A controlled examination of medical and psychosocial factors associated with low back pain in combination with widespread musculoskeletal pain.Diagnosis, treatment, and the primary mechanisms underlying the etiopathogenesis of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in combination with widespread musculoskeletal pain (WMP) remain elusive, despite increased research. In the literature, genetic factors, affective disorders, and physical and psychological stressors are listed as the factors of CLBP and WMP. (1-3) Therefore, our study examined the main factors associated with CLBP and WMP, comparing a group of patients with CLBP and WMP with a group of individuals who were pain-free and with a group of patients with CLBP but without WMP. Generally, patients with chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain (CWMP) also have CLBP. The aim of this study was to identify a pattern of specific variables associated with CLBP and WMP by comparing a number of variables in these study groups. We surmised that, with timely treatment of these factors, the progression rate of WMP could be decreased. Low back pain (LBP) in combination with WMP indicates reduced functional ability and predicts long-term work disability. According to Natvig and colleagues, (4,5) this is not true of localized pain. When patients report recent LBP of low intensity during an initial visit to a general practitioner, it is a predictor that their back pain will be of short duration,6 whereas a report of widespread pain indicates a prognosis of LBP of longer duration can be expected. (7) Psychosocial factors are known to be associated with LBP and WMP, but the significance of these symptoms in the general population is not known. (8) In patients with CLBP, the fear of injury is significantly correlated with disability. It has been suggested that people with CLBP as a part of WMP may be the major cause of the burden that chronic nonspecific LBP has on family members and on society. (9) Establishing a diagnosis and evaluating the effects of therapy in patients with CWMP may be difficult because of the multifaceted nature of their complaints and possible overlap with other chronically painful conditions. (10) Sometimes diagnoses from different medical experts of a myofascial pain syndrome, a somatoform pain disorder, or a fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) may be used synonymously or are overlapping with CWMP. Myofascial pain syndrome, a painful musculoskeletal condition, is characterized by the development of myofascial trigger points that are locally tender when active and which refer pain through specific patterns to other areas of the body. Myofascial pain often is described as occurring in a rather limited area of the body, but when such trigger points exist, pain is more dispersed. Some authors (11) noted that myofascial pain syndrome must be distinguished from fibromyalgia. A somatoform pain disorder is diagnosed in patients with pain for at least 6 months and with strong evidence that psychological factors have caused or are maintaining the pain. Many of these patients have depressive illnesses, and, in some cases, major depression may be the root cause. Rarely do patients self-eport psychological stress factors as a reason for their pain or see a correlation, but validated instruments for the measurement of depression do exist, such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the General Depression Scale used in this study. Sometimes, such symptoms may not be easily differentiable from those of patients with FMS and WMP. Patients with FMS also report a defined pattern of widespread pain and at least 11 of 18 specific tender points, which should be painful to palpation according to the criteria published by the American College of Rheumatology. (12) This definition has been questioned by some authors. (13,14) Noteworthy also are some analogies between WMP and FMS with respect to the psychosocial factors. Because of the variety of terms and the similarity of these diseases, this investigation was focused on patients with CLBP in combination with WMP. By comparing patients with CLBP and WMP with individuals who were pain-free, we established important factors that differentiate between these groups and between the groups with CLBP with and without WMP. We tested for associations and interactions among these patient groups. Although several accumulative associated factors have been identified in previous studies, little is known about the combination of LBP and WMP. (7,10) No unified pathophysiology for the development of this pain syndrome has been found. Only a few studies are available that indicate any correlations in the developments of CLBP and WMP7; even less information exists regarding early signs of CLBP and WMP. Thus, this pain pattern represents a unique therapeutic challenge. To our knowledge, no detailed survey comparable to this study exists that has examined the medical, clinical, psychological, and psychosocial factors of patients with CLBP and WMP. Physical therapists and other professional groups engaged in the management of spinal problems should trace these factors to provide a better and specific treatment for this pain pattern. Method Study Population and Sampling A group of patients with CLBP and WMP (CLBP+WMP group, n=97) was compared with a group of individuals who were pain-free and who stated that they were free from any painful musculoskeletal disorders during at least the preceding 3 months (control group, n=97) and with a group of patients with CLBP but without WMP (CLBP-only group, n=52). The study was carried out over a period of 18 months in a center specializing in painful musculoskeletal diseases. Primary health care physicians, specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain specialists in orthopedics, neurologists, and psychiatrists were encouraged to refer patients with back disorders in combination with widespread pain to participate in the CLBP+WMP group. Additional individuals were drawn from among the resident patients of a pain clinic. All participating physicians were asked to recommend only patients with nonspecific CLBP and WMP. All patients were asked to bring their medical reports to the screening. At the screening, the patients' medical reports were reviewed by 1 of 3 experienced physicians in our pain clinic. A physical examination of the spine and the upper and lower extremities was conducted. Exclusion criteria were: inflammation, radiculopathy, spinal tumor, acute infection, fracture, previous spine surgery, rheumatic disease, or any other specific or systemic causes of their complaints. People with a history of or clinical, radiological, or laboratory signs of the above-mentioned conditions and diseases (operant organic diseases) were excluded from the study and referred back to their general practitioner or to a specialist for further diagnostic or therapeutic measures. Candidates were included in the group of patients with CLBP and WMP only if they had CLBP for longer than 3 months, pain in at least one area of the upper body, and pain in the cervical or thoracic spine and in both sides of the body (pain topography was examined by the pain drawing method). The pain pattern of this pain topography was the primary inclusion criteria for the CLBP+WMP