Evaluating Model Fit

STUDY DESIGN. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders. © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group

Background
Psychological treatments are designed to treat pain, distress and disability, and are in common practice. This review updates and extends the 2009 version of this systematic review.

Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies for chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults, compared with treatment as usual, waiting list control, or placebo control, for pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking.

Search methods
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapy by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psychlit from the beginning of each abstracting service until September 2011. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of retrieved papers and from discussion with investigators.

Selection criteria
Full publications of RCTs of psychological treatments compared with an active treatment, waiting list or treatment as usual. We excluded studies if the pain was primarily headache, or was associated with a malignant disease. We also excluded studies if the number of patients in any treatment arm was less than 20.

Data collection and analysis
Forty-two studies met our criteria and 35 (4788 participants) provided data. Two authors rated all studies. We coded risk of bias as well as both the quality of the treatments and the methods using a scale designed for the purpose. We compared two main classes of treatment (cognitive behavioural therapy(CBT) and behaviour therapy) with two control conditions (treatment as usual; active control) at two assessment points (immediately following treatment and six months or more following treatment), giving eight comparisons. For each comparison, we assessed treatment effectiveness on four outcomes: pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking, giving a total of 32 possible analyses, of which there were data for 25.

Main results
Overall there is an absence of evidence for behaviour therapy, except a small improvement in mood immediately following treatment when compared with an active control. CBT has small positive effects on disability and catastrophising, but not on pain or mood, when compared with active controls. CBT has small to moderate effects on pain, disability, mood and catastrophising immediately post-treatment when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, but all except a small effect on mood had disappeared at follow-up. At present there are insufficient data on the quality or content of treatment to investigate their influence on outcome. The quality of the trial design has improved over time but the quality of treatments has not.

Authors' conclusions
Benefits of CBT emerged almost entirely from comparisons with treatment as usual/waiting list, not with active controls. CBT but not behaviour therapy has weak effects in improving pain, but only immediately post-treatment and when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list. CBT but not behaviour therapy has small effects on disability associated with chronic pain, with some maintenance at six months. CBT is effective in altering mood and catastrophising outcomes, when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, with some evidence that this is maintained at six months. Behaviour therapy has no effects on mood, but showed an effect on catastrophising immediately post-treatment. CBT is a useful approach to the management of chronic pain. There is no need for more general RCTs reporting group means: rather, different types of studies and analyses are needed to identify which components of CBT work for which type of patient on which outcome/s, and to try to understand why.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults

QUITE apart from the academic consideration that vital and medical statistics now form an obligatory part of the education of students seeking the University of London's diploma in public health, the demand for information about the methods of vital and medical statistics is increasing. The most casual reader of the newspapers is now aware that population problems are of serious practical importance and that the publications of the General Register Office cannot be ignored. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the recently issued preliminary report on the census of 1931 is one of the most sensational documents which has appeared for years, and that he who reads it intelligently will understand what is meant by saying that civilisation is in the melting pot. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. By Hilda M. Woods William T. Russell. Pp. x + 125. (London: P. S. King and Son, Ltd., 1931.) 7s. 6d.

/pdf/an-introduction-to-medical-statistics-58gm2cuxfv.pdf

An Introduction to Medical Statistics

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673611606107.pdf

Non-specific low back pain

/pdf/chapter-3-european-guidelines-for-the-management-of-acute-2kt09vdm1u.pdf

Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care.

European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care

Minimally-invasive measurement of continuous inter-vertebral motion in clinical settings is difficult to achieve. This paper describes the reliability, validity and radiation exposure levels in a new Objective Spinal Motion Imaging Assessment system (OSMIA) based on low-dose fluoroscopy and image processing. Fluoroscopic sequences in coronal and sagittal planes were obtained from 2 calibration models using dry lumbar vertebrae, plus the lumbar spines of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. Calibration model 1 (mobile) was screened upright, in 7 inter-vertebral positions. The volunteers and calibration model 2 (fixed) were screened on a motorised table comprising 2 horizontal sections, one of which moved through 80 degrees. Model 2 was screened during motion 5 times and the L2-S1 levels of the volunteers twice. Images were digitised at 5fps. Inter-vertebral motion from model 1 was compared to its pre-settings to investigate accuracy. For volunteers and model 2, the first digitised image in each sequence was marked with templates. Vertebrae were tracked throughout the motion using automated frame-to-frame registration. For each frame, vertebral angles were subtracted giving inter-vertebral motion graphs. Volunteer data were acquired twice on the same day and analysed by two blinded observers. The root-mean-square (RMS) differences between paired data were used as the measure of reliability. RMS difference between reference and computed inter-vertebral angles in model 1 was 0.32 degrees for side-bending and 0.52 degrees for flexion-extension. For model 2, X-ray positioning contributed more to the variance of range measurement than did automated registration. For volunteer image sequences, RMS inter-observer variation in intervertebral motion range in the coronal plane was 1.86 degreesand intra-subject biological variation was between 2.75 degrees and 2.91 degrees. RMS inter-observer variation in the sagittal plane was 1.94 degrees. Radiation dosages in each view were below the levels recommended for a plain film. OSMIA can measure inter-vertebral angular motion patterns in routine clinical settings if modern image intensifier systems are used. It requires skilful radiography to achieve optimal positioning and dose limitation. Reliability in individual subjects can be judged from the variance of their averaged inter-vertebral angles and by observing automated image registration.

/pdf/an-objective-spinal-motion-imaging-assessment-osmia-4h1z3bfkid.pdf

An objective spinal motion imaging assessment (OSMIA): reliability, accuracy and exposure data

Objective. To investigate the frequency and health impact of chronic multi-site musculoskeletal pain, in a representative UK sample. Method. Population postal questionnaire survey, using 16 general practices in the southeast of England, nationally representative urban/ rural, ethnic and socioeconomic mix. A random selection of 4049 registered patients, aged 18 or over, were sent a questionnaire. The main outcome measures were chronic pain location, identified using a pain drawing; distress, pain intensity and disability as measured by the GHQ12 and the Chronic Pain Grade. Results. A total of 2445 patients (60%) responded to the survey (44% male, mean age 52 yrs); 45% had chronic musculoskeletal pain. Of those with chronic pain, three quarters had pain in multiple sites (two or more sites). Variables significantly predicting this were: age under 55, [odds ratio (OR) 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4, 0.6]; psychological distress (OR 1.8, CI at 95% 1.4, 2.2) and high pain intensity (OR 5.2, CI at 95% 4.1, 6.7). Only 33% of multi-site pain distributions conformed to the American College of Rheumatology definition of chronic widespread pain. Conclusions. Multi-site chronic pain is more common than single-site chronic pain and is commonly associated with other problems. Indiscriminate targeting of research and care for chronic musculoskeletal pain on single sites may often be inappropriate.

Chronic musculoskeletal pain rarely presents in a single body site: results from a UK population study

http://9564e6cf93ec0c618a68-4f22a039f96a487025fe8e71cbbe8130.r40.cf3.rackcdn.com/Research/Publications/neck%20BQ.pdf

Alan Breen

Papers

Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care.

European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care

An objective spinal motion imaging assessment (OSMIA): reliability, accuracy and exposure data

Chronic musculoskeletal pain rarely presents in a single body site: results from a UK population study

The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I. Psychometric properties in back pain patients.