Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Figure 1.
Updated 2015 treatment-based classification system. * Regardless of approach, patients with a medium-to-high psychological risk profile
require psychologically informed rehabilitation. † The rehabilitation provider also may function as the first-contact health care provider.
‡
Rehabilitation must be modified appropriately to account for a patient’s comorbid status.
needed to return to higher levels of phys- matched to the patient’s clinical At level 2, the TBC described the staging
ical function; the goal of the treatment presentation. process, which was the hallmark
was to improve the patient’s ability to strength of the system because the TBC
perform higher levels of physical func- Several strengths could be ascribed to developers recognized that using num-
tion without symptoms exacerbation. the 1995 TBC system. At level 1, the TBC ber of days since onset was not useful in
considered a process of patients triaging guiding treatment matching. Therefore,
Level 3 classified patients into syndromes upon first contact to screen for “red the TBC developers described the stag-
embedded within each stage. Each syn- flags” in direct access physical therapy ing process to prescribe interventions
drome was named after the intervention clinics. Also, the 1995 TBC considered according to the patient’s pain intensity
that the patient was going to receive (eg, assessment of psychosocial factors using and disability status rather than relying
mobilization syndrome, traction syn- Waddell’s signs and symptoms of “mag- on arbitrary definitions of acute, sub-
drome). To assign a patient to a particu- nified illness behavior,”14 which were acute, and chronic LBP based on time
lar intervention, a thorough physical the best available evidence to assess psy- duration alone.
examination was conducted to identify chosocial factors at that time.
the treatment that would be best
Table.
Triage Process and Matching Criteria for the Rehabilitation Provider
Symptom
Rehabilitation Approach Modulation Movement Control Functional Optimization
a
Classification Variables Pain rating High to moderate Moderate to low Low to absent
Level 3 was the level at which the not helpful in guiding the treatment for concept of “rest from function” as a strat-
patient’s signs and symptoms were patients in stages II and III, whose status egy for managing the hyperacute LBP.
matched to specific interventions. Inter- was related to the movement system
ventions at this level targeted a wide impairments. As a result, the interven- The 1995 TBC was a classification frame-
array of patients with LBP along the spec- tions in the 1995 TBC were exclusively work based largely on clinical observa-
trum of pain and disability status. The designed to be matched with “syn- tions with minimal research to substan-
interventions were not confined to a spe- dromes” for stage I only and never fully tiate its theoretical basis. However, the
cific concept; rather, they were open to developed for stage II or III. 1995 TBC set the stage for a new era of
other schools of thought. research in the years following its
Another limitation at level 3 was confu- publication.
Despite the strengths of the 1995 TBC, a sion over the “immobilization” syn-
number of limitations could be identi- drome. The immobilization syndrome TBC System—2007
fied. At level 1, when psychosocial fac- was intended for patients with hyper- A revision of the TBC was published in
tors were identified, there was no spe- acute LBP that was irritable (ie, pain can 2007 by Fritz et al15 with the purpose of
cific suggestion of how to address these easily be provoked with minor lumbar updating the 1995 TBC with the latest
factors other than consultation with spine movements) and still in the inflam- evidence that emerged between 1995
another health care provider. matory phase. For such patients, immo- and 2007. This revision and update rep-
bilization meant limiting the patient’s resented the second phase of
At level 2, the TBC was somewhat ambig- movements until the irritability and development.
uous in describing the conceptual terms inflammation subsided. Unfortunately,
“levels,” “stages,” and “classification.” “immobilization” was also the same term The major strength of the 2007 TBC was
This lack of clearly defined terms and used to describe patients with signs and that it was much more evidence-based.
