Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Young adulthood is a sensitive period of life where development of musculoskeletal neck pain may be established and impact future health. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate risk factors for non-specific neck pain in young adults. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in six databases in September 2019. Prospective cohorts and registry studies including participants in whom the risk factor or the outcome (neck pain) was registered in the ages 18–29 years old were included. The Quality in Prognosis Studies tool was used for quality assessment. A modification of the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Potential risk factors investigated in more than one study were summarised. Results Searches yielded 4527 articles, of which six matched the eligibility criteria. Fifty-six potential risk factors were investigated in the six studies, covering a broad range of domains. Five risk factors were investigated in more than one study (female sex, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, duration of computer use and perceived stress). Physical activity and BMI showed no association with neck pain, and inconsistent results were found for female sex, duration of daily computer use and perceived stress. Risk of bias was moderate or high in all studies, and the overall quality of evidence was very low. Conclusion The studies included many potential risk factors, but none of them showed consistent associations with neck pain. There is a paucity of high-quality studies investigating risk factors for neck pain in young adults.

BackgroundStudies from different Western countries have reported a rapid increase in spinal surgery rates, an increase that exceeds by far the growing incidence rates of spinal disorders in the general population. There are few studies covering all lumbar spine surgery and no previous studies from Norway.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate trends in all lumbar spine surgery in Norway over 15 years, including length of hospital stay, and rates of complications and reoperations.DesignA longitudinal observational study over 15 years using hospital patient administrative data and sociodemographic data from the National Registry in Norway.Setting and participantsPatients aged ≥18 years discharged from Norwegian public hospitals between 1999 and 2013.Outcome measuresAnnual rates of simple (microsurgical discectomy, decompression) and complex surgical procedures (fusion, disc prosthesis) in the lumbar spine.ResultsThe rate of lumbar spine surgery increased by 54%, from 78 (95% CI (75 to 80)) to 120 (107 to 113) per 100 000, from 1999 to 2013. More men had simple surgery whereas more women had complex surgery. Among elderly people over 75 years, lumbar surgery increased by a factor of five during the 15-year period. The rates of complications were low, but increased from 0.7% in 1999 to 2.4% in 2013.ConclusionsThere was a substantial increase in lumbar spine surgery in Norway from 1999 to 2013, similar to trends in other Western world countries. The rise in lumbar surgery among elderly people represents a significant workload and challenge for health services, given our aging population.

Although many patients report clinical improvement after surgery due to degenerative cervical myelopathy, the aim of intervention is to stop progression of spinal cord dysfunction. We wanted to provide estimates and assess achievement rates of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) at 3- and 12-month follow-up for Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (NRS-AP) and neck pain (NRS-NP), Euro-Qol (EQ-5D-3L), and European Myelopathy Score (EMS). 614 degenerative cervical myelopathy patients undergoing surgery responded to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to, 3 and 12 months after surgery. External criterion was the Global Perceived Effect Scale (1-7), defining MCID as \"slightly better\", \"much better\" and \"completely recovered\". MCID estimates with highest sensitivity and specificity were calculated by Receiver Operating Curves for change and percentage change scores in the whole sample and in anterior and posterior procedural groups. The NDI and NRS-NP percentage change scores were the most accurate PROMs with a MCID of 16%. The change score for NDI and percentage change scores for NDI, NRS-AP and NRS-NP were slightly higher in the anterior procedure group compared to the posterior procedure group, while remaining PROM estimates were similar across procedure type. The MCID achievement rates at 12-month follow-up ranged from 51% in EMS to 62% in NRS-NP. The NDI and NRS-NP percentage change scores were the most accurate PROMs to measure clinical improvement after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. We recommend using different cut-off estimates for anterior and posterior approach procedures. A MCID achievement rate of 60% or less must be interpreted in the perspective that the main goal of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy is to prevent worsening of the condition.

