Low Back Pain Clinical Management Guidelines App: Evidence-Based Guidelines for a Common Problem [App Review]

000f04bf1c4345ba324600c33d969f11 Low back pain is virtually an epidemic in the United States. In many surveys, it is listed in the top 3 most frequent patient complaints resulting in a visit to a physician. It also appears to be more prevalent in the United States than in other industrialized societies, with only a muddle of theories available explain this costly difference. For this reason, a systematic methodology of evaluating the patient with back pain is clearly important. This would help the primary care physician, usually the first evaluate the patient, who is quietly worried that she or he might miss an ominous but uncommon etiology such as metastatic cancer. Also from the public health perspective, this methodology would help prevent multiple, unnecessary and costly imaging studies. And, in fact, many detailed evidence-based recommendations have been published over the years, going as far back as 1994.

While the availability of many evidence-based practice guidelines is of great benefit, the multiplicity also becomes a burden for the practicing physician who needs a quick and handy way to answer the question of what to do for a particular patient. Thus, the birth of a category of desktop and mobile applications named clinical decision support systems (CDSS). This growing and important sector bridges the gap between evidence based guidelines and clinical computer applications. Some of the larger players in this sector, such as Zynx Health, aim to integrate directly into the electronic health records (EHRs) used at hospitals. Others have opted for convenient, free-standing applications quickly available to the physician. The iPhone app Low Back Pain Clinical Management Guidelines is an example of the latter.

This app presents an algorithm using established guidelines for evaluating the patient with low back pain based on the patient’s history and a focused physical exam. [Editor’s Note: This app is based on 2007 guidelines from the American College of Physicians] It suggests when further imaging studies are necessary as well as providing broad criteria for detecting when the more unusual causes of lower back pain should be suspected, such as ankylosing spondylitis and metastatic cancer.

79d4e7cd14082267942752e8eab8810c17a3cdfe80bbe1e80f2554f284d92123

While the very availability of such an application is quite welcome, its usability is clearly the largest factor in its success or failure, especially since it does not have the store-window advantage of being embedded in a larger clinical application. Here, unfortunately, the application design could have been improved. In particular, the organization of the screens was sometimes confusing and some of the more interesting information was difficult to find.

2f402ce6979bf3f1234f3cbcbaed97cf0cfe3e03655ef1aeaa828974d454d9c9

What I liked:
  • addresses an important need
  • references important articles, explains statistics
  • quick reference to basic guidelines
What I didn’t like and What I’d like to see in future updates:
  • sometimes difficult to navigate in and out of the algorithm (screen flips and changes do not always make sense)
  • would be nice to have a couple of alternative navigation styles to find specific information (e.g. table or search)
  • embedded PDFs of some of the key articles in the literature
Conclusion:

Low Back Pain Clinical Management Guidelines puts some of the oldest and best developed evidence based clinical guidelines on the iPhone. One can imagine a clinician occasionally using this app to remind themselves of what to look for when a patient arrives with somewhat unusual back pain. Hopefully future versions will have an even more efficient navigation interface so that useful clinical information will be more quickly presented to a busy doctor.

View Customer Reviews on iTunes »

Download Now on iTunes for $5.99 »

Visit the App Website »

Comments:

  • D Tu, MD
    I bought this app 2 days ago because I have a lot of patients with low back pain, and had hoped that the app would help increase my knowledge of low back pain. Overall the app has good presentation, the algorithms are easy to follow, and the app did incorporate the guidelines from the ACP. However, the information in the app is at a very basic level (medical student level), not pertinent to physicians who regularly see patients with low back pain. For example, I was hoping for symptoms, signs, and maneuvers that differentiate between different causes of low back pain, and the information is not in the app. I was also looking for different treatment regimens and med combinations to treat different types of back pain, but the information is not there. I hope that the app's authors will expand the app in a future update. For me, I give this app a 2 stars rating (2 for presentation and 0 for content). I do not feel that this version added anything to my knowledge. Thank you.
  • crtech
    Thanks Dr. Tu for the input. This is obviously a very biased response to your comment as we are the developers of the app, however the statement "the information in the app is at a very basic level (medical student level), not pertinent to physicians who regularly see patients with low back pain" we don't feel adequately represents the value of the information. Let us explain:

    While the information may seem "basic", there is evidence to show that these guidelines have poor penetration in terms of influencing evidence-based management of low back pain, at least in a sample of general practice physicians (Williams, Archives of Internal Medicine, 2010). Unfortunately just because knowledge is "basic" does not mean that it necessarily turns into standard practice. These guidelines are not a new concept. As alluded in the review, we have had guidelines for a couple decades almost, and although the latest update was in 2007, practice patterns seem to remain unchanged for the most part in many settings. Could it be that the guidelines appear "so simple" that they are "shrugged off" as irrelevant? Not following these guidelines has shown to lead to increased costs for unnecessary or irrelevant diagnostic tests, unproven interventions, and poor outcomes, not to mention a potential earlier bias towards surgical interventions that may not be effective either.
    There was a lot more "opinion" that could have been included into the application, but in being true to the evidence we have for LBP management, and limiting what bias we could, we attempted to provide an accurate representation of these guidelines, in addition to elaborating further into the screening and diagnostic criteria available for some of the other associated spinal pathologies. By examining the guidelines and the supporting literature we can see that it is difficult (at least in a general practice setting) to reliably differentiate the specific cause of low back pain (if we are trying to determine if a disc, facet, etc are the culprit) and the outcomes don't change significantly for the most part even if we do. There is also abundant evidence to show the incidence of irrelevant abnormalities in the asymptomatic population, not just in the spine, but also in the majority of other joints in the body. That information has to be weighed into the clinical decision making process when evaluating radiographic findings or even the decision to order them, and their correlation with the patient presentation and physical exam.

