Categories
Change Password!
Reset Password!
As
per a research study, SES, educational level, and number of pain medications
has been described as the potential treatment effect attributes for LBP
prognostic stratified care.
One of the foremost low back pain (LBP) research priority
is the depiction of patient characteristics influencing treatment outcomes. The
patient characteristics associated with treatment response have not yet been
discovered although the outcomes from the STarT Back trial support the
effectiveness of prognostic stratified care for LBP in contrast to the current
best care.
This is a secondary analysis whose purpose was to
recognise treatment effect modifiers
within the STarT Back trial at 4-month follow-up (n = 688). Using the
Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (≥7), the treatment response was
dichotomized using back-specific physical disability. Previous litrature was
used to recognise the candidate modifiers. These were estimated using logistic regression
with statistical interaction terms to supply preliminary evidence of treatment
effect modification. The socioeconomic status (SES) was recognised as an effect
modifier for disability outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, P = .028). High SES patients getting
prognostic stratified care were 2.5 times less likely to have a poor outcome
compared with low SES patients getting principal current care
(OR = .40, P = .006).
Education level (OR = 1.33, P = .109) and number of pain medications
(OR = .64, P = .140) met
the standards for effect modification with weaker confirmation
(.20 > P ≥ .05). These discoveries supplement
preliminary evidence for SES, education, and number of pain medications as
treatment effect modifiers of prognostic stratified care furnished in the STarT
Back Trial.
Hence, this analysis provides preliminary exploratory
findings about the characteristics of patients who might least likely advantage
from targeted treatment via prognostic stratified care for LBP.
Science Direct
Identifying Treatment Effect Modifiers in the STarT Back Trial: A Secondary Analysis
Jason M. Beneciuk et al.
Comments (0)