Low back pain is a major cause of disability in older adults, and results in many emergency department visits each year. Characteristics of the older back pain population are largely unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to examine the prevalence and patient characteristics for older (≥ 65 years of age) and younger (16–64 years of age) adults presenting with back pain. Study objectives were to describe the characteristics of older adults with back pain presenting to an emergency department and to identify age-group-based differences in management. Older adults were most commonly diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (49%). For older adults with this diagnosis, the length of stay was 2.1 times longer (p < 0.001), and odds of being admitted to the hospital were 5.1 times higher (p < 0.001) than for younger adults. Patterns of management are different for younger and older adults with low back pain; this information can be used to direct future resource planning.

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from a prospective cohort study to investigate whether frailty is associated with pain intensity, disability caused by low back pain (LBP), and quality of life in an older population with acute non-specific LBP. Six hundred and two individuals with a mean age of 67.6 (standard deviation [SD] 7.0) years were included in the analysis. In relation to frailty status, 21.3 per cent of the sample were classified as robust, 59.2 per cent were classified as pre-frail, and 19.5 per cent were classified as frail. In the unadjusted analysis, pre-frail and frail groups showed significantly higher pain and disability scores than the robust group. Moreover, the same two groups exhibited lower scores in both physical and mental domains of quality of life than the robust group. After adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical variables, disability scores and the physical component of quality of life were significantly associated with frailty. In older adults with acute LBP, frailty is associated with more disability and worse scores in the physical component of quality of life.

Introduction: Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis. The number of apparent opioid-related deaths between January and March 2018 increased by 44% compared to the same period in 2016. The increasing use of prescription opioids and higher doses of opioids can lead to opioid addiction, toxicity and even death. Opioids are commonly prescribed for low back pain management in the ED, but the variability in opioid-prescribing patterns suggested an opportunity for improvement. Our centre implemented Clinician Performance Indicators (CPI) in 2015. CPIs were reported to each ED physician every 3 months and included the percentage of patients who were prescribed opioids. The intent was to raise awareness of opioid-prescribing patterns at our institution. Therefore, we evaluated opioid-prescribing patterns for patients with low back pain (LBP) before and after the CPI implementation. Methods: Data were obtained retrospectively for patients discharged from the ED from July 2015 to December 2018 with LBP-associated ICD 10 codes. We excluded admitted patients, those with specialist consultations, and patients who left without being seen. The primary outcome was opioid prescribing patterns for patients with LBP before and after CPI implementation. We performed a descriptive analysis of the data and compared the prescribing rates pre-implementation (July-Dec 2015) to post-implementation (July-Dec 2016) following a 6-month wash-out period. Moreover, we analyzed opioid-prescribing patterns over an extended period until December 2018. Results: After the exclusion criteria were applied, 8993 patients were included in the analysis. 53.5% were female and the mean (SD) age was 48.3 (19.78). During the three years of the study period, the percentage of LBP patients who received opioids showed a decreasing trend. Comparison of the pre and post CPI implementation periods showed a decrease in opioid prescriptions (42.0% vs 35.5%, 95%CI 2.9% to 10.2%). There was variation in opioids prescribed at our institution, the most common being hydromorphone (29.9%), followed by acetaminophen-oxycodone (24.2%) and acetaminophen-tramadol (20.0%). Conclusion: The implementation of CPIs positively impacted physicians' opioid-prescribing patterns for patients presenting with LBPs at our institution. Future studies are required to further improve the effectiveness of CPIs in influencing opioid-prescribing patterns.

This study aimed to investigate the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level and low back pain (LBP) among adolescents while adjusting for potential confounders pertinent to this age group including the weight of school bags, BMI and physical activity. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 760 randomly selected adolescents in middle schools. Data on LBP and the risk factors for LBP were collected from parents by a self-administered questionnaire and from adolescents by face-to-face interview. Blood samples were tested in an accredited laboratory; and 25(OH)D was measured using liquid chromatography-tandem MS. The lifetime prevalence and the 6-month prevalence of LBP were 32·28 (95 % CI 28·97, 35·73) % and 21·26 (95 % CI 18·40, 24·33) %, respectively. There was no difference in the geometric mean of 25(OH)D between those with and without LBP in the past 6 months (28·50 nmol/l and 30·82 nmol/l, respectively; P = 0·122). There was no association between 25(OH)D and LBP in the univariable or multivariable analysis whether 25(OH)D fitted as a continuous or as a categorical variable. We found no association between vitamin D level and LBP in adolescents in an area with high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency. Although it is important to have sufficient vitamin D levels during adolescence for several other health benefits, we concluded that vitamin D is not a major determinant for LBP among adolescents in our setting.

