How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? A mixed study systematic review.
Low back pain
Mixed study systematic review
Recovery
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2024
01 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
24
06
2024
accepted:
23
09
2024
medline:
2
10
2024
pubmed:
2
10
2024
entrez:
1
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the burden of low back pain (LBP) there is no currently accepted definition for its recovery, nor is there a gold standard for measurement. In addition, it is currently unclear how the perspective of patients are used in making recovery determinations. The purpose of this mixed study systematic review across both quantitative and qualitative literature was to (1) explore how recovery has been defined and measured for patients experiencing LBP, and (2) examine how the perspectives of patients and providers for recovery of LBP align or differ. This was a mixed study systematic review. Key databases were searched from inception until February 20, 2023: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro looking for sources examining definitions and measures of recovery in patients with LBP. Grey literature was identified through the ProQuest Thesis & Dissertation database. Two reviewers used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment of both qualitative and quantitative studies to explore definitions, measurements and perspective of recovery. 466 original studies were included: 12 qualitative studies, 88 quantitative randomized control trials, 348 quantitative non-randomized studies, 16 quantitative descriptive studies, and two mixed methods studies. Most of the time recovery was not defined, with six other themes identified: comparison of scores, in relation to a singular cut-off score, improvement of absence of clinical symptoms, a return to a pre-injury state, change/improvement score from baseline and as a process/trajectory. For recovery measurements, six themes described the data: multiple measures, single measure excluding recovery, a recovery measure, recovery and an additional measure, pain and an additional measure, or indirect/ not specified. Lastly recovery perspectives were made from either the patient, provider, or a combination of patient and provider. For patients living with LBP, the concept of recovery continues to lack consensus for its definition and measurement in patients with LBP. The perspectives of patients were mostly not preserved in making recovery determinations. Urgent action is needed to generate consensus across clinicians, researchers, and patients regarding how recovery should be defined and measured. A multitude of study-specific definitions limit knowledge syntheses and definition of best practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite the burden of low back pain (LBP) there is no currently accepted definition for its recovery, nor is there a gold standard for measurement. In addition, it is currently unclear how the perspective of patients are used in making recovery determinations. The purpose of this mixed study systematic review across both quantitative and qualitative literature was to (1) explore how recovery has been defined and measured for patients experiencing LBP, and (2) examine how the perspectives of patients and providers for recovery of LBP align or differ.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a mixed study systematic review. Key databases were searched from inception until February 20, 2023: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro looking for sources examining definitions and measures of recovery in patients with LBP. Grey literature was identified through the ProQuest Thesis & Dissertation database. Two reviewers used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment of both qualitative and quantitative studies to explore definitions, measurements and perspective of recovery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
466 original studies were included: 12 qualitative studies, 88 quantitative randomized control trials, 348 quantitative non-randomized studies, 16 quantitative descriptive studies, and two mixed methods studies. Most of the time recovery was not defined, with six other themes identified: comparison of scores, in relation to a singular cut-off score, improvement of absence of clinical symptoms, a return to a pre-injury state, change/improvement score from baseline and as a process/trajectory. For recovery measurements, six themes described the data: multiple measures, single measure excluding recovery, a recovery measure, recovery and an additional measure, pain and an additional measure, or indirect/ not specified. Lastly recovery perspectives were made from either the patient, provider, or a combination of patient and provider.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
For patients living with LBP, the concept of recovery continues to lack consensus for its definition and measurement in patients with LBP. The perspectives of patients were mostly not preserved in making recovery determinations. Urgent action is needed to generate consensus across clinicians, researchers, and patients regarding how recovery should be defined and measured. A multitude of study-specific definitions limit knowledge syntheses and definition of best practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39354445
doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07892-2
pii: 10.1186/s12891-024-07892-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
763Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Chen S, Chen M, Wu X, Lin S, Tao C, Cao H, et al. Global, regional and national burden of low back pain 1990–2019: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. J Orthop Translat. 2022;32:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOT.2021.07.005 .
doi: 10.1016/J.JOT.2021.07.005
pubmed: 34934626
The burden of. Musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millennium. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2003;919.
Perrot S, Allaert FA, Concas V, Laroche F. When will I recover? A national survey on patients’ and physicians’ expectations concerning the recovery time for acute back pain. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:419. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-008-0868-6 .
doi: 10.1007/S00586-008-0868-6
pubmed: 19132411
pmcid: 2899418
Lukacs MJ, Kowalski KL, Peters N, Stanley M, Rushton AB. How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? Protocol for a mixed study systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e061475. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-061475 .
doi: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-061475
pubmed: 35537787
pmcid: 9092166
Hush JM, Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Ostelo R, Refshauge KM. Standardized measurement of Recovery from nonspecific back Pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:849–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APMR.2011.11.035 .
doi: 10.1016/J.APMR.2011.11.035
pubmed: 22444028
Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Williams CM, Maher CG, Hush JM. How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8
pubmed: 20552378
Modarresi S, Walton DM. Reliability, discriminative accuracy, and an exploration of response shift as measured using the satisfaction and recovery index over 12 months from musculoskeletal trauma. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021;51:102300. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MSKSP.2020.102300 .
doi: 10.1016/J.MSKSP.2020.102300
pubmed: 33220633
Walton DM, Marsh J. The Multidimensional Symptom Index: a new patient-reported outcome for pain phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2018;22:1351–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1224 .
doi: 10.1002/ejp.1224
Mehling WE, Gopisetty V, Acree M, Pressman A, Carey T, Goldberg H, et al. Acute low back pain and primary care: how to define recovery and chronification? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:2316–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820c01a6 .
