50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain†

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients’ lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting “responder analyses” in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

          Perspective

          A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms.

          Somatization is prevalent in primary care and is associated with substantial functional impairment and healthcare utilization. However, instruments for identifying and monitoring somatic symptoms are few in number and not widely used. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief measure of the severity of somatic symptoms. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-15 comprises 15 somatic symptoms from the PHQ, each symptom scored from 0 ("not bothered at all") to 2 ("bothered a lot"). The PHQ-15 was administered to 6000 patients in eight general internal medicine and family practice clinics and seven obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Outcomes included functional status as assessed by the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20), self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. As PHQ-15 somatic symptom severity increased, there was a substantial stepwise decrement in functional status on all six SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and healthcare utilization increased. PHQ-15 scores of 5, 10, 15, represented cutoff points for low, medium, and high somatic symptom severity, respectively. Somatic and depressive symptom severity had differential effects on outcomes. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. The PHQ-15 is a brief, self-administered questionnaire that may be useful in screening for somatization and in monitoring somatic symptom severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Grading the severity of chronic pain.

            This research develops and evaluates a simple method of grading the severity of chronic pain for use in general population surveys and studies of primary care pain patients. Measures of pain intensity, disability, persistence and recency of onset were tested for their ability to grade chronic pain severity in a longitudinal study of primary care back pain (n = 1213), headache (n = 779) and temporomandibular disorder pain (n = 397) patients. A Guttman scale analysis showed that pain intensity and disability measures formed a reliable hierarchical scale. Pain intensity measures appeared to scale the lower range of global severity while disability measures appeared to scale the upper range of global severity. Recency of onset and days in pain in the prior 6 months did not scale with pain intensity or disability. Using simple scoring rules, pain severity was graded into 4 hierarchical classes: Grade I, low disability--low intensity; Grade II, low disability--high intensity; Grade III, high disability--moderately limiting; and Grade IV, high disability--severely limiting. For each pain site, Chronic Pain Grade measured at baseline showed a highly statistically significant and monotonically increasing relationship with unemployment rate, pain-related functional limitations, depression, fair to poor self-rated health, frequent use of opioid analgesics, and frequent pain-related doctor visits both at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Days in Pain was related to these variables, but not as strongly as Chronic Pain Grade. Recent onset cases (first onset within the prior 3 months) did not show differences in psychological and behavioral dysfunction when compared to persons with less recent onset. Using longitudinal data from a population-based study (n = 803), Chronic Pain Grade at baseline predicted the presence of pain in the prior 2 weeks. Chronic Pain Grade and pain-related functional limitations at 3-year follow-up. Grading chronic pain as a function of pain intensity and pain-related disability may be useful when a brief ordinal measure of global pain severity is required. Pain persistence, measured by days in pain in a fixed time period, provides useful additional information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems.

              Back and neck problems are among the symptoms most commonly encountered in clinical practice. However, few studies have examined national trends in expenditures for back and neck problems or related these trends to health status measures. To estimate inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, and pharmacy expenditures related to back and neck problems in the United States from 1997 through 2005 and to examine associated trends in health status. Age- and sex-adjusted analysis of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1997 to 2005 using complex survey regression methods. The MEPS is a household survey of medical expenditures weighted to represent national estimates. Respondents were US adults (> 17 years) who self-reported back and neck problems (referred to as "spine problems" based on MEPS descriptions and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification definitions). Spine-related expenditures for health services (inflation-adjusted); annual surveys of self-reported health status. National estimates were based on annual samples of survey respondents with and without self-reported spine problems from 1997 through 2005. A total of 23 045 respondents were sampled in 1997, including 3139 who reported spine problems. In 2005, the sample included 22 258 respondents, including 3187 who reported spine problems. In 1997, the mean age- and sex-adjusted medical costs for respondents with spine problems was $4695 (95% confidence interval [CI], $4181-$5209), compared with $2731 (95% CI, $2557-$2904) among those without spine problems (inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars). In 2005, the mean age- and sex- adjusted medical expenditure among respondents with spine problems was $6096 (95% CI, $5670-$6522), compared with $3516 (95% CI, $3266-$3765) among those without spine problems. Total estimated expenditures among respondents with spine problems increased 65% (adjusted for inflation) from 1997 to 2005, more rapidly than overall health expenditures. The estimated proportion of persons with back or neck problems who self-reported physical functioning limitations increased from 20.7% (95% CI, 19.9%-21.4%) to 24.7% (95% CI, 23.7%-25.6%) from 1997 to 2005. Age- and sex-adjusted self-reported measures of mental health, physical functioning, work or school limitations, and social limitations among adults with spine problems were worse in 2005 than in 1997. In this survey population, self-reported back and neck problems accounted for a large proportion of health care expenditures. These spine-related expenditures have increased substantially from 1997 to 2005, without evidence of corresponding improvement in self-assessed health status.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Ther Massage Bodywork
                Int J Ther Massage Bodywork
                International Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork
                Multimed Inc.
                1916-257X
                September 2015
                01 September 2015
                : 8
                : 3
                : 16-33
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR
                [2 ]University of Washington, Seattle, WA
                [3 ]Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
                [4 ]George Washington University, Washington, DC
                [5 ]Stanford University, Stanford, CA
                [6 ]Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
                [7 ]Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
                [8 ]VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
                [9 ]Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA
                [10 ]National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Bethesda, MD
                [11 ]National Institute for Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, MD
                [12 ]New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA
                [13 ]Dartmouth University, Hanover, NH
                [14 ]Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Richard A. Deyo MD, MPH, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Mail Code FM, Portland, OR 97239, USA, deyor@ 123456ohsu.edu
                Article
                ijtmb-8-16
                10.3822/ijtmb.v8i3.295
                4560531
                26388962
                c44aad94-e505-49cd-82b9-8f733c7039d9
                Copyright© The Author(s) 2015. Published by the Massage Therapy Foundation.

                Published under the CreativeCommons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

                History
                Categories
                Research

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                low back pain,chronic low back pain,research standards,minimum dataset,nih task force

                Comments

                Comment on this article