    What you are left with are screening strategies to rule out any significant spinal pathology (all available questions with diagnostic utility are included in the application for the most significant spinal pathologies, with all applicable likelihood ratios for determining pre-test and post-test probability). These include many signs and symptoms, with known diagnostic utility, that patients with low back pain will present with. Additionally, all maneuvers with known diagnostic utility and their association with pertinent pathology are included in this application as well (reflexes, strength testing, straight-leg raise test, etc). With some of these strong diagnostic questions or clusters of questions a clinician can often confidently rule out other disease and may not necessarily need to order further or advanced diagnostic imaging.

    The other concept that has supporting evidence, and in our opinion everyone that manages low back pain should be well educated on, is the strong correlation between yellow flags and risk for converting from acute to chronic low back pain. These risk factors are much stronger indicators of progression to chronic low back pain then the ability to identify any type of "specific cause of low back pain", especially in the labor force. From our experience, clinician education on this topic in terms of screening, diagnosis, and adequate interventions is lacking. As chronic low back pain is where the majority of our health care expenditures come from (over 80%), then this is paramount.

    The management of low back pain can be reduced much further into specific segments of diagnosis and intervention, which may be better catered to individual specialized practices. For example the concept of treatment based classification systems for low back pain focus on signs and symptoms based classification into a specific treatment or intervention rather then into a specific pathoanatomical diagnosis (as the former has been shown to be more reliable and valid then the latter). There is good evidence to support this, and although it is described in the Low Back Pain Clinical Management Guidelines app along with the supporting references, we felt it outside the scope of the application to elaborate into the detailed specifics of the treatment parameters. We hope to have a new application in the future that focuses on this concept and provides detailed intervention parameters based on this treatment based classification system.

    Thanks again for the comments and input. We have updated with application since with a more intuitive flow of information.
  • SMisra
    Thanks for the comments - we'll be sure to pass on that information to the developers for consideration!
  • Erin
    I've used #3. Thanks for the promo !

    EMO
  • martin dubreuil
    thanks, took LHLM34JXMRL6
    low back pain...how expansive...
    martin dubreuil
  • Stephane
    #2 is used. Thanks for the promo code. Review is right on. The essential information seems to be there. However the layout for accessing it all is not quite as intuitive as it could be to find what you want right away.
  • MZK
    Hi, I used # 5 and from what I had to try with and what is listed here, #1 & #4 - #10 are all used,
    I do not know about #2/#3.
    Honestly, would it kill us to be conscientious enough to mention it here and maybe even a word of thanks as well?

    On that note, thanks to the imedicalapps team and the developer for offering the promo code, looking forward to try & review!
  • Sierra
    #1 used. Thank you
  • JK
    Thank you.
    I used 7. FWJ99AKKTRJ7
  • FP Doc
    I used promo code #8, nice to see apps covering the major topics of primary care
  • Thank you for providing codes for our readers, I am sure they will be well received.

    In addition to highlighting the lack of adherence to systematic evaluations of common conditions, you can also highlight the risks of unnecessary imaging tests. Through your application I discovered, for example, that a lumbar radiograph series on a woman exposes the ovaries to the equivalent of a chest radiography every day for a year.

    We appreciate your continuing efforts to improve the application as being able to quickly answer a specific question will probably drive whether clinicians will consistently to use it.
  • SMisra
    CRTech - Thanks for your comments and the promo codes!! I certainly agree that LBP rec's have had pretty poor penetration into primary care in particular, a common challenge for recommendations relating to common problems. The trend towards more accessible decision support tools, such as this, will hopefully change that for LBP, headache, chronic cough, and all the other similarly affected patient problems. I'll also add a clarification that this app is based on 2007 guidelines just in case folks interpret the reference to 1994 to imply otherwise.
  • Wow i really appreciate the work done by dsignners reallly help to get rid of back pain.
    I took 4NLJ43AY67JX.
  • crtech
    Thanks to iMedicalApps for the review. We will definitely look to incorporate the feasible recommendations into future updates to improve flow. Regarding the embedded pdf files of the articles, I very much wish we could do that as it would be an excellent feature and very valuable to have the entire article to read. Copyright issues limit the distribution of journal articles so the best we can do is provide a link to PUBmed and the user can then order the article through their institution (or in many cases there is free full-text copies available on PUBMed as well).

    Another thing to highlight, despite some form of these guidelines being available since 1994, this app is based on the latest ACP guidelines published in 2007 which have many updates. The information may seem trivial, however a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine last month (February 2010) showed that many clinicians are not adhering to these guidelines which results in increase costs and potentially decreased benefit for the patient. Of added benefit may be the charts that compare the evidence/efficacy for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for both acute and subacute/chronic low back pain. Are patients getting interventions that have little evidence to support them or even evidence against? The results from the study last month may suggest that is happening.


    For the readers, here are some free codes to download the new Low Back Pain Clinical Management Guidelines iPhone app. Please post on here below stating which code you used to help everyone out. Look forward to any feedback/recommendations.

    1. X4WYTMM63RKR
    2. NYNYLR7LHJNE
    3. 9NMLHR96LTHA
    4. 4NLJ43AY67JX
    5. YLFFH47W4AML
    6. A4MRLJ4MJXJ9
    7. LHLM34JXMRL6
    8. N4XJT7EXH3XE
    9. FWJ99AKKTRJ7
    10. 6WAJF7FRH9AW
blog comments powered by Disqus
medGadget    iMedicalApps