Low Back Pain Recurrence in Occupational Environments
Low Back Pain Recurrence in Occupational Environments
October 16, 2007
The Week in Chiropractic

Study Design. Prospective assessment of return to work after low back pain.

Objective. To determine which factors or combination of factors best predict recurrence of low back pain (defined 4 different ways) when returning to full-duty work.

Summary of Background Data. Recurrent back pain is one of the more costly health problems facing industry today. Few systematic evaluations of the various factors suspected of exacerbating low back pain have been reported in the literature.

Methods. A total of 206 workers who reported low back pain were evaluated as they returned to full-duty work. Five types of assessments were performed including: 1) a low back kinematic functional assessments, 2) evaluation of job physical demands, 3) psychosocial assessment of the job environment, 4) self-reported impairment including perception of symptoms and psychological measures, and 5) personal (individual) factors. One year after return to full duty workers were interviewed to assess who had a recurrence of low back pain according to 4 different definitions of low back pain (symptom reports, medical visits, self-reported lost days, and employer-reported lost days due to back pain). Multiple logistic regression models were developed to assess the best combinations of predictors.

Results. The most liberal definition of recurrence, recurrent symptoms, had a significantly greater recurrence rate at 58% than all other outcome measures (P = 0.0001). The medical visit recurrence rate of 36% was significantly greater than the more conservative lost time measures (P = 0.0001). The recurrence rate for self-reported lost time was 15%, whereas the more conservative employer confirmed lost time measure was significantly lower at 10% (P = 0.0077). Multivariate predictive models associated with the various recurrence definitions yielded sensitivities varying between 78% and 80% and specificity between 73% and 80%.

Conclusion. Recurrence is greatly dependent on how one defines recurrence with symptom reporting yielding 5.5 times as many recurrences compared with employer confirmed lost time. In general, more quantitative measures of worker musculoskeletal function yielded the best predictions of recurrence when predicting the more restrictive definitions of recurrence (employer confirmed lost time).
Marras WS, et al. Spine. October 1, 2007; Vol. 32, Iss. 21, pp. 2387-2397.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inclusion of information in The Week in Chiropractic does not imply endorsement from FCER nor does inclusion imply agreement with FCERÌs views.
For a complete copy of an article abstracted in "Research Review," please check your local medical or chiropractic college library. Articles may also be ordered from FCERÌs Literature Search Service at 800-743-3282.
Copyright 2007 Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research
You can reprint any part of this newsletter with the following attribution: ÏReprinted with permission of the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, The Week in Chiropractic. Subscribe for free at www.fcer.org.
FCER Members can now access the Manual and Alternative Natural Therapy Index System (MANTIS) database for FREE. For more informationÛincluding Account number and Password (required for access to MANTIS)Ûplease call FCER at 800-637-6244, or send a request for information to FCER@fcer.org. Not a member? Find out how at www.FCER.org. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week in Chiropractic is a weekly e-mail newsletter published by the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, PO Box 400, 380 Wright Rd, Norwalk, IA 50211, Tele: 800-622-6309, Fax: 515-981-9427, E-mail FCER@fcer.org. Send editorial correspondence to Robin R. Merrifield, Editor, 1304 Perry Ave, Bremerton, WA 98310. E-mail: FCERedit@aol.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit FCER's web site at www.FCER.org
Comments: 0
Votes:0