Background Rising healthcare costs and demand call for better identification of individuals at risk of high-cost healthcare use. Few prediction models use detailed survey data or address persistent high-cost use in the general population. This study aimed to develop and externally validate prediction models for all-cause single-year and persistent high-cost healthcare use, and to assess whether adding survey data to administrative registry data improved performance. Methods This was a prognostic study based on two population-based cohorts, the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4; model development) and the Tromsø Study (Tromsø7; external validation), linked to prospectively collected health registry data from primary and secondary care. Outcomes were (1) single-year high-cost use, defined as being in the top 25% of total healthcare costs in year one after survey completion, and (2) persistent high-cost use, defined as being in the top 25% in both years one and two. Predictors included self-reported sociodemographic and health-related variables and health registry data (prior-year costs and a morbidity index). Logistic regression models were developed for each outcome and internally validated via five-fold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed through discrimination and calibration. XGBoost models were trained and tested for benchmarking. External validation applied the developed models without refitting. We also developed and validated registry-only and survey-only models to compare performance against the full model. Results The development cohort included 42,049 individuals, and the external validation cohort included 20,942. In internal validation, the full logistic regression model achieved C-statistics of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78–0.79) for single-year high-cost use and 0.83 (95% CI 0.83–0.84) for persistent high-cost use. Corresponding C-statistics in external validation were 0.78 (95% CI 0.77–0.78) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81–0.83). The models appeared well-calibrated on calibration plots. Full models showed significantly higher C-statistics than registry-only models ( p  < 0.001). Conclusion Prediction models for identifying all-cause single-year high-cost and persistent high-cost healthcare use in the general adult population were developed and validated, showing good discrimination and calibration. The models can inform targeted preventive strategies and population health management. Incorporating self-reported survey data improved predictive performance, supporting the use of combining data sources for risk stratification.

Background Pain catastrophizing has been found to be an important predictor of disability and days lost from work in patients with low back pain. The most commonly used outcome measure to identify pain catastrophizing is the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To enable the use of the PCS in clinical settings and research in Norwegian speaking patients, the PCS had to be translated. The purpose of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Norwegian and to test internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the PCS. Methods The PCS was translated before it was tested for psychometric properties. Patients with subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain aged 18 years or more were recruited from primary and secondary care. Validity of the PCS was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing, floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), and construct validity (Spearman’s rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results A total of 38 men and 52 women (n = 90), with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (11.7) years, were included for baseline testing. A subgroup of 61 patients was included for test-retest assessments. The Norwegian PCS was easy-to-comprehend. The principal components analysis supported a three-factor structure, internal consistency was satisfactory for the PCS total score (α 0.90) and the subscales rumination (α 0.83) and helplessness (α 0.86), but not for the subscale magnification (α 0.53). In total, 86% of the correlation analyses were in accordance with predefined hypothesis. The reliability analyses showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.74 − 0.87 for the PCS total score and subscales. The PCS total score (range 0–52 points) showed a standard error of measurement of 4.6 points and a 95% minimum detectable change estimate of 12.8 points. Conclusions The Norwegian PCS total score showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of comprehensibility, consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility when applied to patients with subacute or chronic LBP from different clinical settings. Our study support the use of the PCS total score for clinical or research purposes identifying or evaluating pain catastrophizing.

Background The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) are commonly used outcome instruments for measuring self-reported disability in patients with shoulder pain. To date, few studies have evaluated the responsiveness and estimated their minimal important change (MIC). Further assessment will expand the current knowledge and improve the interpretability of these instruments in clinical and research practice. The purpose of this prospective cohort study with 3 months follow-up was to evaluate the responsiveness of the QuickDASH and PSFS in patients with shoulder pain, and to estimate their MICs by using two different anchor-based methods. Methods Patients with shoulder pain recruited at a multidisciplinary hospital outpatient clinic completed the QuickDASH and PSFS at baseline and at 3 months follow-up. The responsiveness was evaluated by using a criterion approach with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and a construct approach by testing 9 a-priori hypotheses. The MIC was assessed using two anchor-based MIC methods. Results 134 patients participated at baseline and 117 (87.3%) at 3 months follow-up. The AUC was acceptable for both QuickDASH (0.75) and PSFS (0.75). QuickDASH met 7 (77.8%) and PSFS 8 (88.9%) of the hypotheses. None of the instruments showed signs of floor and ceiling effects. The MIC estimates ranged from 10.8 to 13.6 for QuickDASH and from 1.9 to 2.0 for PSFS, depending on the method used. Conclusion This study demonstrates that both the QuickDASH and PSFS are responsive measures of disability in patients with shoulder pain. The estimated MIC values were presented.