group. Low back pain was defined in accordance with a modified figure of Kuorinka et al, (15) which presents LBP in a span between the lower ribs and the lower gluteal folds. Of 108 such potential participants invited for screening, 97 adults who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected to participate in this study. Five people did not fulfill the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three volunteers were excluded because they could not communicate effectively. Another 3 individuals, although eligible, decided not to participate. Patients with CLBP and WMP were compared with the patients in the pain-free control group. To generate interest in this study, individuals who were pain-free were entered in a lottery (but no other payments were made). There were no dropouts after screening for the CLBP+WMP and pain-free control groups. A possible source of selection bias could be that the people in the pain-free control group were individuals who were willing to participate in a study, although they had no musculoskeletal complaints. Finally, a group of patients of comparable age with CLBP but without WMP and participating in a back school program was used as a comparative group; their data were used in a secondary analysis. For this group, the same definition of CLBP and the same exclusion criteria were applied, as for the CLBP+WMP group. Individuals of all 3 groups were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age or older than 55 years of age. The patients in all 3 groups signed informed consent statements prior to participating in the study. Measurements Participants in all 3 groups completed a comprehensive examination, which included sociodemographics, pain parameter history, disability, nonmusculoskeletal comorbid conditions, psychosocial factors, and a clinical assessment. For the patients in the CLBP-only group, fewer variables were evaluated. The tests were documented for each group as shown in Table 1. The social history included the patient's family and work environments before and during the time of the investigation. Most data were collected by validated questionnaires. Completion of the questionnaires was voluntary, and the participants were assured that their anonymity would be protected. Questions regarding sensitive factors such as sexual molestation or violence in the family were asked in a structured interview by a trained female psychologist with more than 15 years of experience. To avoid effects of fatigue, rest periods were made available during the test procedure. The mean duration of the whole examination was 85 minutes. The groups underwent a clinical functional assessment by a medical doctor. Identical variables that were considered for the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups are shown in Table 1. Pain history. To examine pain topography, the pain drawing method was used. (16) A silhouette modified to the figure of Kuorinka et al (15) (viewed from the back), which illustrates 9 areas of the human body, was presented to the participants. Each area was marked with a number, and the participants were instructed to mark the number of the areas where they felt pain. Furthermore, they were asked for the topography of the primary pain as well as pain with the second- and third-highest intensities. Intensity of the primary pain at the time of the examination was assessed using the 101-Numeric Rating Scale (101-NRS). (17) Disability. Assessment of the participants' disability because of LBP was based on a disease-specific functional status questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index. (18-20) High scores indicated high disability. The scores were converted into percentages, and disability was categorized as "minimal," "moderate," "severe," or "crippled." (18) Health-related quality of life. General health was assessed by a validated German version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item ShortForm Health Survey (SF-36). (21) The SF-36 measures functional health and well-being in 8 separate dimensions (possible range of scores=0-100, where 0 represents maximal health restriction and 100 represents no restrictions). These dimensions may be reduced to 2 scores (ie, physical and mental component summary scores). Averaged data have been published for individuals with back pain (physical component summary: [bar.X]=44.73, SD= 10.61; mental component summary: [bar.X]=48.25, SD= 10.95). (22) The SF-36 manual also includes age- and sex-specific norm values. Psychometric questionnaires. The participants were asked to complete a battery of psychosocial questionnaires designed to elicit specific information on a wide variety of psychosocial dimensions. The following validated psychometric questionnaires were used for the CLBP+ WMP and control groups and partly for the CLBP-only group (Tab. 2). The General Depression Scale (23) is an adaptation of the Center of Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. (24) It was specifically developed for research on non-clinically depressed samples. Higher scores indicate more symptoms of depression; a score higher than 23 points indicates a clinically relevant depression. Anxiety was assessed by the "trait" scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. (25) High scores indicate a general tendency to respond with anxiety to perceived threats in the environment. Somatization was examined by the somatization scale of the Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised instrument (SCL-90-R). (26,27) High values indicate more-severe symptoms. The Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) (28,29) was developed to evaluate individual beliefs about how physical activity affects LBP. High values indicate greater fear and increased avoidance behavior. The validated version (in the German language) that was used for this study, according to the recommendations of the author, (29) does not allow a differentiation in fear-avoidance behaviors concerning physical activity in general and at work. Pain coping strategies and reactions to pain were assessed with 2 parts of the Kiel Inventory of Coping With Pain. (30) This inventory includes different scales (listed in Tab. 2) comprising cognitive and emotional reactions to pain. High values indicate less coping ability. Interview. A female psychologist interviewed the participants regarding personal issues such as conflicts with a partner, stress or harassment at work, and sexual molestation. Questions were summarized into variables of psychological stress from earlier years and current stress (Tab. 2). Possible stresses from earlier years are sexual molestation, violence in the family, and eating disorders. Current strains registered were mobbing/stress and harassment at work, unfair treatment at work, burden due to pedagogical problems, self-perceived double or more-excessive burden, and conflicts with a partner. Clinical assessment. On entering the study, each participant of the CLBP+WMP and control groups underwent a clinical functional assessment that included the parameters listed at the end of Table 3. The extent of the clinical assessment of the participants in the CLBP-only group was not identical to that of the other groups and served initially to exclude signs of radiculopathy (straight-leg-raising test, manual muscle