![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Prescriptive clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are a way of using a small selection of clinical findings to match patients to optimal interventions. A number of CPRs have been developed for use with back pain patients, but these have not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this review was to evaluate existing CPRs against established criteria to determine the quality of the studies and the overall development of the CPR against a set number of stages. Medline was searched up until June 2008, and 16 studies were reviewed that related to 9 different CPRs. These studies investigated and attempted to find clinical characteristics for responders to manipulation, stabilization exercise, physical therapy, chiropractic, traction, rehabilitation, usual care, and zygapophyseal joint injections. Eleven of these studies related to the derivation stage and five to the validation stage. The manipulation and stabilization CPRs had been the most studied. The derivation studies were mostly high quality, whereas none of the validation studies were. Some of the validation studies did not provide evidence that validated the CPR. Most of these CPRs need further evaluation before they can be applied clinically; most did not pass the lowest level of evidence hierarchy. As regards the manipulation CPR, evidence to date for its clinical utility is limited and contradictory. For the stabilization CPR, there was limited evidence that it may be considered but only with caution and in similar patients. Overall, there is limited evidence to support the general application of spinal CPRs.