decision-making variables confused symptoms of “instability” that was aggra- The 2007 TBC incorporated evidence
some readers and led to misinterpreta- vated with end-range movements. For from clinical trials that showed that
tion of stage I, stage II, and stage patients with instability, immobilization matching patients with treatment using
III as acute, subacute, and chronic, meant limiting their end-range move- the TBC principles resulted in improved
respectively. ments by the use of stabilization exer- clinical outcomes compared with alter-
cises. To resolve this confusion, the term native methods.3,4 The 2007 TBC
At level 3, one limitation was that the “immobilization” for patients with insta- included evidence from a single random-
physical examination was largely based bility was replaced with the term “stabi- ized controlled trial that showed that the
on findings related to the patient’s static lization.” However, the term “stabiliza- use of a clinical prediction rule for
alignment or response to tissue loading tion” erroneously crept in as one of the patients likely to respond to manipula-
tests, which could guide the treatment primary interventions embedded in stage tion led to improved clinical outcomes.6
for patients in stage I, whose status I, and many clinicians forgot about the Additionally, the 2007 TBC incorporated
required symptom modulation, but were preliminary criteria for patients likely to
ter match the identified risk level.20 Also, priate for the patient and what factors logical intervention, psychotherapy, and
psychosocial factors have been may affect the treatment. specialized rehabilitation.
described in the literature, and the reha-
bilitation provider’s competency in Triage at the Level of the First- Comorbidities can be present along with
addressing them has been reported.21 Contact Health Care Provider mechanical LBP28 and should be investi-
Additionally, various pain mechanisms Upon initial contact, patients with LBP gated upon initial assessment as well
that can underlie LBP have been should be triaged using 1 of 3 approach- (eTab. 3, available at ptjournal.
highlighted.22,23 es: medical management, rehabilitation apta.org).24 Comorbidities have been
management, or self-care management. linked to increased health care utiliza-
These advancements have been Patients requiring medical management tion, higher costs, and poor treatment
described in the APTA clinical practice are those with red flags of serious pathol- outcome.28 –30 Comorbidities, physical or
guidelines for LBP.12 These guidelines, in ogy (eg, fracture, cancer) or serious psychological, can be identified using a
part, attempt to establish a common diag- comorbidities that do not respond to medical screening questionnaire plus
nostic language, as well as publish standard rehabilitation management (eg, patient report. When comorbidities are
evidence-based principles for clinicians rheumatoid arthritis, central sensitiza- found in association with mechanical
and researchers. However, the guide- tion). Serious pathologies can mimic LBP, medical co-management (eg, phar-
lines’ recommendations have not been nonspecific mechanical LBP and should macotherapy) may become necessary in
widely adopted by existing classification be ruled out upon initial assessment.24 order to achieve optimal rehabilitation
systems for LBP. Therefore, we are pro- Red flags are best investigated in clusters outcomes.
posing a format that allows for the incor- of signs and symptoms,25 with each
poration of the guidelines’ recommenda- cluster denoting the presence of a par- Patients who do not have serious pathol-
tions into the 2015 TBC, which will ticular pathology (eTab. 2, available at ogies are appropriate for either rehabili-
provide a process by which the recom- ptjournal.apta.org). tation or self-care management. Patients
mendations can be used efficiently in the amenable to self-care management are
clinical decision-making process for Central sensitization is a condition that those who are unlikely to develop dis-
patients with LBP. We believe that will require careful attention (eTab. 2). abling LBP during the course of the cur-
linking these recommendations to the Central sensitization has been defined as rent episode. Such patients can be iden-
2015 TBC also might guide researchers an altered mechanism of pain processing tified using risk profiling instruments
to new areas of investigation and direct within the central nervous system (ie, such as the STarT Back Tool,31 Örebro