testing, reflexes, pinprick, and vibration). (31) All tests were performed for each group in the same way. Assessment of head rotation (cervical spine) was carried out using the Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) * goniometer. (32) The straight-leg-raising test was conducted in the supine position for both legs. (33) The examiner lifted the patient's leg (into hip flexion) as much as tolerable while keeping the knee straight. The straight-leg-raising test was described as a "positive Lasegue sign" if pain in the sciatic distribution was reproduced between 30 and 70 degrees of passive flexion of the straight leg. (34) Individuals (of all 3 groups) with a positive Lasegue sign were excluded from the study. Fingertip-to-floor distance was used as an indicator for spinal flexion and was assessed by asking the participants to bend forward as far as possible. For the interscapular fingertip distance measurement, the participants were asked to reach with both hands into the interscapular region (ie, one hand from below in the direction of the neck and the other hand from above in the direction of the sacrum). The distance between the tips of the third fingers of both hands was measured. In cases in which a participant could overlap her or his fingers, the measurement became minus. Hypermobility was evaluated according to the method of Beighton, a system to quantify joint laxity and hypermobility. (35) It uses a 9-point system: one point for passive dorsiflexion of each fifth finger greater than 90 degrees, one point for passive apposition of each thumb to the flexor surface of the forearm, one point for hyperextension of each elbow greater than 10 degrees, one point for hyperextension of each knee greater than 10 degrees, and one point for ability to place the palms on the floor with the knees fully extended. The higher the score, the higher the laxity. A Beighton score greater than 4/9 is indicative of generalized joint hypermobility. The ability to stand on one leg in a standardized position (arms crossed in front of the body, eyes closed) was measured in seconds, with a maximal duration of 60 seconds and with one attempt for each side. The 18 well-defined tender points were palpated for testing for pain at 4 kp/[cm.sup.2] as indicated by the American College of Rheumatology. (12) For that purpose, a Fisher palpometer ([dagger]) was used. All tests that could be performed to the left and to the right were examined for both sides and then averaged if no significant difference between right and left sides was noted. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to present the basic features of the data. Means and standard deviations or medians and ranges were computed, depending on the scaling of the data for quantitative variables. Percentages were computed for categorical variables. To test the quantitative dependent variables for group differences, Student t tests or one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed, depending on how many groups were tested. The assumptions for these tests are: (1) normal distribution of the independent variables and (2) equal variances among the groups of the independent variables. The validity of the assumption of equity of variances was established with Levene tests, and normal distribution was controlled visually by inspecting the histograms. As post hoc tests for pair-wise comparisons, Scheffe tests were performed. It became apparent that the adoption of the homogeneous variables was not infringed; however, the distribution of the variable of years since onset of pain could not be validated as being congruous. The variables of number of comorbidities, number of psychological stresses from earlier years, number of present stresses, number of treatments, number of tender points, number of children, and number of people living in the same household could not meet the criterion of the interval scaling. Calculations for the latter variables were done with parameter-free methods. The Mann-Whitney U test for significance or, in case of a comparison between groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for significant differences among quantitative variables that did not reach the data level for the interval scaling or that could not meet one or both of the conditions for the t test or the variance analysis. Footnotes in the tables indicate the respective methods used. Differences among categorical variables were computed using the chi-square statistic. The chosen level of significance was P [less than or equal to] .05. To avoid randomly significant results because of the large number of variables, alpha adjustment was performed using the Bonferroni method. (36) The significant P value after alpha adjustment for the between-groups comparison was .001, using the formula [alpha]'=[alpha]/m, where m corresponds to the number of the test procedures that are included in the test of the hypothesis. Correlations were examined with the Pearson product moment correlation. For ordinally scaled data, a Spearman rho was computed. This was the case with all correlations, including number of treatments, number of tender points, and years since onset of pain. For further evaluation, logistic regression analyses were computed, using the forward likelihood ratio approach. Variables showing significance in the univariate analysis were entered as independent variables. In logistic regressions, independent variables can be continuous or categorical. To avoid biased estimates, the data were tested for multicollinearity among the predictors with the scatterplot procedure. Overall fit was tested by the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic. A predictor was seen to be useful for the model if the change of -2 log likelihood was significant for the respective variable. Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were computed for the resulting variables, showing the independent effect of each factor. Three models were calculated, each including selected ranges of topics. (37) The first model included the social-demographic and psychological variables, such as age, income, education, anxiety, fear-avoidance behavior, depression, somatization, and numbers of stresses and comorbidities. The second model dealt with the physical characteristics and different variables regarding reactions to pain: age, sex, one-leg-stand time (left and right legs averaged), fingertip-to-floor distance, active head rotation, interscapular fingertip distance measurement, straight-leg-raising test (left and right legs averaged), body mass index (BMI), helplessness and hopelessness, disability, endurance capacity; psychical cause attribution, and nonverbal pain reaction. An additional model evaluating the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups included sex, disability, fear-avoidance behavior, education, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, extent of employment, number of treatments during the pre ceding 3 months, and number of comorbidities. A power analysis was conduced for the main outcome variable of disability. With regard to the contents, it seemed appropriate to include only the data of the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups because it became evident that, by supposing an alpha error of 5%, the number of study participants (97 + 52 = 149) was sufficient to attain a power of >0.999 with the extant mean value differences. All statistics were computed using Statistica, version 7.0. ([double dagger]) Role of the Funding Source This study was supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Women and Health. Results Variables Evaluated for All 3 Groups After screening for study criteria, a total of 246 people (mean age=42.9 years, SD=8.74), 76% women, 24% men) were eligible for the study. Descriptive statistics for the demographic data, number of nonmusculoskeletal comorbidities, and results of the SF-36, the FABQ, and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index are presented in Table 4. Marital status did not differ significantly among the 3 groups (P=.069) in contrast to the characteristics of sex (P=.009), education, extent of employment, and number of comorhidities, which showed significant differences among the groups (P [less than or equal to] .000). The univariate analyses of data for extent of employment showed significant differences among all 3 groups and between the CLBP+ WMP and CLBP-only groups and the control group for education and number of comorbidities (P-<.003). No significant differences were found between the CLBP-only group and the control group for education (P=.104) and number of comorbidities (P=.853). The ANOVA results for all 3 groups are shown in Table 5. According to the Scheffe post hoc test, the SF-36 physical component summary score and the results of the FABQ differed significantly among all 3 groups. For age, a significant difference existed only between the CLBP+WMP and control groups (P=.019). For BMI, significant differences were found between the control group and the CLBP+WMP group (P[less than or equal to].000) and the CLBP-only group (P=.001) but not between the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups (P=.891). Finally, the Scheffe test showed significant differences for the SF-36 mental component summary score between the CLBP+WMP group and the CLBP-only and control groups (P=.000), whereas no significant difference was found between the CLBP-only group and the control group (P=.571). Variables Evaluated for the CLBP+WMP and Control Groups A number of remaining sociodemographic characteristics and clinical data of the CLBP+WMP and control groups are presented in Table 3. Significant differences between these 2 groups became apparent. For one-leg stand, no significant differences were found between patients with LBP and pain in a leg and patients with LBP but without pain in a leg (Mann-Whitney U test; left leg, P=.326; right leg, P=.589). The results of the psychosocial questionnaires and the interview of the participants in the CLBP+WMP and control groups are shown in Table 2. Again, the questionnaires displayed significantly worse data for the CLBP+WMP group compared with the control group, except for some scales of the cognitive reaction to pain such as exaggeration (catastrophizing) or minimizing and for most of the coping reactions in pain situations. Furthermore, participants in the CLBP+WMP group reported significantly more psychological trauma in childhood and current stress. Correlations performed for the CLBP+WMP and control groups are presented in Table 6. Significant correlations were found between number of tender points and depression (r=.253, P=.013) and between number of tender points and SF-36 physical component summary score (r=-.378, P<.000) in the CLBP+ WMP group, whereas these correlations are not significant in the control group (correlation between number of tender points and depression: r=-.050, P=.629; correlation between number of tender points and SF-36 physical component summary score: r=-.080, P=.440). The results of the analyses for regression models 1 and 2 between the CLBP+WMP and control groups are presented in Table 7. The first and second models predicted 97.8% and 91.2%, respectively, of the patients to be included in the CLBP+WMP group according to the included variables. Compared with the control group, the participants in the CLBP+WMP group earned significantly less, had more depression, anxiety, and fear-avoidance behavior and had a higher endurance capacity and shorter one-leg-stand (Tab. 7). The other sociodemographic and psychological variables and clinical data were not important associated factors in the CLBP+WMP group compared with the control group. Variables Evaluated for the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-Only Groups (Except for ANOVA Results) The results for pain, disability, and number of treatments for the CLBP+ WMP and CLBP-only groups are presented in Table 8. The participants in the CLBP+WMP group reported significantly higher pain intensities, more years since onset of pain, more disabilities, and a larger number of treatments than the participants in the CLBP-only group. Correlations calculated for several variables for these 2 groups are presented in Table 9. Concerning the topography of the primary pain between the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups, neck pain was found to be the second most prevalent site (29.9% versus 21.2%) compared with LBP (43.3% versus 57%) and upper back pain (10.3% versus 1.9%). The regression analyses predicted 86.7% of the patients to be in the CLBP+WMP group and demonstrated for them a higher likelihood (P<.001) of an increased number of treatments and higher disability and fear-avoidance behavior (Tab. 10). Discussion This is the first comprehensive evaluation investigating a large number of demographic, clinical, psychological, and psychosocial variables to determine the factors most commonly associated with CLBP and WMP. Logistic regression analyses were used to measure the strength of associations among the predictor variables (ie, the degree of risk to the participants in the study groups). The multivariate models suggest that low income, severe depression and anxiety, fear-avoidance behavior, higher endurance capacity strategies, and a shorter one-leg stand are predominantly associated with patients with LBP and WMP compared with individuals who are pain-free. Compared with the participants in the CLBP+WMP group, those in the CLBP-only group reported a greater number of treatments, higher disability, and increased fear-avoidance behavior. Because there is a paucity of descriptive literature examining patient cohorts with LBP and WMP, the results of this study can serve in future research as valuable comparison data regarding the many evaluated parameters. Age, Sex, and Body Mass Index At the mean ages of 43.2 and 44.6 years, respectively, the participants in the CLBP-only and CLBP+WMP groups were within the typical age range described by White and Harth (38) to be at risk for chronic generalized pain. The mean age of the participants in the control group was 3.5 years less. More women than men were in all 3 groups. In particular, the CLBP+ WMP group differed significantly from the CLBP-only group with regard to the ratio of men and women. Some authors (39,40) have noted that WMP and FMS are more prevalent in women than in men of comparable age. When comparing patients with chronic pain with the general population, women reported more-frequent and more-intense pain and other more-negative effects than men. (41,42) There seem to be differences in how