Evaluating the accuracy of a simple heuristic to identify serious causes of low back pain. Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain. Lumbar spine films in primary care: current use and effects of selective ordering criteria. Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of 5 physical examination tests and combination of tests for subacromial impingement. Comparison of short-term response to two spinal manipulation techniques for patients with low back pain in a military beneficiary population. Physical performance, pain, pain behavior and subjective disability in patients with subacute low back pain. A randomized controlled trial comparing 2 types of spinal manipulation and minimal conservative medical care for adults 55 years and older with subacute or chronic low back pain. Computed tomography, electrodiagnostic and clinical findings in chronic workers' compensation patients with back and leg pain. The value of accurate clinical assessment in the surgical management of the lumbar disc protrusion.
Among patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), GPs have to identify those with serious, treatable conditions. However, excluding these conditions in every patient with LPB is time consuming and of low yield. We have suggested that identifying those patients where these serious conditions need to be considered can be made more efficient through asking patient if they feel their LBP is new or unfamiliar in some way.
                To evaluate the diagnostic validity of a simple heuristic based on the patient's view of the familiarity of LBP.
                Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard, nested within a three-arm randomized trial of quality improvement for LBP. A total of 1378 patients presenting, with LBP, to one of 126 participating GPs were included. They were asked whether their LBP was familiar or not (index test). At 1 year, patients were interviewed with regard to relevant conditions that in hindsight might explain their LBP. Reviewers deciding on disease status (reference standard) were blinded to the results of the index test.
                Totally 1190 patients answered the index test question and were available for interview at 1 year. Only four of these had a serious cause of their LBP. Two of these were identified by the familiarity heuristic, resulting in low sensitivity.
                The number of diseased patients was too small to obtain a reliable estimate of sensitivity. Low prevalence of serious disease in primary care poses difficulties for diagnostic research. In hindsight we would question whether an RCT-setting emphasizing non-specific LBP is suitable for this kind of research. At present, the familiarity heuristic cannot be recommended for patients presenting with LBP. To determine the prevalence of serious pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of recommended "red flag" screening questions.
                An inception cohort of 1,172 consecutive patients receiving primary care for acute low back pain was recruited from primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. At the initial consultation, clinicians recorded responses to 25 red flag questions and then provided an initial diagnosis. The reference standard was a 12-month followup supplemented with a specialist review of a random subsample of participants.
                There were 11 cases (0.9%) of serious pathology, including 8 cases of fracture. Despite the low prevalence of serious pathology, most patients (80.4%) had at least 1 red flag (median 2, interquartile range 1-3). Only 3 of the red flags for fracture recommended for use in clinical guidelines were informative: prolonged use of corticosteroids, age >70 years, and significant trauma. Clinicians identified 5 of the 11 cases of serious pathology at the initial consultation and made 6 false-positive diagnoses. The status of a diagnostic prediction rule containing 4 features (female sex, age >70 years, significant trauma, and prolonged use of corticosteroids) was moderately associated with the presence of fracture (the area under the curve for the rule score was 0.834 [95% confidence interval 0.654-1.014]; P = 0.001).
                In patients presenting to a primary care provider with back pain, previously undiagnosed serious pathology is rare. The most common serious pathology observed was vertebral fracture. Approximately half of the cases of serious pathology were identified at the initial consultation. Some red flags have very high false-positive rates, indicating that, when used in isolation, they have little diagnostic value in the primary care setting. Low back pain (LBP) often prompts radiography, although the diagnostic yield of lumbar spine films is low, and many radiographic abnormalities are unrelated to symptoms. Criteria have been proposed for selective x-ray use, but their value and safety are uncertain. To evaluate these criteria, the authors prospectively studied 621 walk-in patients with LBP. The yield of explanatory x-ray findings was over three times greater among patients with indications for radiography than among those without. Furthermore, an indication for x-rays existed for all patients found to have a malignancy, and for 13 of 14 patients with an identified fracture. Actual physician ordering, however, did not correspond well with the recommended indications. Application of selective criteria appears safe and may improve the yield of useful findings. It may not, however, reduce x-ray utilization from current levels without further refinement in the criteria. To investigate the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of individual tests and combination of tests for subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS).
                A prospective, blinded study design.
                Orthopedic surgeon shoulder clinic.
                Patients with shoulder pain (n=55, mean age=40.6y).
                Patients were evaluated with 5 physical examination tests for SAIS: Neer, Hawkins-Kennedy, painful arc, empty can (Jobe), and external rotation resistance tests. Surgical diagnosis was the reference standard.
                Diagnostic accuracy calculated with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (-LR). A forward stepwise binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine the best test combination for SAIS. An ROC curve analysis was also used to determine the cut point of the number of tests discriminating between the presence and absence of SAIS. Kappa coefficients and percent agreement assessed interrater reliability.
