Comparison of stratification techniques for optimal management of patients with chronic low back pain in spine clinics.


Journal

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
ISSN: 1878-1632
Titre abrégé: Spine J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130732

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2023
Historique:
received: 13 02 2023
accepted: 27 04 2023
medline: 25 8 2023
pubmed: 7 5 2023
entrez: 6 5 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Identifying optimal stratification techniques for subgrouping patients with low back pain (LBP) into treatment groups for the purpose of identifying optimal management and improving clinical outcomes is an important area for further research. Our study aimed to compare performance of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) and 3 stratification techniques involving PROMIS domain scores for use in patients presenting to a spine clinic for chronic LBP. Retrospective cohort study. Adult patients with chronic LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as part of routine care, and were followed up with completed PROs 1 year later. Four stratification techniques, including SBT, and 3 PROMIS-based techniques: the NIH Task Force recommended Impact Stratification Score (ISS), symptom clusters based on latent class analysis (LCA), and SPADE symptom clusters. The 4 stratification techniques were compared according to criterion validity, construct validity, and prognostic utility. For criterion validity, overlap in characterization of mild, moderate, and severe subgroups were compared to SBT, which was considered the gold standard, using quadratic weighted kappa statistic. Construct validity compared techniques' ability to differentiate across disability groups defined by modified Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire (MDQ), median days in the past month unable to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), and worker's compensation using standardized mean differences (SMD). Prognostic utility was compared based on the techniques' ability to predict long-term improvement in outcomes, defined as improvement in global health and MDQ at 1-year. There were 2,246 adult patients with chronic LBP included in our study (mean age 61.0 [SD 14.0], 55.0% female, 83.4% white). All stratification techniques resulted in roughly a third of patients grouped into mild, moderate, and severe categories, with ISS and LCA demonstrating substantial agreement with SBT, while SPADE had moderate agreement. Construct validity was met for all techniques, with large effects demonstrated between mild and severe categories for differentiating MDQ, ADLs, and worker's compensation disability groups (SMD range 0.57-2.48). All stratification techniques demonstrated ability to detect improvement by 1-year, with severe groups experiencing the greatest improvement in multivariable logistic regression models. All 4 stratification techniques demonstrated validity and prognostic utility for subgrouping patients with chronic LBP based on risk of long-term disability. ISS and LCA symptom clusters may be the optimal methods given the improved feasibility of including only a few relevant PROMIS domains. Future research should investigate multidisciplinary treatment approaches to target mild, moderate, and severe patients based on these techniques.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Identifying optimal stratification techniques for subgrouping patients with low back pain (LBP) into treatment groups for the purpose of identifying optimal management and improving clinical outcomes is an important area for further research.
PURPOSE
Our study aimed to compare performance of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) and 3 stratification techniques involving PROMIS domain scores for use in patients presenting to a spine clinic for chronic LBP.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Adult patients with chronic LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as part of routine care, and were followed up with completed PROs 1 year later.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Four stratification techniques, including SBT, and 3 PROMIS-based techniques: the NIH Task Force recommended Impact Stratification Score (ISS), symptom clusters based on latent class analysis (LCA), and SPADE symptom clusters.
METHODS
The 4 stratification techniques were compared according to criterion validity, construct validity, and prognostic utility. For criterion validity, overlap in characterization of mild, moderate, and severe subgroups were compared to SBT, which was considered the gold standard, using quadratic weighted kappa statistic. Construct validity compared techniques' ability to differentiate across disability groups defined by modified Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire (MDQ), median days in the past month unable to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), and worker's compensation using standardized mean differences (SMD). Prognostic utility was compared based on the techniques' ability to predict long-term improvement in outcomes, defined as improvement in global health and MDQ at 1-year.
RESULTS
There were 2,246 adult patients with chronic LBP included in our study (mean age 61.0 [SD 14.0], 55.0% female, 83.4% white). All stratification techniques resulted in roughly a third of patients grouped into mild, moderate, and severe categories, with ISS and LCA demonstrating substantial agreement with SBT, while SPADE had moderate agreement. Construct validity was met for all techniques, with large effects demonstrated between mild and severe categories for differentiating MDQ, ADLs, and worker's compensation disability groups (SMD range 0.57-2.48). All stratification techniques demonstrated ability to detect improvement by 1-year, with severe groups experiencing the greatest improvement in multivariable logistic regression models.
CONCLUSIONS
All 4 stratification techniques demonstrated validity and prognostic utility for subgrouping patients with chronic LBP based on risk of long-term disability. ISS and LCA symptom clusters may be the optimal methods given the improved feasibility of including only a few relevant PROMIS domains. Future research should investigate multidisciplinary treatment approaches to target mild, moderate, and severe patients based on these techniques.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37149152
pii: S1529-9430(23)00190-0
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2023.04.017
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1334-1344

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declarations of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Brittany Lapin (B)

Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: LapinB@ccf.org.

Yadi Li (Y)

Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Sara Davin (S)

Center for Spine Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Mary Stilphen (M)

Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Therapy, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Joshua K Johnson (JK)

Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Therapy, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Center for Value-Based Care Research, Community Care, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Edward Benzel (E)

Center for Spine Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Ghaith Habboub (G)

Center for Spine Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Irene L Katzan (IL)

Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJ3-603, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH