Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy

Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques

Geertruida E. Bekkering, Henricus J M Hendriks, Maurits W. Van Tulder, Dirk L. Knol, Maureen J. Simmonds, Rob A B Oostendorp, Lex M. Bouter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design. Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-) effectiveness of the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain in primary care. Objectives. To describe the course of low back pain in patients who are referred to physiotherapy, to identify clinically important prognostic factors on different outcomes, and to evaluate the influence of different statistical techniques in developing a prognostic model. Summary of Background Data. Several studies have aimed to identify prognostic factors for low back pain in primary care. These studies focused on different outcome measures and used various statistical techniques. Methods. Primary outcomes were perceived recovery, improvement in pain, improvement in functioning, and presence of disabling low back pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each outcome variable. Two cut-off points were used to determine significance with respect to the univariate analysis, and two selection methods were used to build the final multivariate models. The resulting prognostic models were compared. Results. A total of 500 patients were included. Pain and disability reduced considerably in the first 3 months, but further reduction was only modest. Prognostic factors varied for different outcomes, but the duration of the current episode was included in all models generated. Varying the statistical techniques also resulted in a different prognostic model with some change to the amount of variance explained. Conclusions. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced some pain and disability at 12 months follow-up. The most stable predictor of prognosis in low back pain was the duration of the current episode. The choice of statistical method influenced the final model; however, changes in the explained variance were small.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1881-1886
Number of pages6
JournalSpine
Volume30
Issue number16
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 15 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Pain
Primary Health Care
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Low back pain
  • Outcome
  • Physiotherapy
  • Primary care
  • Prognosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Bekkering, G. E., Hendriks, H. J. M., Van Tulder, M. W., Knol, D. L., Simmonds, M. J., Oostendorp, R. A. B., & Bouter, L. M. (2005). Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques. Spine, 30(16), 1881-1886. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000173901.64181.db

Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy : Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques. / Bekkering, Geertruida E.; Hendriks, Henricus J M; Van Tulder, Maurits W.; Knol, Dirk L.; Simmonds, Maureen J.; Oostendorp, Rob A B; Bouter, Lex M.

In: Spine, Vol. 30, No. 16, 15.08.2005, p. 1881-1886.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bekkering, GE, Hendriks, HJM, Van Tulder, MW, Knol, DL, Simmonds, MJ, Oostendorp, RAB & Bouter, LM 2005, 'Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques', Spine, vol. 30, no. 16, pp. 1881-1886. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000173901.64181.db
Bekkering, Geertruida E. ; Hendriks, Henricus J M ; Van Tulder, Maurits W. ; Knol, Dirk L. ; Simmonds, Maureen J. ; Oostendorp, Rob A B ; Bouter, Lex M. / Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy : Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques. In: Spine. 2005 ; Vol. 30, No. 16. pp. 1881-1886.
@article{1863295a2639404fa03b6825994f3eba,
title = "Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques",
abstract = "Study Design. Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-) effectiveness of the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain in primary care. Objectives. To describe the course of low back pain in patients who are referred to physiotherapy, to identify clinically important prognostic factors on different outcomes, and to evaluate the influence of different statistical techniques in developing a prognostic model. Summary of Background Data. Several studies have aimed to identify prognostic factors for low back pain in primary care. These studies focused on different outcome measures and used various statistical techniques. Methods. Primary outcomes were perceived recovery, improvement in pain, improvement in functioning, and presence of disabling low back pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each outcome variable. Two cut-off points were used to determine significance with respect to the univariate analysis, and two selection methods were used to build the final multivariate models. The resulting prognostic models were compared. Results. A total of 500 patients were included. Pain and disability reduced considerably in the first 3 months, but further reduction was only modest. Prognostic factors varied for different outcomes, but the duration of the current episode was included in all models generated. Varying the statistical techniques also resulted in a different prognostic model with some change to the amount of variance explained. Conclusions. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced some pain and disability at 12 months follow-up. The most stable predictor of prognosis in low back pain was the duration of the current episode. The choice of statistical method influenced the final model; however, changes in the explained variance were small.",
keywords = "Epidemiology, Low back pain, Outcome, Physiotherapy, Primary care, Prognosis",
author = "Bekkering, {Geertruida E.} and Hendriks, {Henricus J M} and {Van Tulder}, {Maurits W.} and Knol, {Dirk L.} and Simmonds, {Maureen J.} and Oostendorp, {Rob A B} and Bouter, {Lex M.}",
year = "2005",
month = "8",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1097/01.brs.0000173901.64181.db",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "1881--1886",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prognostic factors for low back pain in patients referred for physiotherapy

T2 - Comparing outcomes and varying modeling techniques

AU - Bekkering, Geertruida E.

AU - Hendriks, Henricus J M

AU - Van Tulder, Maurits W.

AU - Knol, Dirk L.

AU - Simmonds, Maureen J.

AU - Oostendorp, Rob A B

AU - Bouter, Lex M.

PY - 2005/8/15

Y1 - 2005/8/15

N2 - Study Design. Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-) effectiveness of the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain in primary care. Objectives. To describe the course of low back pain in patients who are referred to physiotherapy, to identify clinically important prognostic factors on different outcomes, and to evaluate the influence of different statistical techniques in developing a prognostic model. Summary of Background Data. Several studies have aimed to identify prognostic factors for low back pain in primary care. These studies focused on different outcome measures and used various statistical techniques. Methods. Primary outcomes were perceived recovery, improvement in pain, improvement in functioning, and presence of disabling low back pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each outcome variable. Two cut-off points were used to determine significance with respect to the univariate analysis, and two selection methods were used to build the final multivariate models. The resulting prognostic models were compared. Results. A total of 500 patients were included. Pain and disability reduced considerably in the first 3 months, but further reduction was only modest. Prognostic factors varied for different outcomes, but the duration of the current episode was included in all models generated. Varying the statistical techniques also resulted in a different prognostic model with some change to the amount of variance explained. Conclusions. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced some pain and disability at 12 months follow-up. The most stable predictor of prognosis in low back pain was the duration of the current episode. The choice of statistical method influenced the final model; however, changes in the explained variance were small.

AB - Study Design. Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-) effectiveness of the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physiotherapy for low back pain in primary care. Objectives. To describe the course of low back pain in patients who are referred to physiotherapy, to identify clinically important prognostic factors on different outcomes, and to evaluate the influence of different statistical techniques in developing a prognostic model. Summary of Background Data. Several studies have aimed to identify prognostic factors for low back pain in primary care. These studies focused on different outcome measures and used various statistical techniques. Methods. Primary outcomes were perceived recovery, improvement in pain, improvement in functioning, and presence of disabling low back pain at 3 and 12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each outcome variable. Two cut-off points were used to determine significance with respect to the univariate analysis, and two selection methods were used to build the final multivariate models. The resulting prognostic models were compared. Results. A total of 500 patients were included. Pain and disability reduced considerably in the first 3 months, but further reduction was only modest. Prognostic factors varied for different outcomes, but the duration of the current episode was included in all models generated. Varying the statistical techniques also resulted in a different prognostic model with some change to the amount of variance explained. Conclusions. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced some pain and disability at 12 months follow-up. The most stable predictor of prognosis in low back pain was the duration of the current episode. The choice of statistical method influenced the final model; however, changes in the explained variance were small.

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Low back pain

KW - Outcome

KW - Physiotherapy

KW - Primary care

KW - Prognosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23944497099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23944497099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.brs.0000173901.64181.db

DO - 10.1097/01.brs.0000173901.64181.db

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 1881

EP - 1886

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 16

ER -