Classification of lumbopelvic pain disorders--why is it essential for management?

Curtin University of Technology, School of Physiotherapy, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia.
Manual Therapy (Impact Factor: 2.24). 09/2006; 11(3):169-70.
Source: PubMed
0 0
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) accounts for over 85% of all low back pain. Homogenous subgroups may exist within this diagnosis. This study derived a clinical examination and evaluated the examination's ability to identify homogenous subgroups in NSLBP. Patients with NSLBP were examined using a standardized clinical examination. Each patient was examined by two physiotherapists. Data were analysed for item reliability and the presence of distinct subgroups using cluster analysis. Cross-validation of the clusters identified was conducted. Three hundred and one patients were examined. The inter-tester reliability of the majority of items was moderate to substantial (52% of items with kappa > 0.40). A K-means cluster analysis of the two data sets revealed agreement on the presence of two subgroups. One group (n = 47, 16%) had higher fear avoidance beliefs, anxiety and disability. They were more likely to be provoked by pain provocative tests. They were also more likely to be judged as having central sensitization and a dominant psychosocial component to their presentation. The identification of a group of hypervigilant NSLBP patients should allow the interventions to be targeted towards this group. A valid, standardized clinical examination does contribute to the diagnostic management of NSLBP.
    Physiotherapy Research International 06/2012; 17(2):92-100.
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A cross-sectional study between subgroups of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) and asymptomatic controls. To investigate NSCLBP subgroup differences in spinal position sense and trunk muscle activity when repositioning thoracic and lumbar spine into neutral (midrange) spinal position during sitting and standing. Patients with NSCLBP report aggravation of symptoms during sitting and standing. Impaired motor control in NSCLBP, associated with sitting and standing postures nearer the end range of spinal motion, may be a contributing factor. Rehabilitation improving neutral (midrange) spinal position control is advocated. Postural and motor control alterations vary in different NSCLBP subgroups, potentially requiring specific postural interventions. There is limited evidence on whether subgroup differences exist when performing neutral spine position tasks. Ninety patients with NSCLBP and 35 asymptomatic controls were recruited. Two blinded practitioners classified NSCLBP into subgroups of active extension pattern and flexion pattern. Participants were assisted into neutral spine position and asked to reproduce this position 4 times. Absolute, variable, and constant errors were calculated. Three-dimensional thoracic and lumbar kinematics quantified the repositioning accuracy and surface electromyography assessed back and abdominal muscles activity bilaterally. Irrespective of subclassification, patients with NSCLBP produced significantly greater error magnitude and variability than the asymptomatic controls, but subgroup differences were detected in the error direction. Subgroup differences in the trunk muscle activity were not consistently identified. Although both subgroups produced significantly higher abdominal activity, subclassification revealed difference in superficial multifidus activity during standing, with flexion pattern producing significantly greater activity than the asymptomatic controls. Subgroups of NSCLBP had similar neutral spinal position deficits regarding error magnitude and variability, but subclassification revealed clear subgroup differences in the direction of the deficit. The trunk muscle activation was shown to be largely nondiscriminatory between subgroups, with the exception of superficial lumbar multifidus.
    Spine 10/2011; 37(8):E486-95. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stratified care for back pain involves targeting treatment to subgroups of patients based on their key characteristics such as prognostic factors, likely response to treatment and underlying mechanisms. It aims to tailor therapeutic decisions in ways that maximise treatment benefit, reduce harm and increase health-care efficiency by offering the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. From being called the 'Holy Grail' of back pain research over a decade ago, stratified care is becoming the zeitgeist in research and clinical practice. In this chapter, we introduce and evaluate the quality and underpinning evidence for three examples of stratified care for back pain to highlight their general principles, research design issues and clinical practice implications. We include consideration of their merits for implementation in practice. We conclude with a set of remaining, key research questions.
    Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology 10/2013; 27(5):649-61. · 2.90 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 19, 2013