                The ROC analyses revealed a significant area under the curve (AUC) (AUC=.67-.72, P<.05) for all tests, except for the Hawkins-Kennedy. The tests with a +LR greater than or equal to 2.0 were the painful arc (+LR=2.25; 95% CI, 1.33-3.81), empty can (+LR=3.90; 95% CI, 1.5-10.12), and the external rotation resistance tests (+LR=4.39; 95% CI, 1.74-11.07). Tests with -LR less than or equal to 0.50 were the painful arc (-LR=.38; 95% CI, .16-.90), external rotation resistance (-LR=.50; 95% CI, .28-.89), and Neer tests (-LR=.35; 95% CI, .12-.97). The regression analysis had no specific test combinations for confirming or ruling out SAIS. The ROC analysis was significant (AUC=.79, P=.001), with a cut point of 3 positive tests out of 5 tests. Reliability was moderate to substantial agreement (kappa=.45-.67) for the painful arc, empty can, and external rotation resistance tests and fair strength of agreement (kappa=.39-.40) for the Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy tests.
                The single tests of painful arc, external rotation resistance, and Neer are useful screening tests to rule out SAIS. The single tests of painful arc, external rotation resistance, and empty can are helpful to confirm SAIS. The reliability of all tests was acceptable for clinical use. Based on reliability and diagnostic accuracy, the single tests of the painful arc, external rotation resistance, and empty can have the best overall clinical utility. The cut point of 3 or more positive of 5 tests can confirm the diagnosis of SAIS, while less than 3 positive of 5 rules out SAIS. To determine whether military health care beneficiaries with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to respond successfully to spinal manipulation experience a difference in short-term clinical outcomes based on the manipulation technique that is used.
                Sixty patients with LBP identified as likely responders to manipulation underwent a standardized clinical examination and were randomized to receive a lumbopelvic (LP) or lumbar neutral gap (NG) manipulation technique. Outcome measures were a numeric pain rating scale and the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
                Both the LP and NG groups experienced statistically significant reductions in pain and disability at 48 hours postmanipulation. The improvements seen in each group were small because of the short follow-up. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in pain or disability between the two groups.
                The two manipulation techniques used in this study were equally effective at reducing pain and disability when compared at 48 hours posttreatment. Clinicians may employ either technique for the treatment of LBP and can expect similar outcomes in those who satisfy the clinical prediction rule (CPR). Further research is required to determine whether differences exist at longer-term follow-up periods, after multiple treatment sessions, or in different clinical populations. The aim of this paper was to study the physical performance, pain, pain behavior and disability in patients with subacute low back pain (LBP). The patients were blue-collar workers and had been sick-listed for 8 weeks due to subacute low back pain. A total of 103 patients were randomized, 51 of them to the intervention group and the other to a control group. Recordings of physical performance and complaints of LBP were done before and after treatment in the intervention group. The proportion of patients with no complaints of LBP was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group at the one-year follow-up. The patients who intra-individually improved their physical performance also intra-individually decreased their complaints of LBP. The intra-individual improvements were suggested to be important for the individual return to work. Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP.
                Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC.
                Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions.
                Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population. One hundred patients with complaints of low-back pain and leg pain, consistent with a diagnosis of sciatica, were evaluated. All patients had complaints for longer than 6 months and had recently undergone electrodiagnostic testing and computed tomography (CT). Correlation was made between symptoms, straight leg raising, clinical neurological deficits, electrodiagnostic and CT findings. The radiation of pain above or below the knee and pain on straight leg raising did not show a high correlation with each other or with neurological deficits or CT findings. Electrodiagnostic studies often defined a radiculopathy in patients with equivocal clinical signs. CT findings did not predict the nature of symptoms or clinical and electrodiagnostic findings. Electrodiagnostic abnormalities showed the greatest ability to predict CT abnormalities. It is concluded that in chronic sciatica patients, no single diagnostic parameter is conclusive and a combination of clinical and laboratory findings is necessary to reach a diagnosis. In addition, many assumptions, valid in patients with acute pain cannot be extrapolated to patients with chronic sciatica. One hundred patients with lumbar disc protrusions were studied. Thirty six "control" patients were admitted in the same time period with low back pain and sciatica but with subsequently "normal" myelograms and no surgery. The aim of this paper was to relate history and clinical signs to the myelograms and surgical findings. Ninety nine per cent of our patients presented with sciatica (controls 94%). The most frequently found sign in patients with a disc protrusion was reduction of ipsilateral straight leg raising (98%). However, 55% of controls also showed this sign. There were three signs that, when present, particularly indicated a disc protrusion; "crossed straight leg raising" (pain on contralateral straight leg raising), measured calf wasting and impaired ankle reflex: the latter being especially indicative of an L5-S1 disc protrusion. There were two further important signs, weakness of dorsiflexion of the foot and scoliosis of the lumbar spine. However, such signs occurred in about half the patients and so clinical diagnosis in the remaining half depended on obtaining a good history of sciatica, and paying due regard to severity of the pain, the mobility of the patient, the ability and desire to work and the overall personality. Satisfactory results of surgery simply depend on finding and removing a definite disc protrusion. Using these methods of selection, 98% have returned to their original employment, 86% within 3 months of the operation. For a patient with no abnormal signs and a normal myelogram, surgical treatment should not be advised.
For most "red flags," there is insufficient evidence to provide recommendations regarding their diagnostic accuracy or usefulness for detecting spinal malignancy. The available evidence indicates that in patients with LBP, an indication of spinal malignancy should not be based on the results of one single "red flag" question. Further research to evaluate the performance of different combinations of tests is recommended.