men and women think and feel about their pain. (43) Regarding BMI, we found significant differences between the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups and the control group but not between the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation was computed between the BMI and the SF-36 physical component summary score for the CLBP+WMP group but not for the CLBP-only group. These results correspond with those of Neumann and colleagues' study of patients with fihromyalgia. (44) CLBP and WMP and FMS Study interpretations customarily refer to results of comparable investigations. Although current published material rarely references comparable studies of patients with CLBP and CWMP, it frequently references studies of patients with FMS, a condition not identical to but similar to the characteristics of the CLBP+WMP group in this study. Pain is a cardinal symptom of people with CLBP and WMP, as it is of individuals with FMS and myofascial pain syndrome. Tender Points, CLBP and WMP, and FMS According to the criteria for the classification of FMS published by the American College of Rheumatology, (12) a typical pain pattern of at least 11 of the 18 well-defined tender points should be painful to palpation. In our study, we found a significant difference between the CLBP+WMP group and the control group regarding the tender points. However, there also were 20 participants in the CLBP+WMP group with fewer than 11 tender points and 2 participants in the control group with more than 11 tender points. These findings suggest that many, but not all, patients in our study met the criteria for FMS. Recent studies (13,14) showed that 11 as the cut point for the number of tender points is arbitrary, and there remain overlaps with other pain syndromes such as chronic diffuse muscular pain and chronic fatigue syndrome. Furthermore, the value of different algesimetric methods has been questioned because clinical pain and experimentally induced pain differ in important ways. (45) Some patients also have both FMS and myofascial pain. (35) In the current study, the number of tender points correlated with different, but not all, variables for the CLBP+WMP and control groups in the same way (Tab. 6) (significant for depression and pain intensity and negatively significant for the SF-36 physical component summary score in the CLBP+WMP group but not significant for the control group). These results point to a minute differentiating uniform role of the tender points between the psychological and physical factors involved in the pathophysiology of WMP. Income and Extent of Employment In this study, low income was an important factor associated with the risk for CLBP and WMP compared to the individuals who were pain-free. Pertinent literature reports conflict-hag results regarding low socioeconomic status as a risk factor for CLBP. (46-48) The Canadian community health survey (2000-2001) indicated income, age, depression, and functional interference with activities to be strongly associated with chronic pain in general. (49) The London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study associated a lower household income with increased likelihood of having FMS. (50) Another study concluded that FMS is linked to a substantially increased risk of medically certified work absenteeism due to sickness. (51) Nearly one third of the patients with CLBP and WMP in our study were unemployed. This finding indicates that the risk of work loss, which is associated with a low income, seems to be high for patients with WMP and CLBP. Bergman (52) compared individuals with no chronic pain and patients with chronic regional pain, chronic widespread pain, and clinically defined FMS. He noted that belonging to a lower socioeconomic group and having a lower education correlated with the population with CWMP and FMS, conclusions that were obtained in our study as well by comparing patients with CLBP and WMP and individuals who were pain-free. Disability The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index scores of participants in the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups differed significantly. Fifty-nine (60.8%) of the participants in the CLBP+WMP group were in the "moderate" disability category and 26 (26.8%) were in the "severe" and "crippled" disability categories, whereas 9 (17.9%) of the participants in the CLBP-only group were in the "moderate" disability category and 2 (3.8%) were in the "severe" disability category. These findings suggest that particularly the patients with only CLBP were coping rather well in their daily activities despite their chronic illness. Disability correlated significantly with pain intensity and fear-avoidance behavior in both the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups, whereas disability and number of years since onset of pain correlated negatively in the CLBP+WMP group but not in the CLBP-only group. In contrast to our results, a less-significant association between disability and pain intensity in patients with CWMP was described in a study identifying commonalities among the ICF Core Sets of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, where the authors concluded that in people with CWMP, the profile of functioning differs considerably and should not be included in a common ICF Core Set with other musculoskeletal diseases. (53) Pain Intensity The use of self-reported pain as a variable was justified in a study by Walsh and Coggon (54) that dealt with the reproducibility of histories of LBP. It is well known that a considerable portion of the general population frequently has LBP. In this respect, the participants of the pain-free group in our study did not represent accurately the general population, as the participants were selected because they stated they had not had any back problems for at least 3 months prior to entering this study. High pain intensity, as reported by the patients with CLBP and WMP compared with the patients with only CLBP in this study, suggests that people reporting intense pain should be taken seriously. Significantly, pain intensity and the SF-36 physical component scale score correlated negatively in both groups (CLBP+WMP group: r=-.544, P<.000; CLBP-only group: r=-.518, P<.000). No significant correlation between the SF-36 mental component summary score and pain intensity for either group was calculated (CLBP+WMP group: r=-.067, P=.529; CLBP-only group: r=.049, P=.740). In an FMS study, the authors concluded that the process of developing FMS starts with localized pain in most cases (55) and that back pain could be a prognostic factor for the development of FMS. (56) Ruiz Moral et al (57) concluded in their study regarding psychosocial features of patients with CWMP and FMS in primary care settings that the patients' self-rated health was poor and more closely resembled the health reported by patients with other chronic osteoarticular diseases. These results support the hypothesis that FMS should be considered as a more-advanced clinical stage of the WMP continuum. Bergman et al (58) observed that changes in SF-36 scores over a 3-year follow-up period coincided with improvement or deterioration of pain status in patients with chronic widespread pain compared with individuals from the general population with no chronic pain and with