clinicians to new patient management enhanced synaptic excitability, lower Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire,32 or
strategies (eTab. 1, available at threshold of activation, and expansion of similar self-report questionnaires. These
ptjournal.apta.org). the receptive fields of nociceptive patients have low levels of psychosocial
input).26 In this condition, the pain ini- distress, no or controlled comorbidities,
The improvements on the TBC will be tially may have been caused by a periph- and normal neurological status. They
discussed in detail in a series of upcom- eral pain generator, but now the pain has may be treated with patient education
ing articles. In this article, we present an lasted beyond the normal healing time that consists of reassurance about the
overview of the most recently updated (ie, chronic pain).23 The pain distribu- generally favorable prognosis for acute
TBC algorithm. tion is widespread and does not follow LBP and advice about medication, work,
an anatomical pattern. The pain also can and activity.20
Overview of the Updated easily be provoked with low-intensity
stimuli that would not normally generate Patients who are appropriate for rehabil-
TBC Algorithm—2015
pain (eg, light touch). A key feature of itation management are the remaining
The 2015 TBC algorithm proposes 2 lev-
this pain is the disproportionate mechan- majority, as serious pathology is very rare
els of triage: one at the level of the first-
ical provocation patterns in response to among patients with LBP,33 and patients
contact health care provider and another
at the level of the rehabilitation provider clinical examination.27 amenable to self-care management repre-
(Fig. 1). At the level of the first-contact sent a small portion of patients with LBP
health care provider, the triage can be Central sensitization has a strong associ- seen in primary care clinics.20 We
assumed by any practitioner competent ation with psychological factors such as believe the majority of patients should be
in LBP care, regardless of his or her pro- negative beliefs, pathological anxiety or referred quickly to a well-trained rehabil-
fessional background (ie, primary care depression, and poor coping strategies. itation provider. This triaging process of
physician, nurse practitioner, physical When such factors are present with the the first-contact health care provider is
therapist, chiropractor). This individual’s aforementioned features of central sensi- recapitulated in Figure 3.
responsibility is to determine the appro- tization, the patient is unlikely to benefit
priate approach of management. At the from standard rehabilitation including Triage at the Level of
level of the rehabilitation provider, the the principles of the TBC. These patients Rehabilitation Provider
purpose of the triage is to determine require a multidisciplinary approach to In some situations, the rehabilitation pro-
which rehabilitation approach is appro- pain management, including pharmaco- vider could be the first-contact health
care provider. In that case, the rehabili-
Figure 4.
Example of hierarchical exercise progression for patients matched to symptom modulation approach. Patients who need the symptom
modulation approach can satisfy the criteria for more than one treatment subgroup. We suggest that the treatment should take the
progression shown in the Figure. For example, if a patient’s status centralizes with extension, the rehabilitation specialist should emphasize
extension exercises until the patient’s status plateaus. At that time, manipulation can ensue. * Irritable means that minor movements of the
lumbar spine can easily provoke the symptoms. ** Active rest means limiting the patient’s movement until the inflammation subsides. Such
patients are usually seen within the first 24 hours of injury. SLR⫽straight leg raising.
(Table). The patient’s status tends to be performance within the context of a job reduced performance. When the control
stable; that is, the patient describes a low or sport. deficit is corrected, muscle performance
baseline level of pain that increases by training can ensue (Fig. 5). This method
doing certain daily activities; however, Considerations Related to the of prioritization process is largely based
the pain returns to its low-level baseline Rehabilitation Approaches on common clinical sense, warrants fur-
as soon as the patient ceases the activity. The 3 rehabilitation approaches are ther research, and will be described in
Other patients may describe recurrent mutually exclusive; however, patients future articles.
