Outcomes are not different for patient-matched versus nonmatched treatment in subjects with chronic recurrent low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

Background context: Classification schemas for low back pain (LBP), such as the Treatment-Based Classification and the Movement System Impairment, use common clinical features to subgroup patients with LBP and are purported to improve treatment outcomes.

Purpose: To assess if providing matched treatments based on patient-specific clinical features led to superior treatment outcomes compared with an unmatched treatment for subjects with chronic recurrent LBP.

Study design: This study is a randomized controlled trial.

Patient sample: Subjects (n=124) with LBP (≥12 months) with or without recurrences underwent a standardized clinical examination to group them into one of two strata: ineligible or eligible for stabilization exercises based on the Treatment-Based Classification schema. Subjects underwent additional clinical tests to assign them to one of the five possible Movement System Impairment categories.

Outcome measures: Questionnaires were collected electronically at Week 0 (before treatment), Week 7 (after the 6-week 1-hour treatment sessions), and 12 months. Using the Oswestry disability index (0-100) and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (0-10), the primary analysis was performed using the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes included fear-avoidance beliefs and psychosocial work-related and general health status.

Methods: After subjects were categorized based on their particular clinical features using both the Treatment-Based Classification and Movement System Impairment schemas, they were randomized into one of two treatments using a 3:1 ratio for matched or unmatched treatments. The treatments were trunk stabilization exercise or Movement System Impairment-directed exercises.

Results: Of the patients allocated to treatment for this study, 76 received a matched treatment and 25 received an unmatched treatment. After treatment, both groups showed a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome measures and almost all the secondary measures; however, the matched treatment group did not demonstrate superior outcomes at Week 7 or 12 months, except on one of the secondary measures (Graded Chronic Pain Scale [Disability Scale]) (p=.01).

Conclusions: Providing a matched treatment based on either the Treatment-Based Classification or the Movement System Impairment classification schema did not improve treatment outcomes compared with an unmatched treatment for patients with chronic LBP, except on one secondary disability measure.