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820c01a6
pubmed: 21311400
Borghuis EMC, Reneman MF, Schiphorst Preuper HR. Assessing discrepancies in outcomes of pain rehabilitation: these questionnaires don’t measure results that are relevant to me. Disabil Rehabil 2020;42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1561956
Walton DM, Macdermid JC, Nielson W. Recovery from acute injury: clinical, methodological and philosophical considerations. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:864–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280903349511 .
doi: 10.3109/09638280903349511
pubmed: 19852703
Walton D. A review of the definitions of recovery used in prognostic studies on whiplash using an ICF framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:943–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802404128 .
doi: 10.1080/09638280802404128
pubmed: 19116806
Rushton A, Jadhakhan F, Masson A, Athey V, Staal JB, Verra ML, et al. Patient journey following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (FuJourn): a multicentre exploration of the immediate post-operative period using qualitative patient diaries. PLoS ONE. 2020;15. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0241931 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
pubmed: 19631508
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Online). 2015;349. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 .
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 .
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
pubmed: 25554246
pmcid: 4320440
Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inform. 2018;34:285–91. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221 .
doi: 10.3233/EFI-180221
Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:529–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJNURSTU.2009.01.009 .
doi: 10.1016/J.IJNURSTU.2009.01.009
pubmed: 19233357
Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24:459–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/JEP.12884/FORMAT/PDF .
doi: 10.1111/JEP.12884/FORMAT/PDF
pubmed: 29464873
Rushton A, Calvert M, Wright C, Freemantle N. Physiotherapy trials for the 21st century - time to raise the bar? J R Soc Med. 2011;104. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110109 .
Yu J, Li X, Li Y, Sun X. Quality of reporting in surgical randomized clinical trials. Br J Surg. 2017;104. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10331 .
Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the Power of Stories and the Power of Numbers: Mixed Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews. Http://DxDoiOrg/101146/Annurev-Publhealth-032013-182440. 2014;35:29–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-PUBLHEALTH-032013-182440
Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. 2017;6:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13643-017-0454-2/TABLES/6 .
doi: 10.1186/S13643-017-0454-2/TABLES/6
pubmed: 28335799
pmcid: 5364694
Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 .
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37:378–81. https://doi.org/10.1136/ARD.37.4.378 .
doi: 10.1136/ARD.37.4.378
pubmed: 686873
pmcid: 1000250
Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/76.10.1109 .
Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:141–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 .
doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004
pubmed: 6222486
Goel A, Jadhav N, Shah A, Rai S, Vutha R, Dandpat S, et al. Adult idiopathic de novo lumbar scoliosis: analysis of surgical treatment in 14 patients by only fixation. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_61_20 .
Altun I, Yüksel KZ. Lumbar herniated disc: spontaneous regression. Korean J Pain. 2017;30. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2017.30.1.44 .
da Silva T, Macaskill P, Kongsted A, Mills K, Maher CG, Hancock MJ. Predicting pain recovery in patients with acute low back pain: updating and validation of a clinical prediction model. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2019;23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1308 .
Hancock MJ, Kjaer P, Kent P, Jensen RK, Jensen TS. Is the number of different MRI findings more strongly Associated with Low Back Pain Than single MRI findings? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002102 .
Angel S, Jensen LD, Maribo T, Gonge BK, Buus N. Narratives of life with long-term low back pain: a follow up interview study. Scand J Pain 2017;17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2017.09.018
Wilkinson MJB. Does 48 hours’ bed rest influence the outcome of acute low back pain? Br J Gen Pract 1995;45.
Watanabe K, Hosoya T, Shiraishi T, Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.5.0405 .
Fairbank JCT, Davies JB, Couper J, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28753-4_101584
Chiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA, Buchbinder R, Corbin TP, Costa LOP, et al. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain. 2018;159:481. https://doi.org/10.1097/J.PAIN.0000000000001117 .
doi: 10.1097/J.PAIN.0000000000001117
pubmed: 29194127
pmcid: 5828378
Chiarotto A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, Boers M, Buchbinder R, Corbin TP, et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1127–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-015-3892-3/TABLES/4 .
doi: 10.1007/S00586-015-3892-3/TABLES/4
pubmed: 25841358
Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, Vos T, et al. Measuring the global burden of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.002 .