Introduction: Choosing Wisely Canada guidelines suggest that in the absence of red flags or clinical indicators suggestive of serious underlying conditions, physicians should not order radiological images for patients presenting with non-specific low back pain, and current recommendations do not endorse routine prescribing of opioids for this condition. The objective of this study was to determine how many patients presenting to the ED with non-traumatic low back pain have spinal imaging and how many are discharged home on opioids. Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical record review for adult (>17 years) patients presenting to an academic tertiary care ED with non-traumatic low back pain from April 1st 2014 to March 31st 2015 (pre-guideline) and April 1st 2017 to March 31st 2018 (post-guideline). Patients were excluded if they were >70 years old, were not discharged home, had a traumatic injury, features of cauda equina syndrome, weight loss, history of cancer, fever, night sweats, chronic use of systemic corticosteroids, chronic use of illicit intravenous drugs, first episode of low back pain over 50 years of age, abnormal reflexes, loss of motor strength or loss of sensation in the legs. Results: 1060 (545 pre-guideline, 515 post-guideline) were included. Mean (SD) age was 39.6 (12.3) years and 549 (51.8%) were female. Pre-guideline, 45 (8.3%) patients had spinal imaging, compared to 39 (7.6%) post-guideline (Δ 0.7%; 95% CI: −2.6% to 4.0%). Of the 84 (7.9%) patients who had spinal imaging, 4 (8.9%) had pathologic findings pre-guideline, compared to 10 (25.6%) patients post-guideline. The proportion of patients discharged home with a prescription for opioids was lower after the Choosing Wisely Canada guidelines (40.9% vs. 11.1%; Δ29.8%; 95% CI: 24.8% to 34.7%). Conclusion: Choosing Wisely Canada guidelines did not appear to alter the rate of imaging for patients presenting to the ED with non-traumatic low back pain. Overall the rate of spinal imaging was lower than expected. The proportion of patients who were discharged home with a prescription for opioids was lower after the Choosing Wisely Canada guidelines, however we don't know if this represents an overall trend in the reduction of opioid prescribing, or a specific change in practice related to the ED management of low back pain.

Introduction: Practice guidelines discourage routine imaging for low back pain and recommend selective use when serious underlying conditions are suspected. Evidence about prevalence of serious pathologies and accuracy of red flags for decision-making is limited. We describe rates of serious low back pathology, assess the accuracy of three red flags and model the utility of combining administratively available red flags to reduce imaging. Methods: A seven-year retrospective study of patients presenting with low back pain to four emergency departments in Nova Scotia, Canada. Patient characteristics were available from administrative data. We test sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios of individual and combinations of red flags. We use decision curve analyses to assess the clinical utility of three red flags to inform imaging. Results: We included data from 38,714 patients presenting with low back pain. Serious low back pathology was diagnosed in 1196(3.09%): 847 (2.19%) were vertebral fractures, 184 (0.48%) unstable fracture, 262 (0.68%) cancer, 57 (0.15%) cauda equina syndrome, and 30 (0.08%) spinal infection. Value of combining three red flags (age>65, female sex, and trauma) was found: positive likelihood ratios of 4.36 and 9.74 for vertebral fracture and unstable fracture, respectively. Imaging for low back pain could be reduced by 28 per 100 patients using a model that incorporates sex, age >65, and trauma. Conclusion: Serious low back pathology is extremely rare in patients presenting with low back pain. Combinations of red flags readily available in emergency departments have the potential to reduce unnecessary imaging tests.

