Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2018 | Original Article

Clinical course and prognostic models for the conservative management of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective cohort study

Authors: Marije L. S. Sleijser-Koehorst, Michel W. Coppieters, Martijn W. Heymans, Servan Rooker, Arianne P. Verhagen, Gwendolijne G. M. Scholten-Peeters

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 11/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To describe the clinical course and develop prognostic models for poor recovery in patients with cervical radiculopathy who are managed conservatively.

Methods

Sixty-one consecutive adults with cervical radiculopathy who were referred for conservative management were included in a prospective cohort study, with 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments. Exclusion criteria were the presence of known serious pathology or spinal surgery in the past. Outcome measures were perceived recovery, neck pain intensity and disability level. Multiple imputation analyses were performed for missing values. Prognostic models were developed using multivariable logistic regression analyses, with bootstrapping techniques for internal validation.

Results

About 55% of participants reported to be recovered at 6 and 12 months. All multivariable models contained 2 baseline predictors. Longer symptoms duration increased the risk of poor perceived recovery, whereas the presence of paresthesia decreased this risk. A higher neck pain intensity and a longer duration of symptoms increased the risk of poor relief of neck pain. A higher disability score increased the risk of poor relief of disability, and larger active range of rotation toward the affected side decreased this risk. Following bootstrapping, the explained variance of the models varied between 0.22 and 0.30, and the median area under the curve varied between 0.75 and 0.79.

Conclusions

The clinical course of cervical radiculopathy appears to be long, with most of the reduction in symptoms occurring within the first 6 months. All prognostic models showed an adequate predictive performance with modest diagnostic accuracy and explained variance.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Available only for authorised users

Kuijper B, Tans JTJ, Schimsheimer RJ et al (2009) Degenerative cervical radiculopathy: diagnosis and conservative treatment. A review. Eur J Neurol 16:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02365.x CrossRefPubMed

Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O’Fallon WM, Kurland LT (1994) Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain 117(Pt 2):325–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/117.2.325 CrossRefPubMed

Bono CM, Ghiselli G, Gilbert TJ et al (2011) An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. Spine J 11:64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.10.023 CrossRefPubMed

Thoomes EJ, Scholten-Peeters GGM, De Boer AJ et al (2012) Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 21:1459–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2297-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thoomes EJ, Scholten-Peeters W, Koes B et al (2013) The effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review. Clin J Pain 29:1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31828441fb CrossRefPubMed

Iyer S, Kim HJ (2016) Cervical radiculopathy. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:272–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9349-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wong JJ, Côté P, Quesnele JJ et al (2014) The course and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy: a systematic review of the literature. Spine J 14:1781–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.02.032 CrossRefPubMed

Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Heath R (2007) Predictors of short-term outcome in people with a clinical diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. Phys Ther 87:1619–1632. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060287 CrossRefPubMed

Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL et al (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.009 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Williamson A, Hoggart B (2005) Pain:a review of three commonly used rating scales. J Clin Nurs 14:798–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x CrossRefPubMed

11.

Serlin R, Mendoza T, Nakamura Y et al (1995) When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 61:277–284CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P et al (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:90–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e3a10 CrossRef

13.

Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB et al (2015) Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162:W1. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0698 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGMM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 162:55–63. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bruls VEJ, Bastiaenen CHG, De Bie RA (2015) Prognostic factors of complaints of arm, neck, and/or shoulder: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Pain 156:765–788CrossRefPubMed

16.

Artus M, Campbell P, Mallen CD et al (2017) Generic prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br Med J 7:e012901. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012901 CrossRef

17.

de Koning CHP, van den Heuvel SP, Staal JB et al (2008) Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non-specific neck pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 17:905–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0656-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Harris KD, Heer DM, Roy TC et al (2005) Reliability of a measurement of neck flexor muscle endurance. Phys Ther 85:1349–1355PubMed

19.

Timmerman H, Wolff AP, Schreyer T et al (2013) Cross-cultural adaptation to the Dutch language of the pain DETECT-Questionnaire. Pain Pr 13:206–214CrossRef

20.

White IR, Wood AM (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30:377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJC, Harrell FE Jr (2001) Prognostic modeling with logistic regression analysis: search of a sensible strategy in small data sets. Med Decis Mak 21:45–56CrossRef

22.

Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Verwoerd AJH, Luijsterburg PAJ, Lin CWC et al (2013) Systematic review of prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica. Eur J Pain 17:1126–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00301.x CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kjaer P, Kongsted A, Hartvigsen J, et al (2017) National clinical guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5099-2 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Heymans MW, Van Buuren S, Knol DL et al (2007) Variable selection under multiple imputation using the bootstrap in a prognostic study. 11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-33 CrossRef

26.

Hayati Rezvan P, Lee KJ, Simpson JA (2015) The rise of multiple imputation: a review of the reporting and implementation of the method in medical research. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0022-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Steyerberg EW, Bleeker SE, Moll HA et al (2003) Internal and external validation of predictive models: a simulation study of bias and precision in small samples. J Clin Epidemiol 56:441–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00047-7 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Clinical course and prognostic models for the conservative management of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective cohort study
Authors: Marije L. S. Sleijser-Koehorst
Michel W. Coppieters
Martijn W. Heymans
Servan Rooker
Arianne P. Verhagen
Gwendolijne G. M. Scholten-Peeters
Publication date: 01-11-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5777-8

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Clinical course and prognostic models for the conservative management of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective cohort study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphical abstract

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphical abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

Smartphone app in self-management of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Announcements

The use of STarT BACK Screening Tool in emergency departments for patients with acute low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study

Validation of the Croatian version of the Oswestry Disability Index