patients with chronic regional pain. These results, however, contrast with our results regarding pain intensity, which did not correlate significantly with the SF-36 mental component summary scores but did correlate with the SF-36 physical component summary scores in both the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups. Psychological Factors Over the past 20 years, a multidimensional approach to the understanding of pain that incorporates a psychosocial model has gained acceptance. It currently rates psychological factors highly in pain research and treatment. (59) Psychosocial variables generally have even more impact than biomedical or biomechanical factors on back pain disability. (60) In our study, we observed that higher depression, anxiety, somatization, fear-avoidance behavior, and endurance capacity are factors associated with patients with WMP in comparison with individuals who are pain-free. These results concur with those of a previous study that demonstrated the importance of psychological variables as risk factors for back and neck pain. (61) Depression The cut point of the General Depression Scale for people to be considered clinically depressed was described to be greater than 23 points. (23) In our study, 24.7% of the CLBP+WMP group but only 2.1% of the individuals of the pain-free control group had more than 23 points. When evaluating these results, one has to take into consideration that in the group with CLBP and WMP, women were more numerous than men and that lifetime prevalence of depression, in general, is higher in women than in men. (62,63) However, the results for depression in our study correspond with the results reported in the literature. Fibromyalgia syndrome and depression commonly occur. (64) Henningsen et al (65) concluded that FMS is related to, but not dependent on, depression and anxiety. White et al (66) described depression (and anxiety) as frequent and severe among patients with FMS. They found that affective disorders are risk factors for not only the development but also the continuum of FMS. Furthermore, depressed mood is a predictive factor for a negative treatment response in patients with FMS. (67) Although it has been hypothesized that FMS is a depression spectrum disorder, it has been pointed out that not all patients with FMS develop major depression. (68,69) Between 40% and 80% of patients with FMS in the study by White et al (66) reported havign anxiety or depression, whereas anxiety stress and depression were found to be present in 30% to 45% of patients with WMP in a study by Yuntis. (70) Stratz et al (71) discerned 3 different types of FMS: a biological type (inflammatory process), FMS as a result of depression-somatization, and a type of FMS as a result of a stress disorder or of maladaptive coping strategies. As our pain clinic has an orthopedic focus, the referred individuals might have had a lesser psychopathological background, and the patients in this study were more likely to have the biological type of the syndrome, which might explain some differences between our findings and those of others. Thus, in our study, the SF-36 physical component summary score had a significant negative correlation with pain intensity, whereas the SF-36 mental component summary score did not. Quality of Life (SF-36) Comparing quality of life in patients with different musculoskeletal diseases, patients with FMS, despite their relatively young age, appear to be the group with the worst scores for quality of life. (72) Similar results also were obtained in our study: the patients of the CLBP+WMP group had significantly lower scores on physical and mental aspects of the SF-36 health survey compared with the CLBP-only group and the pain-free control group. We found a greater difference between the CLBP+WMP and control groups for the physical component summary scores than for the mental component summary scores. This finding suggests that in the CLBP+WMP group, despite the significant group difference for both summary scores, the physical aspects were dominant compared with the mental aspects. Between the CLBP-only and control groups, a significant difference was found for the SF-36 physical component summary scores but not for the mental component summary scores. According to the study by Oswald et al, (73) the SF-36 mental component summary score can be used to differentiate between patients with and without psychological dysfunction independent of pain. In our study, we found a significant negative correlation between BMI values and SF-36 physical component summary scores in the CLBP+WMP group (r=-.378, P<.000), whereas no significant correlation was found in the CLBP-only group (r=-.080, P=.440). Fear-Avoidance Behavior Fear-avoidance beliefs are particularly common in patients whose LBP is likely to become chronic. (61) In the present study, fear-avoidance behavior was identified as an associated factor pertaining to patients with CLBP and WMP when compared not only with the individuals who were pain-free but also with the patients with CLBP only. The participants in the CLBP+WMP group reported an earlier onset of pain compared with the CLBP-only group. Based on these findings, it could be argued that fear-avoidance behavior plays an essential part in the development from CLBP alone to CLBP with WMP. (74) Coping and Cognitive Reactions to Pain Chronic low back pain and WMP are described to be particularly frequent in people with low coping abilities and high levels of helplessness and hopelessness, (75) variables that in this study were found to be significantly more present in the patients with WMP than in the individuals who were pain-free. It seems obvious that the reduction of chronic pain is much more difficult if the pain problem is combined with other factors that are linked to different senses in the brain. This also explains why a biopsychosocial model, which implicates a multimodal perception and reaches many different senses, can enable such people to develop better coping strategies and reduce psychological strain. According to our results, patients with WMP prefer passive strategies as coping reactions to pain. This preference became understandable when considering that these patients very often have depression and, therefore, also a lack of drive. In our study, a higher endurance capacity was found to be an important characteristic of the patients of the CLBP+WMP group compared with the individuals from the pain-free control group. Our results confirm previous findings in patients with FMS. (76) These individuals frequently demand too much of themselves, neglect to recognize their own capacity limits, and are devoted to others' needs. (76,77) Sacrifices and a lack of self-concern follow suit. (41) Balance/One-Leg Stand We noted that balance (the one-leg-stand test) seemed to be an additional factor associated with the patients with CLBP and WMP compared with individuals who were pain-free. Requirements for a longer balance time are muscular strength (force-generating capacity), endurance, and coordinative abilities. The research literature suggests a reduced voluntary muscular strength in patients with FMS in comparison with individuals who are healthy. (78,79) Strength training and aerobic endurance exercises can reduce pain and improve functionality, as shown in