attacks of LBP that are aggravated with can always be reclassified to receive a
sudden or unexpected movement, but different rehabilitation approach as their To achieve optimal treatment outcomes,
currently they are asymptomatic or in clinical status changes (Fig. 1). For exam- it is not enough to only match patients
remission. The patient’s active spinal ple, a patient who initially receives a based on the above 3 rehabilitation
movements are typically full but may be movement control approach due to mod- approaches, but matching also should
accompanied by aberrant movements. erate levels of pain and disability can be consider the patient’s psychosocial sta-
The physical examination can reveal reclassified to receive a functional opti- tus and concurrent comorbidities
findings of impaired flexibility, muscle mization approach if his or her status because they can weaken the treatment
activation, and motor control. These improves to low pain and disability sta- effect (Table). When psychosocial fac-
patients need interventions to improve tus, or the patient can be reclassified to tors are high, the rehabilitation provider
the quality of their movement system. receive a symptoms modulation should educate the patient about pain
For this group, the treatment in the 2007 approach if his or her status suddenly theory, muscle relaxation techniques,
TBC system mainly relied on stabilization worsens. Alternatively, a patient can be sleep hygiene, and coping skills and
exercises.16,35 In this updated 2015 TBC, discharged at any point when rehabilita- address catastrophizing about pain and
however, we believe that stabilization tion goals are attained. diagnostic findings. When medical
exercises must be better defined, and comorbidities are identified, medical
other treatments need to be explored. It should be noted that, within each of co-management is necessary.
the 3 rehabilitation approaches, a patient
Functional optimization approach. might fit the criteria of 2 or more treat-
Conclusion and Future
A functional optimization intervention is ment options, which requires prioritiza- Directions
for patients who are relatively asymp- tion of treatment. For example, in the We reviewed the phases of development
tomatic; they can perform activities of symptom modulation approach, a of the original 1995 TBC and the subse-
daily living but need to return to higher patient may satisfy the criteria for manip- quent revisions that were published in
levels of physical activities (eg, sport, ulation and extension exercises as 2007. We have presented an updated
job). The patient’s status is well con- shown by Stanton et al.18 In that case, version of the TBC, maintaining its pre-
trolled (Table); that is, the pain is aggra- extension exercises take priority over viously developed strengths and improv-
vated only by movement system fatigue. manipulation. Extension exercises ing upon its limitations. In this updated
These patients may not have flexibility or should be the treatment of choice until TBC, we recommend a 2-level triage pro-
control deficits, but they have impair- the patient’s status plateaus. At that cess: (1) initial triage by a first-contact
ments in movement system endurance, moment, manipulation may ensue health care provider (regardless of pro-
strength, and power that do not meet (Fig. 4). Similarly, in the movement con- fession) to determine which patients are
their physical demands.36 These patients trol approach, a patient may have motor amenable to rehabilitation and (2) sec-
need interventions that maximize their control impairment and reduced muscle ondary triage by a rehabilitation provider
physical performance for higher levels of performance. In that case, motor control to determine the most appropriate reha-
physical activities. For this group, the deficit takes priority over the muscle bilitation approach. The initial triage pro-
treatment should optimize the patient’s cess now recognizes 2 types of patients
Figure 5.
Example of hierarchical exercise progression for patients matched to movement control approach. These impairments can be present in a
patient all at once or any combination of them. To address these impairments, we suggest that the treatment should take the progression
shown in the Figure. The treatment of a particular impairment does not mean ignoring other impairments; that is, if a patient has flexibility
and motor control impairments, the rehabilitation specialist should emphasize flexibility exercises in the earlier sessions of treatment, with
the possibility of addressing some aspects of the motor impairments. As the flexibility impairment improves, the rehabilitation specialist
should emphasize motor control exercises in the later sessions.
who are not candidates for rehabilitation procedures for that specific approach, 6 Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, et al. A clin-
management: those with red flags of suggesting subgroup-matched interven- ical prediction rule to identify patients
with low back pain most likely to benefit
potentially serious medical disease or tions. We hope that the information pro- from spinal manipulation: a validation
central sensitization syndromes and vided in these future articles will stimu- study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920 –
those who are likely to do well with a late thoughts and future research related 928.
self-care management approach. to the concept of matching interventions 7 Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM,
to appropriate subgroups of patients et al. Low back pain research priorities: a
survey of primary care practitioners. BMC
Additionally, this updated TBC embraces with back pain. Fam Pract. 2007;8:40.
the biopsychosocial model of back pain
8 Hefford C. McKenzie classification of
management, including the importance mechanical spinal pain: profile of syn-
for risk assessment and the need to All authors provided concept/idea/project dromes and directions of preference. Man
address psychological factors, regardless design and consultation (including review of Ther. 2008;13:75– 81.