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is an extremely frequent emergency department (ED) presentation. Although LBP imaging often results in no change to the ED management, does not identify abnormalities, and has documented risks (e.g., radiation exposure), advanced imaging (i.e., computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) for patients with LBP has become increasingly frequent in the ED. The objective of this review was to identify and examine the effectiveness and safety of interventions aimed at reducing imaging in the ED for LBP patients. Methods: Six bibliographic databases and grey literature were searched. Comparative studies assessing interventions aimed at reducing ED imaging for adult patients with LBP were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened study eligibility, completed data extraction, and assessed the quality of included studies. Due to a limited number of studies and significant heterogeneity, a descriptive analysis was performed. Results: The search yielded 510 unique citations of which three before-after studies were included. Quality assessment identified potential biases relating to comparability between the pre- and post-intervention groups, reliable assessment of outcomes, and an overall lack of information on the intervention (i.e., time point, description, intervention data collection). The interventions to reduce lumbar spine imaging varied considerably. Study interventions included: 1) clinical decision support (i.e., a specialized X-ray requisition form), which reported a 47.4% relative reduction of lumbar spine radiography referrals; 2) clinical decision guidelines, which reduced referrals by 43.8%; and 3) multidisciplinary protocols, which reported a reduction in the MRI referral rate by 26.1%. Despite reductions in simple imaging, CT use increased in two of the three studies. Conclusion: LBP has been identified as a key area of imaging overuse (e.g., Choosing Wisely recommendation). Yet, evidence of interventions’ effectiveness in reducing imaging for ED patients with LBP is sparse. While there is some evidence to suggest that interventions can reduce the use of simple imaging in LBP in the ED, unintended consequences have been reported and additional studies employing higher quality methods are strongly recommended.

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem globally, but approaches to prevention are not yet clearly identified because modifiable risk factors are not well established. Although physical activity is one promising modifiable risk factor, it is still not known what types and doses of physical activity are protective or harmful for LBP. The aim of this study is to establish the feasibility of a definitive cohort study that will investigate the effects of different types and doses of physical activity on the risk of developing recurrent LBP while accounting for genetic factors. This will be a pilot longitudinal twin study and twins will be recruited from the Australian Twin Registry, and will be followed over 1 year. Thirty adult complete twin pairs with a history of LBP, but symptom free at recruitment, will be included. Data on physical activity (predictor) will be collected using four questionnaires and an objective measure (accelerometer) at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Twins will also complete an additional physical activity questionnaire monthly. Data on LBP (outcome) will be collected at baseline and weekly. Data will be collected using short message service (SMS) and email. We will keep records of the recruitment rate, follow-up rate, and completeness of data. Barriers to completing the study will be investigated. The results of this study will inform the design and implementation of a future definitive study, which will help to clarify the effects of different types and doses of physical activity on the risk of developing recurrent LBP.

Poor sleep quality is highly prevalent in patients with low back pain (LBP) and is associated with high levels of pain, psychological distress, and physical disability. Studies have reported a bidirectional relationship between sleep problems and intensity of LBP. Accordingly, effective management of LBP should address sleep quality. In addition, genetics has been found to significantly affect the prevalence of both LBP and insomnia. Our study aims to establish the feasibility of a trial exploring the efficacy of a web-based sleep quality intervention in people with LBP, with the genetic influences being controlled for. 30 twins (15 complete pairs) with subacute or chronic LBP (>6 weeks) will be recruited from the Australian Twin Registry. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups with each twin within a pair receiving either an interactive web-based sleep intervention based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles (intervention) or a web-based education program (control) for 6 weeks. The feasibility of the trial will be investigated with regard to recruitment rate, feasibility of data collection and outcome measure completion, contamination of intervention, acceptability and experience of intervention, and sample size requirement for the full trial. Patient outcomes will be collected electronically at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and at 3-months’ follow-up post-randomization. This trial employs a robust design that will effectively control for the influence of genetics on treatment effect. Additionally, this study addresses sleep quality, a significant but under-explored issue in LBP. Results will inform the design and implementation of the definitive trial.

