Nielsen Anne Molgaard, Kent Peter, Hestbaek Lise, Vach Werner, Kongsted Alice
Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.
School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Feb 1;18(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1411-x.
Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain (LBP) is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) is a statistical technique that is increasingly being used to identify subgroups based on patient characteristics. However, as LBP is a complex multi-domain condition, the optimal approach when using LCA is unknown. Therefore, this paper describes the exploration of two approaches to LCA that may help improve the identification of clinically relevant and interpretable LBP subgroups.
From 928 LBP patients consulting a chiropractor, baseline data were used as input to the statistical subgrouping. In a single-stage LCA, all variables were modelled simultaneously to identify patient subgroups. In a two-stage LCA, we used the latent class membership from our previously published LCA within each of six domains of health (activity, contextual factors, pain, participation, physical impairment and psychology) (first stage) as the variables entered into the second stage of the two-stage LCA to identify patient subgroups. The description of the results of the single-stage and two-stage LCA was based on a combination of statistical performance measures, qualitative evaluation of clinical interpretability (face validity) and a subgroup membership comparison.
For the single-stage LCA, a model solution with seven patient subgroups was preferred, and for the two-stage LCA, a nine patient subgroup model. Both approaches identified similar, but not identical, patient subgroups characterised by (i) mild intermittent LBP, (ii) recent severe LBP and activity limitations, (iii) very recent severe LBP with both activity and participation limitations, (iv) work-related LBP, (v) LBP and several negative consequences and (vi) LBP with nerve root involvement.
Both approaches identified clinically interpretable patient subgroups. The potential importance of these subgroups needs to be investigated by exploring whether they can be identified in other cohorts and by examining their possible association with patient outcomes. This may inform the selection of a preferred LCA approach.
下背痛(LBP)患者的异质性已得到充分认识,并且已经提出了不同的亚组划分方法。潜在类别分析(LCA)是一种统计技术,越来越多地用于根据患者特征识别亚组。然而,由于LBP是一种复杂的多领域疾病,使用LCA时的最佳方法尚不清楚。因此,本文描述了对两种LCA方法的探索,这可能有助于改善对临床相关且可解释的LBP亚组的识别。
从928名咨询脊椎按摩师的LBP患者中,将基线数据用作统计亚组划分的输入。在单阶段LCA中,对所有变量进行同时建模以识别患者亚组。在两阶段LCA中,我们将先前发表的LCA在健康的六个领域(活动、背景因素、疼痛、参与、身体损伤和心理)中的潜在类别成员身份(第一阶段)用作进入两阶段LCA第二阶段的变量,以识别患者亚组。单阶段和两阶段LCA结果的描述基于统计性能指标、临床可解释性(表面效度)的定性评估和亚组成员身份比较的组合。
对于单阶段LCA,首选具有七个患者亚组的模型解决方案,对于两阶段LCA,首选九个患者亚组的模型。两种方法都识别出了相似但不完全相同的患者亚组,其特征为:(i)轻度间歇性LBP,(ii)近期严重LBP和活动受限,(iii)近期非常严重的LBP且伴有活动和参与受限,(iv)与工作相关的LBP,(v)LBP及多种负面后果,以及(vi)伴有神经根受累的LBP。
两种方法都识别出了临床上可解释的患者亚组。需要通过探索这些亚组是否能在其他队列中被识别以及检查它们与患者结局的可能关联来研究这些亚组的潜在重要性。这可能为首选LCA方法的选择提供参考。