of classification, that is, clear or unclear. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine which participant variables were related to having an unclear classification.
People with unclear classifications had greater odds of being older (odds ratio [OR]=1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.003-1.033), having a longer duration of LBP (OR=1.001, 95% CI=1.000-1.001), having had a previous episode(s) of LBP (OR=1.61, 95% CI=1.04-2.49), having fewer fear-avoidance beliefs related to both work (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.96-0.99) and physical activity (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.96-0.996), and having less LBP-related disability (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.96-0.99) than people with clear classifications.
Studies from which participant data were drawn had different inclusion criteria and clinical settings.
People with unclear classifications appeared to be less affected by LBP (less disability and fewer fear avoidance beliefs), despite typically having a longer duration of LBP. Future studies should investigate whether modifying the algorithm to exclude such people or provide them with different interventions improves outcomes.
为了帮助临床医生选择最有可能对患者产生疗效的治疗方法,我们创建了一种基于治疗的腰痛(LBP)分类算法。为了让算法能够对所有腰痛患者进行分类,还可以使用其他标准来帮助治疗师对那些不符合亚组标准(即分类不明确)的患者做出决策。最近的研究表明,大约有 34%的腰痛患者的分类不明确。
为了改进该算法,必须确定分类不明确的患者与分类明确的患者是否存在差异。
本研究是对 3 项先前研究中该算法数据的二次分析。
使用了来自 529 名腰痛患者的基线数据(3 个离散队列)。主要结局是分类类型,即明确或不明确。采用单变量逻辑回归来确定哪些患者变量与分类不明确有关。
分类不明确的患者更有可能年龄较大(优势比 [OR]=1.01,95%置信区间 [CI]=1.003-1.033)、腰痛持续时间更长(OR=1.001,95%CI=1.000-1.001)、有过先前的腰痛发作(OR=1.61,95%CI=1.04-2.49)、与工作(OR=0.98,95%CI=0.96-0.99)和体力活动(OR=0.98,95%CI=0.96-0.996)相关的恐惧回避信念更少,以及腰痛相关残疾程度更低(OR=0.98,95%CI=0.96-0.99),与分类明确的患者相比。
用于提取患者数据的研究具有不同的纳入标准和临床环境。
与分类明确的患者相比,分类不明确的患者腰痛程度似乎较轻(残疾程度较轻且恐惧回避信念较少),尽管他们的腰痛持续时间通常较长。未来的研究应该调查是否可以修改算法排除此类患者,或为他们提供不同的干预措施,以改善治疗效果。