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) may be having a significant impact on emergency departments (ED) around the world. Two analyses conducted in the USA and Australia suggest that LBP is one of the leading causes of emergency department visits. However, in the peer-reviewed literature, there has been limited focus on the prevalence and management of back pain in the ED setting. Furthermore, the applicability of the available research to our local ED setting is unclear. Methods: This project includes two studies to investigate the prevalence of LBP in the ED: 1. a comprehensive systematic review of the published literature to gather a comprehensive and global perspective about the prevalence of LBP in the ED setting, and 2. a retrospective cross sectional analysis using six years of data from our local ED, the Charles V. Keating Emergency and Trauma Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Results: Searches from multiple databases including PubMed (392 citations), resulted in 3024 citations, of which 20 studies were found to have prevalence data for LBP. Studies were reported between 2001–2015 and used mixed methods of data collection, including electronic databases, surveys and patient charts. Ranges for prevalence estimates were 1.9% to 17% of patient visits. Results indicated there are many gaps in the literature, for example research in rural EDs and in Canada. In our primary study, we have identified a sample of 10 000 patients presenting with LBP to our local ED. Analysis of this data will be completed prior to the CAEP conference. Conclusion: This project is the first systematic review; comprehensive search strategy to examine the prevalence of LBP in the ED. It is also the first project to assess the prevalence of LBP in a Canadian ED. Results from this study will inform healthcare providers, as well as administrative and policy decision-makers, of the global and local impact of LBP in the ED, and will identify opportunities for further research to enhance care pathways of patients suffering from LBP.

Introduction: Low Back Pain (LBP) remains a condition with relatively high incidence and prevalence. It affects 70-85% of people at some point in their lives and causes significant disability. LBP management may be best suited to a primary care setting, yet it is one of the most common reasons for presentation to Emergency Departments (ED). Nationally representative data from the United States found that LBP related disorders are a frequent cause of ED visits, accounting for 2.7 million visits to US EDs annually. There are numerous treatment modalities for LBP, however the task is identifying those that have relevance in an ED setting. Although there is extensive research available on management of LBP in primary care settings, treatment outcomes differ from that in the ED setting. This makes management of LBP a challenge for ED physicians. Few studies and no systematic reviews focus on treatment of LBP in the ED setting. Methods: The objective of our study is to compare effectiveness of treatment modalities relevant for management of LBP in the ED setting. We conducted an Overview of Systematic Reviews following robust methods advocated by Cochrane. We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A medical librarian assisted in completing of an extensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE. We used transparent criteria to select relevant reviews and assess interventions for ED relevance. We collected key data points from the included reviews including pain and functional limitation outcomes. Evidence will be synthesized for important outcome measures following the approach of Jones et al (2012). Results: We screened 4740 citations and identified 346 likely relevant systematic reviews. Comparative effectiveness review synthesis will be completed before the conference. We will report effectiveness of each of the included interventions and as well as make head to head comparisons of said relevant interventions. Conclusion: Currently most LBP patients presenting to the ED are inundated with a variety of potential treatment modalities, all alleging efficacy in LBP management. Physicians may use the evidence from this synthesis, and related knowledge translation tools, to guide decisions in effectively treating patients presenting to the ED with LBP.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the long-term (≥ 6 months) benefits of epidural steroid injection therapies for patients with low back pain.

Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials by database searches up to October 2011 and by additional hand searches without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials on the effects of epidurals for low back pain with follow-up for at least 6 months were included. Outcomes considered were pain relief, functional improvement in 6 to 12 months after epidural steroid injection treatment and the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

Results: Twenty-nine articles were selected. The meta-analysis suggested that a significant treatment effect on pain was noted at 6 months of follow-up (weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.41; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], −0.66 to −0.16), but was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for the baseline pain score (WMD, −0.19; 95 percent CI, −0.61 to 0.24). Epidural steroid injection did not improve back-specific disability more than a placebo or other procedure. Epidural steroid injection did not significantly decrease the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery compared with a placebo or other treatments (relative risk, 1.02; 95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.24).

Conclusions: A long-term benefit of epidural steroid injections for low back pain was not suggested at 6 months or longer. Introduction of selection bias in the majority of injection studies seems apparent. Baseline adjustment is essential when we evaluate pain as a main outcome of injection therapy.