Background Assessment of outcomes for spinal surgeries is challenging, and an ideal measurement that reflects all aspects of importance for the patients does not exist. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol (EQ-5D) and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for leg pain and for back pain are commonly used patients reported outcome measurements (PROMs). Reporting the proportion of individuals with an outcome of clinical importance is recommended. Knowledge of the ability of PROMs to identify clearly improved patients is essential. The purpose of this study was to search cut-off criteria for PROMs that best reflect an improvement considered by the patients to be of clinical importance. Methods The Global Perceived Effect scale was utilized to evaluate a clinically important outcome 12 months after surgery. The cut-offs for the PROMs that most accurately distinguish those who reported ‘completely recovered’ or ‘much improved’ from those who reported ‘slightly improved’, unchanged’, ‘slightly worse’, ‘much worse’, or ‘worse than ever’ were estimated. For each PROM, we evaluated three candidate response parameters: the (raw) follow-up score, the (numerical) change score, and the percentage change score. Results We analysed 3859 patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis [(LSS); mean age 66; female gender 50%] and 617 patients with Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis [(LDS); mean age 67; 72% female gender]. The accuracy of identifying ‘completely recovered’ and ‘much better’ patients was generally high, but lower for EQ-5D than for the other PROMs. For all PROMs the accuracy was lower for the change score than for the follow-up score and the percentage change score, especially among patients with low and high PROM scores at baseline. The optimal threshold for a clinically important outcome was ≤24 for ODI, ≥0.69 for EQ-5D, ≤3 for NRS leg pain, and ≤ 4 for NRS back pain, and, for the percentage change score, ≥30% for ODI, ≥40% for NRS leg pain, and ≥ 33% for NRS back pain. The estimated cut-offs were similar for LSS and for LDS. Conclusion For estimating a ‘success’ rate assessed by a PROM, we recommend using the follow-up score or the percentage change score. These scores reflected a clinically important outcome better than the change score.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared to usual care on knee-related quality of life (QoL) and knee function at 4 months and 1 year in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Methods A three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared 12 weeks of strength exercise or aerobic exercise (stationary cycling) to usual care supervised by physiotherapists in primary care. We recruited 168 participants aged 35–70 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) QoL at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were self-reported function, pain, and self-efficacy, muscle strength and maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) at 4 months and 1 year. Results There were no differences between strength exercise and usual care on KOOS QoL (6.5, 95% CI -0.9 to 14), or for aerobic exercise and usual care (5.0, 95% CI -2.7 to 12.8), at 1 year. The two exercise groups showed better quadriceps muscle strength, and VO 2max at 4 months, compared to usual care. Conclusion This trial found no statistically significant effects of two exercise programs compared to usual care on KOOS QoL at 1 year in individuals with symptomatic and radiographic knee osteoarthritis, but an underpowered sample size may explain lack of efficacy between the intervention groups and the usual care group. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01682980.

ObjectivesThe objective was to develop, internally and externally validate a prognostic model for symptom dissatisfaction, assessed by the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), for older adults (≥55 years) seeking primary care for a new episode of back pain.DesignDevelopment, internal and external validation of a prognostic model using data from two prospective cohort studies with a 1-year follow-up was conducted.Participants and settingThe Norwegian cohort (n=452) was used for model development and internal validation. External validation was conducted using the Dutch cohort (n=675).Outcome measures and methodThe outcome was defined as symptom dissatisfaction based on the PASS at 12 months follow-up. A logistic regression model was developed using backward selection and internally validated using 200 bootstrap samples. External validation included recalibration of the model intercept and slope. Model performance was measured using Nagelkerke-R2, area under the curve (AUC) and calibration slope, calibration in-the-large (CITL) and calibration plots.ResultsAt 12 months, ~55% reported dissatisfaction in both cohorts. The final model included disability, catastrophising, recent back pain episode, spinal rotation pain, baseline symptom satisfaction, symptom duration and recovery expectation as predictors. The internally validated model showed acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.78), R2 was 0.23, the calibration slope and CITL being 0.89 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.08) and 0.01 (95% CI −0.16 to 0.15), respectively. External validation performance after recalibration yielded AUC 0.68 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.70), slope 0.86 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.05) and CITL 0.08 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.16).ConclusionsThis prognostic model could be a useful tool for predicting PASS outcomes among older adults with back pain. The external validation results imply that more research is needed to optimise predictions.Trial registration number NCT04261309.

Purpose Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. Methods An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions. Results A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45 %. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’ and ‘health-related quality of life’. Consensus on ‘physical functioning’ and ‘pain intensity’ was consistent across all stakeholders, ‘health-related quality of life’ was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain ‘number of deaths’. Conclusions The following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’, ‘health-related quality of life’ and ‘number of deaths’. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.