of the rehabilitation approach. The manuscript before submission). Dr Alrwaily,
9 Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and Treatment
Mr Timko, and Dr Schneider provided writ- of Movement Impairment Syndromes. St
rehabilitation-level triage establishes
ing. Dr Alrwaily provided project manage- Louis, MO: Mosby Inc; 2002.
decision-making criteria that can be used ment. Dr Schneider provided administrative
by any rehabilitation provider to deter- 10 O’Sullivan P. Diagnosis and classification
support. of chronic low back pain disorders: mal-
mine the most appropriate rehabilitation adaptive movement and motor control
approach for the patient with LBP, using DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20150345 impairments as underlying mechanism.
pain and disability status (Table). We also Man Ther. 2005;10:242–255.
HAVE linked the recommended treat- References 11 Delitto A, Erhard RE, Bowling RW. A
ment approaches in this TBC to APTA’s treatment-based classification approach to
1 Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara low back syndrome: identifying and stag-
clinical practice guidelines for LBP. AV, Koes BW. Meta-analysis: exercise ther- ing patients for conservative treatment.
apy for nonspecific low back pain. Ann Phys Ther. 1995;75:470 – 485; discussion
Intern Med. 2005;142:765–775. 485– 479.
This article has provided a general over-
2 Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Tomlinson G. 12 Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen LR, et al;
view of the major updates and revisions Systematic review: strategies for using Orthopaedic Section of the American
to the TBC, with more detailed informa- exercise therapy to improve outcomes in Physical Therapy Association. Low back
tion to be presented in a series of upcom- chronic low back pain. Ann Intern Med. pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:
2005;142:776 –785. A1–A57.
ing articles. One article will be devoted
to the first-contact provider triage pro- 3 Fritz JM, Delitto A, Erhard RE. Comparison 13 Karayannis NV, Jull GA, Hodges PW. Phys-
of classification-based physical therapy iotherapy movement based classification
cess, with discussions about assessment with therapy based on clinical practice approaches to low back pain: comparison
of red flags, medical and psychosocial guidelines for patients with acute low of subgroups through review and develop-
back pain: a randomized clinical trial. er/expert survey. BMC Musculoskelet Dis-
comorbidities, and the need for a psy- Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1363– ord. 2012;13:24.
chologically informed rehabilitation 1371; discussion 1372.
approach for patients at high risk of 14 Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, et al.
4 Brennan GP, Fritz JM, Hunter SJ, et al. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire
developing chronic LBP. Another article Identifying subgroups of patients with (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance
will include more detailed descriptions acute/subacute “nonspecific” low back beliefs in chronic low back pain and dis-
pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. ability. Pain. 1993;52:157–168.
of the rehabilitation provider triage pro- Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:623– 631.
cess that sorts patients into the most 5 Vibe Fersum K, O’Sullivan P, Skouen JS, 15 Fritz JM, Cleland JA, Childs JD. Subgroup-
appropriate rehabilitation approach. ing patients with low back pain: evolution
et al. Efficacy of classification-based cogni- of a classification approach to physical
Each of the 3 rehabilitation approaches tive functional therapy in patients with therapy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;
non-specific chronic low back pain: a ran-
will be the focus of an individual article 37:290 –302.
domized controlled trial. Eur J Pain. 2013;
that discusses the physical examination 17:916 –928.
16 Hicks GE, Fritz JM, Delitto A, McGill SM. 22 Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Doody C. 29 Ritzwoller DP, Crounse L, Shetterly S,
Preliminary development of a clinical pre- The discriminative validity of “nocicep- Rublee D. The association of comorbidi-
diction rule for determining which tive,” “peripheral neuropathic,” and “cen- ties, utilization and costs for patients iden-
patients with low back pain will respond tral sensitization” as mechanisms-based tified with low back pain. BMC Musculo-
to a stabilization exercise program. Arch classifications of musculoskeletal pain. skelet Disord. 2006;7:72.
Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1753–1762. Clin K Pain. 2011;27:655– 663. 30 Goode A, Cook C, Brown C, et al. Differ-
17 Fritz JM, Brennan GP, Clifford SN, et al. An 23 Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implica- ences in comorbidities on low back pain
examination of the reliability of a classifi- tions for the diagnosis and treatment of and low back related leg pain. Pain Pract.
cation algorithm for subgrouping patients pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 suppl):S2–S15. 2011;11:42– 47.
with low back pain. Spine (Phula Pa 31 Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, et al. A pri-
1976). 2006;31:77– 82. 24 Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Syn- mary care back pain screening tool: iden-
thesis of recommendations for the assess- tifying patient subgroups for initial treat-
18 Stanton TR, Fritz JM, Hancock MJ, et al. ment and management of low back pain ment. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:632– 641.
Evaluation of a treatment-based classifica- from recent clinical practice guidelines.
tion algorithm for low back pain: a cross- Spine J. 2010;10:514 –529. 32 Linton SJ, Boersma K. Early identification
sectional study. Phys Ther. 2011;91:496 – of patients at risk of developing a persis-
509. 25 Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, tent back problem: the predictive validity
et al. Prevalence of and screening for seri- of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Ques-
19 Stanton TR, Hancock MJ, Apeldoorn AT, ous spinal pathology in patients present- tionnaire. Clin J Pain. 2003;19:80 – 86.
et al. What characterizes people who have ing to primary care settings with acute low
an unclear classification using a treatment- back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60: 33 Henschke N, Maher CG, Ostelo RW, et al.
based classification algorithm for low back 3072–3080. Red flags to screen for malignancy in
pain? A cross-sectional study. Phys Ther. patients with low-back pain. Cochrane
2013;93:345–355. 26 Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensiti- Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD008686.
zation: a generator of pain hypersensitivity
20 Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, et al. by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009; 34 Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, et al.
Comparison of stratified primary care 10:895–926. Report of the NIH task force on research
management for low back pain with cur- standards for chronic low back pain. Spine
rent best practice (STarT Back): a ran- 27 Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, et al. (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:1128 –1143.
domised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011; Mechanisms-based classifications of mus- 35 Rabin A, Shashua A, Pizem K, et al. A clin-
378:1560 –1571. culoskeletal pain: part 1 of 3: symptoms ical prediction rule to identify patients
and signs of central sensitisation in with low back pain who are likely to expe-
21 Bryant C, Lewis P, Bennell KL, et al. Can patients with low back (⫹/⫺ leg) pain. rience short-term success following lum-
physical therapists deliver a pain coping Man Ther. 2012;17:336 –344. bar stabilization exercises: a randomized
skills program? An examination of training controlled validation study. J Orthop
processes and outcomes. Phys Ther. 2014; 28 Gore M, Sadosky A, Stacey BR, et al. The
burden of chronic low back pain: clinical Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:6 –B13.
94:1443–1454.
comorbidities, treatment patterns, and 36 McGill S. Low Back Disorders: Evidence-
health care costs in usual care settings. Based Prevention and Rehabilitation.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E668 – 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics;
E677. 2007.
eTable 1.
Linking the 2015 Treatment-Based Classification System to the APTA Clinical Practice Guidelines for LBPa,b
Determining the appropriate management Clinicians should consider diagnosis and classification of serious Strong
approach for patients with LBP medical conditions or psychological factors and initiate
referral to the appropriate medical practitioner.
Medical management Clinicians should consider referring the patient for medical Strong
management when the patient presents “red flags” (medical
or psychological), comorbidities not amenable for
rehabilitation, progressive neurological deficits, or symptoms
that are not resolving with rehabilitation interventions.
Rehabilitation management It is believed that early rehabilitation can help reduce the Weak
transition of acute LBP to chronic LBP, lower the number
workdays lost, lower treatment cost, and lessen the
likelihood of receiving lumbosacral injection and the
frequency of visiting physicians.