Stanton TR, Latimer J, Maher CG, Hancock M. Definitions of recurrence of an episode of low back pain: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318198d073
Nixon SA. The coin model of privilege and critical allyship: implications for health. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9
Nixon SA, Yeung E, Shaw JA, Kuper A, Gibson BE. Seven-step Framework for critical analysis and its application in the field of physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2017;97:249–57. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20160149 .
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20160149
pubmed: 28204711
Myburgh C, Boyle E, Lauridsen HH, Hestbaek L, Kongsted A. What influences retrospective self-appraised recovery status among danes with low-back problems? A comparative qualitative investigation. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47:741–7. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1987 .
doi: 10.2340/16501977-1987
pubmed: 26132377
Barclay-Goddard R, Epstein JD, Mayo NE. Response shift: a brief overview and proposed research priorities. Qual Life Res. 2009;18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9450-x .
Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3 .
Nagl M, Farin E. Response shift in quality of life assessment in patients with chronic back pain and chronic ischaemic heart disease. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.619616 .
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Herbert RD, Hancock MJ, Hush JM, Smeets RJ. How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered? Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00586-010-1366-1 .
doi: 10.1007/S00586-010-1366-1
pubmed: 20229120
pmcid: 2989296
Froud R, Ellard D, Patel S, Eldridge S, Underwood M. Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12891-015-0534-1/FIGURES/1 .
doi: 10.1186/S12891-015-0534-1/FIGURES/1
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of Change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for Design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:163. https://doi.org/10.1179/JMT.2009.17.3.163 .
doi: 10.1179/JMT.2009.17.3.163
pubmed: 20046623
pmcid: 2762832
Bobos P, Ziebart C, Furtado R, Lu Z, MacDermid JC. Psychometric properties of the global rating of change scales in patients with low back pain, upper and lower extremity disorders. A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop. 2020;21:40. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOR.2020.01.047 .
doi: 10.1016/J.JOR.2020.01.047
pubmed: 32082038
pmcid: 7025089
Walton DM, Elliott JM. A new clinical model for facilitating the development of pattern recognition skills in clinical pain assessment. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;36:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.03.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2018.03.006
pubmed: 29669311
Abdel Shaheed C, Mathieson S, Wilson R, Furmage AM, Maher CG. Who should judge treatment effects as unimportant? J Physiother 2023;69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2023.04.001
Hickey M, Barry D, Redito J, Anand N, Bianchi N, Reneman M, et al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with chronic pain: considering the patient’s perspective. Pain. 2023;164. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002714 .
Reneman MF, Brandsema KPD, Schrier E, Dijkstra PU, Krabbe PFM. Patients first: toward a patient- centered instrument to measure impact of chronic pain. Phys Ther. 2018;98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy040 .
Cook CE, Wright A, Wittstein J, Barbero M, Tousignant-Laflamme Y. Five recommendations to address the limitations of patient-reported outcome measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2021;51:562–5. https://doi.org/10.2519/JOSPT.2021.10836 .
doi: 10.2519/JOSPT.2021.10836
Hush JM, Refshauge K, Sullivan G, De Souza L, Maher CG, McAuley JH. Recovery: what does this mean to patients with low back pain? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2009;61:124–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24162 .
doi: 10.1002/art.24162
Rajabiyazdi F, Alam R, Pal A, Montanez J, Law S, Pecorelli N, et al. Understanding the meaning of recovery to patients undergoing abdominal surgery. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:758–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMASURG.2021.1557 .
doi: 10.1001/JAMASURG.2021.1557
pubmed: 33978692
pmcid: 8117063
van Grieken RA, Kirkenier ACE, Koeter MWJ, Nabitz UW, Schene AH. Patients’ perspective on self-management in the recovery from depression. Health Expect. 2015;18:1339–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/HEX.12112 .
doi: 10.1111/HEX.12112
pubmed: 23910797
Wideman TH, Edwards RR, Walton DM, Martel MO, Hudon A, Seminowicz DA. The Multimodal Assessment Model of Pain: a Novel Framework for further integrating the Subjective Pain Experience within Research and Practice. Clin J Pain. 2019;35:212. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000670 .
doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000670
pubmed: 30444733
Vader K, Bostick GP, Carlesso LC, Hunter J, Mesaroli G, Perreault K, et al. The revised IASP Definition of Pain and Accompanying notes: considerations for the Physiotherapy Profession. Physiother Can. 2021;73:103–6. https://doi.org/10.3138/PTC-2020-0124-GEE .
doi: 10.3138/PTC-2020-0124-GEE
pubmed: 34456418
pmcid: 8370731
Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S et al. The revised IASP definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain 2020;161:1976. https://doi.org/10.1097/J.PAIN.0000000000001939
Skulmoski GJ, Skulmoski GJ, Hartman FT, Krahn J. The Delphi Method for Graduate Research. J Inform Technol Education: Res. 2007;6:1–21.