Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions.Background
Objectives
To develop disease-specific quality indicators for patients with low-back-pain presenting to Danish chiropractic clinics. A cross-disciplinary group of healthcare providers (the indicatorgroup) prioritized nine evidensbased indicators and standards in a systematic consensus process. A pilot test including 206 low-back-pain patients was carried out in eight chiropractic clinics. An audit meeting with the test-clinics was conducted after the test-period, and the indicatorgroup designed the final set of indicators. The indicator domains were: Anamnesis, test for discogenic back pain, neurology, radiology, classification, exercise therapy, outcome assessment (process and result) and re-evaluation. Two indicators: outcome assessment as a process-indicator (standard ≥ 95 %, standard reached (95% CI): 95.8 % (91.6 – 98.3)) and outcome assessment as a result-indicator (standard ≥ 50 %, standard reached: 67.7 % (59.9 – 74.8)) met the standards set by the indicatorgroup. After evaluating the test-results the indicatorgroup decided to maintain all nine indicators, however, lowering the standards on anamnesis, discogenic back pain and classification.Purposes
Methods and results
The ‘Subgroups for Targeted Treatment back tool’ (STarT) is supposed to divide patients with low back pain (LBP) into three groups with different risks of non-recovery. The objectives of this study were 1) to investigate whether these groups exist among Danish chiropractor patients, and if so 2) to test if the groups differ on psychological profile as measured by the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ), and the Fear-Avoidance-Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). Questionnaires were handed out to LBP patients aged 18 – 65 years in 19 chiropractor clinics during a 4 weeks period. Patients were anonymous and returned the completed forms in a sealed envelope. Associations between the risk groups and MDI, CSQ, and FABQ were tested by means of linear regression.Background
Methods
The musculoskeletal system is recognized as a possible source of pain in patients with chest pain. The objectives of the present study were (1) to investigate the interobserver reliability of an overall diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain using a standardized examination protocol in a cohort of patients with chest pain suspected to be of non-cardiac origin, (2) to investigate the interobserver reliability of the single components of the protocol, and finally, (3) to investigate the importance of clinical experience on the level of interobserver reliability. Eighty patients with acute chest pain were recruited from a cardiology department. Four observers (two chiropractors and two chiropractic students) performed a physical examination and an extended manual examination of the spine and chest wall. Percentage agreement, Cohen's Kappa and ICC were calculated for observer pairs and overall. Musculoskeletal chest pain was diagnosed in 44.0 % of patients. Interobserver kappa values were substantial for the chiropractors and overall, and moderate for the students. For single items of the protocol, both pairs showed fair to substantial agreement regarding pain provocation tests and poor to fair agreement regarding spinal segmental dysfunction tests.Background and purpose
Methods and results