Self-care management Clinicians should utilize education and counseling strategies Moderate
that promote the understanding of the strength of the spine
anatomical structure, the early resumption of normal
activity, and a favorable prognosis for LBP.
Determine the appropriate rehabilitation Clinicians should use validated self-report questionnaires to Strong
approach identify the patient’s baseline status relative to pain and
function and for monitoring a change in patient’s status
throughout the course of treatment.
Symptom modulation LBP, without symptoms or signs of serious medical or Moderate
psychological conditions, can be classified into mobility
deficits, referred pain, radiating pain, or pain with related
cognitive or affective tendencies.
Directional preference exercises: lateral Clinicians should consider utilizing repeated movements, Strong
shift exercises, or procedures to promote centralization in
patients with acute LBP and referred lower extremity pain.
Directional preference exercises: extension Clinicians should consider using repeated exercises in a specific Strong
direction determined by treatment response to improve
mobility and reduce symptoms.
Directional preference exercises: flexion Clinicians should consider flexion exercises, combined with Weak
other interventions such as manual therapy, to reduce pain
and disability in older patients with LBP and radiating pain.
Active rest Active rest is beneficial for individuals in the hyperacute stage Expert opinion
of pain who are still in the inflammatory phase and whose
symptoms can easily be provoked with minor lumbar
movement.
(Continued)
eTable 1.
Continued
Triage by the rehabilitation provider
Strength, power, and endurance exercise Clinicians should consider moderate- to high-intensity exercises Strong
for patients with LBP.
Work- or sport-specific exercises Clinicians should routinely assess activity limitation and Expert opinion
participation restriction through validated performance
measures in order to prescribe specific exercises that enable
the patient to return to work or a sport.
a
Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen LR, et al; Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
2012;42:A1–A57.
b
APTA⫽American Physical Therapy Association, LBP⫽low back pain, TBC⫽treatment-based classification system.
c
Levels of evidence are consistent with those described by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-
Levels of Evidence [March 2009]. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o⫽1025). Strong⫽a preponderance of evidence obtained from high-quality
studies, moderate⫽a single high-quality randomized trial or preponderance of lesser-quality evidence, weak⫽a single trial of lesser-quality evidence or
preponderance of case control studies or case series, conflicting⫽higher-quality studies disagree on conclusions, expert opinion⫽best practice based on the
clinical experience of the guideline development team.
d
These exercise approaches, when considered collectively, are supported by strong evidence, but the optimal combination or sequencing of these
approaches needs further investigation.
eTable 2.
“Red Flags”–Medical Management Required
Red flags that refer pain from the lower backa Red flags that refer pain to the lower backb
(Continued)
eTable 2.
Continued
Red flags that refer pain from the lower backa Red flags that refer pain to the lower backb
Ankylosing Spondylitis18
● Middle-aged individual
● Pain on and off, regardless of exertion
● Progressive loss of range of motion
● Alternating pain in the sacroiliac joints with walking
● Later sign: gross bilateral limitation of side bending
● Pain goes in vertical direction, not laterally or to the lower extremities
● Stiffness in the morning eases with movement
● No paresthesia
eTable 2.
Continued
15 Boissonnault WG, Ross MD. Physical ther- 18 Rudwaleit M, Metter A, Listing J, et al. 20 Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, et al.
apists referring patients to physicians: a Inflammatory back pain in ankylosing Mechanisms-based classifications of mus-
review of case reports and series. J Orthop spondylitis: a reassessment of the clinical culoskeletal pain: part 1 of 3: symptoms
Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:446 – 454. history for application as classification and and signs of central sensitisation in
diagnostic criteria. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; patients with low back (⫹/⫺ leg) pain.
16 Lavy C, James A, Wilson-MacDonald J, Fair- 54:569 –578. Man Ther. 2012;17:336 –344.
bank J. Cauda equina syndrome. BMJ.
