Skip to content

The Ability of Chronic Pain Patients to Self-diagnose Their Chief Source of Low Back Pain

The Ability of Chronic Pain Patients to Self-diagnose Their Chief Source of Low Back Pain

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06630676
Enrollment
288
Registered
2024-10-08
Start date
2024-10-16
Completion date
2026-05-15
Last updated
2026-08-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Chronic Low Back Pain

Keywords

back pain, education

Brief summary

The investigative team will provide 27 slides with bullet points and images of pain referral patterns for different causes (e.g., herniated disc, facet joint arthritis) for patients seen for a new visit with a chief complaint of chronic low back pain. This material is all publicly available but has been compiled in presentation form. This will have educational benefit for patients, discussing clinical signs and symptoms, risk factors and basic treatments. There will also be a smaller control group of that gets a condensed 4-slide presentation. After review of the slides, an independent observer will ask the patient what they think are the 2 most likely causes of their LBP (in order of likelihood) and match that with the attending physician and trainee, who will independently do the same. The investigative team will then determine how concordant the patient's answers are with the physicians and also record outcomes.

Detailed description

Artificial intelligence (AI), the growth of the internet and internet access, direct-to-patient advertising, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic with a proliferation of telehealth visits has transformed medicine. Patients come in with a wealth of information, some accurate but some inaccurate, about their condition, often with preconceived notions about what condition they have and how they want to be treated. For conditions such as chronic pain with a high prevalence rate of abnormal imaging findings in asymptomatic individuals, the absence of biomarkers for clear-cut diagnoses, and subjective outcome measures, this has led to unnecessary tests and treatment, doctor shopping, high rates of burnout among providers and low success rates. The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on accuracy of diagnoses via telehealth, with studies finding a high concordance rate between telehealth visits without the benefit of a physical exam, and in-person pain management consultant, which is similar to that found in other specialties. The proliferation of AI in electronic medical record systems that confer diagnoses based on patient and physician input of symptoms and signs suggests that in the future, patients with access to the information will be able to self-diagnose their chronic pain and other conditions. Many guidelines also recommend education and self-care in their back pain treatment algorithms, though the effect of education on outcomes is not well-known. With this in mind, the purpose of this study is to determine how accurate patient diagnoses are when they are furnished with readily available information on the different etiologies for chronic low back pain (LBP), the leading cause of disability worldwide. The plan is to enroll 269 patients in a 3:1 allocation ratio to either the 27-slide educational group or a condensed 4-slide control group. The patient will have the opportunity to ask questions, after which they will rate their top 2 diagnoses, in order. A trainee (resident or fellow) and the attending will do then do the same. Outcomes will be recorded at 4 weeks (e.g., for simple injections such as epidural steroids and sacroiliac joint injections, medications, physical therapy) or at 12 weeks for more invasive procedures such as spinal cord stimulation, radiofrequency ablation, or vertebral augmentation. Analyses will be performed to: 1) Determine whether the educational program improves the likelihood that the patient correctly self-diagnoses the cause of their back pain using the attending physician as the reference standard compared to the control group; and 2) Whether the educational program improves treatment outcomes.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALControl

Brief 4-slide presentation without a separate session for questions and answers

BEHAVIORALEducation

Patients will review 28 slides that discuss the different etiologies (causes) of back pain, how common they are, what causes them (e.g., wear and tear, trauma), factors that exacerbate and alleviate the pain, how they are diagnosed and treated, and have an opportunity to ask questions.

Sponsors

Northwestern University
Lead SponsorOTHER
University of Washington
CollaboratorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

The outcome assessor will not be privy to the treatment group.

Intervention model description

Patients will be randomized to a comprehensive educational program consisting of 28 slides and answering questions, or a control group (4 brief slides)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* • Age \> 18 years * Primary complaint of LBP or sciatica * Duration of LBP \> 3 months

Exclusion criteria

* • Referral for a specific diagnostic procedure or who present with a pre-established diagnosis * Inability to understand written English

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
ConcordanceDay 0 (enrollment date)Concordance (overlap) between the patient's guess at their top 2 diagnoses, and those rendered by the attending physician. The patient's choices include 12 diagnoses (e.g., discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, piriformis syndrome) while the physician's includes 13 (secondary gain).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
ConcordanceDay 0Concordance (overlap) between the patient's guess at their top 2 diagnoses, and those rendered by the trainee. The patient's choices include 12 diagnoses (e.g., discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, piriformis syndrome) while the physician's includes 13 (secondary gain). The intended scale is: * Matching patient's and physician's 1st and 2nd diagnoses in order: 6 points * Matching patient' 1st diagnosis to physician's 1st diagnosis but not matching the 2nd diagnosis, or matching 1st and 2nd diagnoses in reverse order (e.g., patient ranks facetogenic 1st and discogenic pain 2nd whereas doctor ranks discogenic and facetogenic pain 1st and 2nd, respectively): 4 points * Patient's 1st diagnosis matches physician's 2nd diagnosis: 3 points * Patient's 2nd diagnosis matches either the physician's 1st or 2nd diagnosis: 2 points * No match on any ranked diagnosis: 0 points
Average back pain score6 weeksAverage back pain score over past week on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (higher scores indicating greater pain)
Worst back pain score6 weeksWorst back pain score over past week on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (higher scores indicating greater pain)
Average leg pain score6 weeksAverage leg pain score over past week on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (higher scores indicating greater pain)
Worst leg pain score6 weeksWorst leg pain score over past week on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (higher scores indicating greater pain)
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale6 weeks7-point Likert scale (7 is best outcome) in which patient rates their improvement as: no change or worse (1); almost the same (2); a little better (3); somewhat better (4); moderately better (5); better (6); a great deal better (7)
Successful outcome6 weeksGreater or equal to 30% decrease in average back or leg (for sciatica) pain score coupled with a score \>4 out of 7 on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. For patients with \<4 average pain score, we will use "worst" pain score as the baseline reference.

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 29, 2026