PainSci summary of Saragiotto 2017?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★★☆?4-star ratings are for bigger/better studies and reviews published in more prestigious journals, with only quibbles. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
These authors conclude that the idea that some back pain patients respond better to some treatments is probably still mostly hype.
Most low back pain has no known cause and is therefore considered “non-specific,” and there’s a wide range of response to treatment in these patients. A common assumption is that they actually have specific causes for their pain, even though we can’t identify them — but there is a hope that we can identify the patients who respond to specific treatments. This is the hope or hype about “subgrouping”: you don’t necessary have to understand how their pain works to identify types of patients that will respond better to treatment. There is a large, enthusiastic movement in back pain research to achieve this.
In this paper, in which the authors thoroughly “have deliberately chosen to argue 2 extreme positions,” both for and against the investigation of subgroups. Key points in favour:
- One size fits all does not work well; non-specific back pain is clearly not all the same beast.
- Research methods are improving, and there are some good examples of subgroup analysis
- Subgrouping does not need to be complex or difficult, and there are success stories in other areas of medicine (e.g. subgroups of stroke victims).
- Subgrouping patients with nonspecific LBP fits well into the “personalized medicine” movement.
- Both patients and clinicians prefer the subgroup approach.
And key points against:
- Subgroup analyses are mostly very low quality still, and “authors commonly overstate their claims of subgroup effect.”
- Identifying stronger treatment effects for certain patients without a clear biological reason for why it works is not very persuasive, and by definition “there is no identified biological source of nonspecic LBP.”
- If some subgroups respond well to treatment, there should also be groups that respond poorly, and this evidence is missing.
- Clinicians cannot actually perceive the treatment effects that their enthusiasm for subgrouping is largely based on.
- “Subgroup analyses are associated with a high risk of false-positive and false-negative results” and may mislead us.
They conclude: “the current research initiatives and achievements in this field are far from optimal and not yet ready to be implemented in clinical practice.”
~ Paul Ingraham
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
Clinicians and clinical researchers share a common goal of achieving better outcomes for patients with low back pain (LBP). For that, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews are the most reliable study designs to determine the effects of interventions. Subgroup analyses in these research designs have been used to examine treatment-effect modification across subgroups defined by patient characteristics. In this Viewpoint, the authors present supporting and opposing arguments for the subgrouping approach in nonspecific LBP, considering the progress made so far in the LBP field and the relevant literature in adjacent fields. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(2):44-48. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0602.
- “Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials,” an article in Rheumatology (Oxford), 2009.
- “A systematic review reveals that the credibility of subgroup claims in low back pain trials was low,” an article in J Clin Epidemiol, 2016.
These three articles on PainScience.com cite Saragiotto 2017 as a source:
- PS Save Yourself from Low Back Pain! — Low back pain myths debunked and all your treatment options reviewed
- PS The Chiropractic Controversies — An introduction to chiropractic controversies like aggressive billing, treating kids, and neck manipulation risks
- PS Does Spinal Manipulation Work? — Spinal manipulation, adjustment, and popping of the spinal joints and the subluxation theory of disease, back pain and neck pain
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.
- Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong 2017 Pain Physician.
- How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Soligard 2016 Br J Sports Med.
- Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a three-armed, single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial. Chaibi 2016 Eur J Neurol.