2009;338:b936. 19 Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implica-
17 O’Laughlin SJ, Kokosinski E. Cauda equina tions for the diagnosis and treatment of
syndrome in a pregnant woman referred pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 suppl):S2–S15.
to physical therapy for low back pain.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:721.
eTable 3.
Co-management Approach: Comorbidities Associated With Low Back Pain That Require Medical Management and Rehabilitation
Management
Arthritic conditions Cumulative Illness Rating Scale The CIRS assesses 14 body systems, including psychological issues.
● Rheumatoid arthritis (CIRS)5 For each system, a severity scale is used to rate the extent of
● Osteoarthritis impairment that each system imposes on normal activity (0⫽no
Cardiovascular conditions impairment to 5⫽maximum impairment). The total possible
● Hypertension score is 56. In primary care settings, the CIRS scores ranged
● Hyperlipidemia between 0 and 30, with a median of 8.7
● Angina pectoris
Functional Comorbidity Index The FCI has a list of 18 comorbid conditions that can influence
● Atherosclerosis
(FCI)6 physical function. The conditions are rated based on their
Endocrine conditions
presence: 1⫽present; 0⫽absent. A higher score on the FCI
● Thyroid
correlates with a higher score on the physical function subscale
Gastrointestinal conditions
of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).8
● Constipation
Metabolic conditions
● Diabetes
● Neuropathies
Musculoskeletal conditions
● Irreducible disk lesion
● Congenital spine pathologies
Pulmonary conditions
● Asthma
● Coughing
● Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Psychological Comorbidities
Associated With Low Back Tools to Identify
Pain1,2,9,10 Psychological Comorbidities Description of the Tool
Anxiety, depressionb Hospital Anxiety and Depression The HADS is a list of 14 items: 7 for anxiety and 7 for depression.
Scale (HADS)11 Each item is scored from 0 to 3; the higher the score, the worse
the condition. The total score for each subscale is 21. The
HADS classifies the severity of each subscale as follows:
normal⫽0–7, mild⫽8–10, moderate⫽11–14, and severe⫽15–
21.
Depression Patient Health Questionnaire The PHQ-9 is a list of 9 questions that assess depression. Each
(PHQ-9)12 question is scored from 0 to 3; the higher the score the worse
the condition. The total score is 27. The PHQ-9 classifies
depression as follows: minimal depression⫽1–4, mild
depression⫽5–9, moderate depression⫽10–14, moderately
severe depression⫽15–19, and severe depression⫽20–27.
(Continued)
eTable 3.
Continued
Psychological Comorbidities
Associated With Low Back Tools to Identify
Pain1,2,9,10 Psychological Comorbidities Description of the Tool
Fear of movement Fear-Avoidance Behavior The FABQ is a list of 16 questions that measure fear related to low
Questionnaire (FABQ)9 back pain. The questions are divided into 2 scales: 5 for the
physical activity scale and 11 for the work scale. The total score
for the physical activity scale ranges from 0 to 24, and the total
score for the work scale ranges from 0 to 42; the higher the
score, the worse the condition. When summing the scores,
questions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 are not included in
scoring.
Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia The TSK is a list of 17 questions that measure fear related to low
(TSK)4 back pain. For each question, the scores range from 1–4. The
total score is 68; the higher the score, the worse the condition.
The total score is calculated after the inversion of questions
4, 8, 12, and 16.
Pain catastrophizing Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)10 The PCS is a list of 13 questions that assess the extent of
catastrophic cognitions related to low back pain. Each question
is scored from 0 to 4; the higher the score, the worse the
condition. The total score is 52. The PCS assesses 3 dimensions
of catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness.
a
We included the CIRS and the FCI as examples of tools that assess the influence of comorbidities on physical function. However, there are numerous tools
that can be used to assess the influence of comorbidities on different outcomes.
b
People with depression who report suicidal ideation belong to the “red flags” group. They require immediate medical attention.