Publications

BACKGROUND: Classification systems for low back pain (LBP) aim to guide treatment decisions. In physiotherapy, there are five classification schemes for LBP which consider responses to clinical movement examination. Little is known of the relationship between the schemes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate overlap between subgroups of patients with LBP when classified using different movement-based classification schemes, and to consider how participants classified according to one scheme would be classified by another.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study.

SETTING: University clinical laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and two participants with LBP were recruited from university, hospital outpatient and private physiotherapy clinics, and community advertisements.

INTERVENTION: Participants underwent a standardised examination including questions and movement tests to guide subgrouping.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were allocated to a LBP subgroup using each of the five classification schemes: Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT), Movement System Impairment (MSI), O'Sullivan Classification (OSC), Pathoanatomic Based Classification (PBC) and Treatment Based Classification (TBC).

RESULTS: There was concordance in allocation to subgroups that consider pain relief from direction-specific repeated spinal loading in the MDT, PBC and TBC schemes. There was consistency of subgrouping between the MSI and OSC schemes, which consider pain provocation to specific movement directions. Synergies between other subgroups were more variable. Participants from one subgroup could be subdivided using another scheme.

CONCLUSIONS: There is overlap and discordance between LBP subgrouping schemes that consider movement. Where overlap is present, schemes recommend different treatment options. Where subgroups from one scheme can be subdivided using another scheme, there is potential to further guide treatment. An integrated assessment model may refine treatment targeting.

BACKGROUND: Psychological features have been related to trunk muscle activation patterns in low back pain (LBP). We hypothesised higher pain-related fear would relate to changes in trunk mechanical properties, such as higher trunk stiffness.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between trunk mechanical properties and psychological features in people with recurrent LBP.

METHODS: The relationship between pain-related fear (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, TSK; Photograph Series of Daily Activities, PHODA-SeV; Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, FABQ; Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS) and trunk mechanical properties (estimated from the response of the trunk to a sudden sagittal plane forwards or backwards perturbation by unpredictable release of a load) was explored in a case-controlled study of 14 LBP participants. Regression analysis (r (2)) tested the linear relationships between pain-related fear and trunk mechanical properties (trunk stiffness and damping). Mechanical properties were also compared with t-tests between groups based on stratification according to high/low scores based on median values for each psychological measure.

RESULTS: Fear of movement (TSK) was positively associated with trunk stiffness (but not damping) in response to a forward perturbation (r(2) = 0.33, P = 0.03), but not backward perturbation (r(2) = 0.22, P = 0.09). Other pain-related fear constructs (PHODA-SeV, FABQ, PCS) were not associated with trunk stiffness or damping. Trunk stiffness was greater for individuals with high kinesiophobia (TSK) for forward (P = 0.03) perturbations, and greater with forward perturbation for those with high fear avoidance scores (FABQ-W, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS: Fear of movement is positively (but weakly) associated with trunk stiffness. This provides preliminary support an interaction between biological and psychological features of LBP, suggesting this condition may be best understood if these domains are not considered in isolation.

BACKGROUND: Several classification schemes, each with its own philosophy and categorizing method, subgroup low back pain (LBP) patients with the intent to guide treatment. Physiotherapy derived schemes usually have a movement impairment focus, but the extent to which other biological, psychological, and social factors of pain are encompassed requires exploration. Furthermore, within the prevailing 'biological' domain, the overlap of subgrouping strategies within the orthopaedic examination remains unexplored. The aim of this study was "to review and clarify through developer/expert survey, the theoretical basis and content of physical movement classification schemes, determine their relative reliability and similarities/differences, and to consider the extent of incorporation of the bio-psycho-social framework within the schemes".

METHODS: A database search for relevant articles related to LBP and subgrouping or classification was conducted. Five dominant movement-based schemes were identified: Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT), Treatment Based Classification (TBC), Pathoanatomic Based Classification (PBC), Movement System Impairment Classification (MSI), and O'Sullivan Classification System (OCS) schemes. Data were extracted and a survey sent to the classification scheme developers/experts to clarify operational criteria, reliability, decision-making, and converging/diverging elements between schemes. Survey results were integrated into the review and approval obtained for accuracy.

RESULTS: Considerable diversity exists between schemes in how movement informs subgrouping and in the consideration of broader neurosensory, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions of LBP. Despite differences in assessment philosophy, a common element lies in their objective to identify a movement pattern related to a pain reduction strategy. Two dominant movement paradigms emerge: (i) loading strategies (MDT, TBC, PBC) aimed at eliciting a phenomenon of centralisation of symptoms; and (ii) modified movement strategies (MSI, OCS) targeted towards documenting the movement impairments associated with the pain state.

CONCLUSIONS: Schemes vary on: the extent to which loading strategies are pursued; the assessment of movement dysfunction; and advocated treatment approaches. A biomechanical assessment predominates in the majority of schemes (MDT, PBC, MSI), certain psychosocial aspects (fear-avoidance) are considered in the TBC scheme, certain neurophysiologic (central versus peripherally mediated pain states) and psychosocial (cognitive and behavioural) aspects are considered in the OCS scheme.