women with FMS. (80,81) Gowans et al (82) found that exercise can improve mood as well as physical function in individuals with FMS. Furthermore, another study (83) concluded that regular high-intensity aerobic exercise alleviated pain disability and psychological strain in subjects with CLBP. The reported effects of aerobic walking on pain and disability in individuals with FMS were inconclusive. (84) The complexity in the assessment of patients with chronic pain becomes obvious when considering that reduced muscular performance may be affected by an impaired central drive, a significant symptom of depression, (78) and fear of increased pain after the test, (85) all notable variables in this study. Hypermobility In this study, no statistically significant difference was noted on the Beighton Hypermobility Score in the CLBP+WMP group compared with the pain-free control group. These results differ from those of studies showing that patients with FMS had much higher Beighton Hypermobility Scores compared with subjects who were healthy. (69,86,87) Karaaslan et al (88) stated that WMP is associated with joint hypermobility under the age of 50 years. Psychological Childhood Trauma and Health Care Seeking In this study, the univariate analyses revealed significant differences between the CLBP+WMP and control groups with regard to a history of childhood psychological trauma and some current stress. Alexander et al (89) observed in patients with FMS a connection between sexual or physical abuse and increased use of outpatient health care services, as well as medications for pain. Kadam et al (90) noted that people who reported chronic widespread pain seek medical advice about nonmusculoskeletal problems more often than people with no pain, a finding that was not explained by psychological distress. This observation corresponds with the findings in our study, namely that the number of psychological stresses from earlier years and the number of comorbidities were significantly higher in the CLBP+WMP group than in the pain-free control group. Limitations of the Study With the opportunity to win a prize when participating in this study, the recruited individuals who were healthy could have been a self-selected and well-motivated group with a positive attitude toward the completion of the questionnaires. In order to evaluate such a large number of variables, an even larger number of study participants would be desirable. In addition, some variables in testing the patients with WMP and the individuals who were pain-free were not used with the patients with CLBP only. Another possible limitation of this study might be recall errors by participants, especially regarding questions concerning their childhood. Additionally, all results of one assessment show no causative connections, but only associations. There fore, further research is needed. Some scores have not been validated in patients with diffuse musculoskeletal pain or in adults who are healthy. Conclusions It is apparent that there are no simple explanations for patients with CLBP in combination with WMP when comparing them with patients with CLBP only and with individuals who are pain-free. It seems that only a large number of interacting physical and psychosocial factors, which were identified in this study, could classify the problems of these patients. Particularly, a high fear-avoidance behavior, disability, and a large number of treatments should alert clinicians to the potential early stage of WMP. Our results suggest opportunities for further research, with attention to a multidimensional view in the early stages of CLBP and WMP, the developmental time factor, and the well-timed management of the associated factors indicated in this study. Dr Friedrich provided concept/idea/research design and project management. Dr Friedrich and Dr Wepner provided writing. Ms Hahne provided data collection and analysis. All authors provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission). The authors thank the patients who participated in this study and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Women and Health for supporting this study. The study was approved by the Internal Review Board of Orthopaedic Hospital Speising. This article was received March 31, 2008, and was accepted April 21, 2009. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20080100 References (1) Arnold LM, Hudson JI, Hess EV, et al. Family study of fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:944-952. (2) Cook DB, Lange G, Ciccone DS, Liu WC, et al. Functional imaging of pain in patients with primary fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol. 2004;31:364-378. (3) Magni G, Moreschi C, Rigatti-Luchini S, Merskey H. Prospective study on the relationship between depressive symptoms and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain. 1994;56:289-297. (4) Natvig B, Bruusgaard D, Eriksen W. Localized low back pain and low back pain as part of widespread musculoskeletal pain: two different disorders? A cross-sectional population study. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33: 21-25. (5) Natvig B, Bruusgaard D, Eriksen W. Low back pain as a predictor of long-term work disability. Scand J Public Health. 2002;30: 288-292. (6) Van den Hoogen HJ, Koes BW, Deville W, et al. The prognosis of low back pain in general practice. Spine. 1997;22: 1515-1521. (7) Thomas E, Silman AJ, Croft PR, et al. Predicting who develops chronic low back pain in primary care: a prospective study. BMJ. 1999;318:1662-1667. (8) Kaaria S, Kaila-Kangas L, Kirjonen J, et al. Low back pain, work absenteeism, chronic back disorders, and clinical findings in the low back as predictors of hospitalization due to low back disorders: a 28-year follow-up of industrial employees. Spine. 2005;30:1211-1218. (9) Verbunt JA, Seelen HA, Vlaeyen JW, et al. Fear of injury and physical deconditioning in patients with chronic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:12271232. (10) Mease P. Fibromyalgia syndrome: review of clinical presentation, pathogenesis, outcome measures, and treatment. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2005;75:6-21. (11) Bennett R. Myofascial pain syndromes and their evaluation. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:427-445. (12) Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Ynnus BM, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia: report of the multicenter criteria committee. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33: 160-172. (13) Aaron LA, Buchwald D. Chronic diffuse musculoskeletal pain, fibromyalgia and comorbid unexplained clinical conditions. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003;17: 563-574. (14) Wolfe F. Stop using the American College of Rheumatology criteria in the clinic. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:1671-1672. (15) Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18:233-237. (16) Ransford AO, Cairns D, Mooney V. The pain drawing as an aid to the psychologic evaluation of patients with low-back pain. Spine. 1976;1:127-134. (17) Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986; 27:117-126. (18) Fairbanks JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66: 271-273. (19) Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, et al. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index, part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:55-65. (20) Mannion AF, Junge A, Grob D, et al. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index, part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15:66-73. (21) Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483. (22) Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. Der SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand (SF-36): Handbuch far die Deutsch-Sprachige Fragebogenversion. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe; 1998. (23) Hautzinger M, Bailer M. Allgemeine Depressionsskala. Gottingen, Germany: Beltz Test; 1992. (24) Radloff LS, Teri L. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;3:385-401. (25) Laux L, Glanzmann P, Schaffner P, Stielberger CD. Das State Trait Angstinventar. Gottingen, Germany: Beltz Test; 1981. (26) Derogartis LR, Cleary PA. Factorial invariance across gender for the primary symptom dimensions of the SCL-90. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1977; 16:347-356. (27) Franke G. Die Symptom Checkliste yon Derogatis. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe; 2002. (28) Waddell G, Newton M, Somerville D, Main C. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52:157-168. (29) Pfingsten M. Fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with back pain: psychometric properties of the German version of the FABQ. Schmerz. 2004; 18:17-27. (30) Hasenbring M. Kieler Schmerzinventar. Bern, Switzerland: Huber; 1994. (31) Campbell W. The Neurologic Examination. 6th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. (32) Buckup K. Klinische Tests an Knochen, Gelenken und Muskeln, 2. Stuttgart, Germany: George Thieme Verlag; 2000. (33) Lyle MA, Manes S, McGuinness M, et al. Relationship of physical examination findings and serf-reported symptom severity and physical function in patients with degenerative lumbar conditions. Phys Ther. 2005;85:120-133. (34) Speed C. Low back pain. BMJ. 2004;328: 1119-1121. (35) Beighton PH, Solomon L, Soskolne CL. Articular mobility in an African population. Ann Rheum Dis. 1973;32:413-418. (36) Rice WR. Analyzing tables of statistic tests. Evolution. 1989;43:223-225. (37) Demidenko E. Sample size calculation for logistic regression revisited. Stat Med. 2007;26:3385-3397. (38) White KP, Harth M. Classification, epidemiology, and natural history of fibromyalgia. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2001; 5:320-329. (39) Leveille SG, Zhang Y, McMullen W, et al. Sex differences in musculoskeletal pain in older adults. Pain. 2005;166:332-338. (40) Yunus MB. Gender differences in fibromyalgia and other related syndromes. J Gend Specif Med. 2002;5:42-47. (41) Hauser W, Wilhelm R, Klein W, Zimmer C. Causal illness attributions and healthcare utilization in fibromyalgia syndrome. Schmerz. 2006;20:119-127. (42) Crombez G, Eccleston C, Van den Broeck A, et al. Hypervigilance to pain in fibromyalgia: the mediating role of pain intensity and catastrophic thinking about pain. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:98-102. (43) Keogh E, Bond FW, Hanmer R, Tilston J. Comparing acceptance- and control-based coping instructions on the cold-pressure pain experiences of healthy men and women. Eur J Pain. 2005;9:591-598. (44) Neumann L, Lerner E, Glazer Y, ct al. A cross-sectional study of the relationship between body mass index and clinical characteristics, tenderness measures, quality of life, and physical functioning in fibromyalgia patients. Clin Rheumatol. 2008; 27:1543-1547. (45) Handwerker HO. Assessment of experimentally induced pain: old and new methods. Am J Med. 1983;75:15-18. (46) Burdorf A, Sorock G. Positive and negative evidence of risk factors for back disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23: 243-256. (47) White KP, Harth M. The occurrence and impact of generalized pain. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 1999; 13:379389. (48) Lemstra S, Olszynski WP. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2005;21: 166-174. (49) Meana M, Cho R, des Meules M. Chronic pain: the extra burden on Canadian women. BMC Womens Health. 2004;24(suppl 1):17. (50) White KP, Speechley M, Harth M, Osthye T. The London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study: comparing the demographic and clinical characteristics in 100 random community cases of fibromyalgia versus controls. J Rheumatol. 1999;26: 1577-1585. (51) Kivimaki M, Leino-Arjas P, Kaila-Kangas L, et al. Increased absence due to sickness among employees with fibromyalgia. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:65-69. (52) Bergman S. Psychosocial aspects of chronic widespread pain and fibromyalgia. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:675-683. (53) Schwarzkopf SR, Ewert T, Dreinhofer KE, et al. Towards an ICF Core Set for chronic musculoskeletal conditions: commonalities across ICF Core Sets for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, low back pain and chronic widespread pain. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27:1355-1361. (54) Walsh K, Coggon D. Reproducibility of histories of low back pain obtained by self-administered questionnaire. Spine. 1991; 16:1075-1077. (55) Forseth KO, Forte O, Gran JT. A 5.5-year prospective study of serf-reported musculoskeletal pain and of fibromyalgia in a female population: significance and natural history. Clin Rheumatol. 1999;18: 114-121. (56) Forseth KO, Husby G, Gran JT, Forre O. Prognostic factors for the development of fibromyalgia in women with self-reported musculoskeletal pain: a prospective study. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:2458-2467. (57) Ruiz Moral R, Munoz Alamo M, Perula de Torres L, Aguayo Galeote M. Biopsychosocial features of patients with widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain in family medicine clinics. Fam Pract. 1997;14: 242-248. (58) Bergman S, Jacobsson LT, Herrstrom P, Petersson IF. Health status as measured by SF-36 reflects changes and predicts outcome in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a 3-year follow-up study in the general population. Pain. 2004; 108:115-123. (59) Waddell G. Psychosocial analysis of low back pain. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1992;6:523-557. (60) Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine. 2000;25:1148-1156. (61) Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Main CJ, Hollis S. Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble. Spine. 1995;20:722-728. (62) Carter-Snell C, Hegadoren K. Stress disorders and gender:implications for theory and research. Can J Nurs Res. 2003;35: 34-55. (63) Cohen LS. Gender-specific considerations in the treatment of mood disorders in women across the life cycle. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:18-29. (64) Kassam A, Patten SB. Major depression, fibromyalgia and labour force participation: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7:4. (65) Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel H. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65: 528-533. (66) White KP, Nielson WR, Harth M, et al. Chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain with or without fibromyalgia: psychological distress in a representative community adult sample. J Rheumatol. 2002;29: 588-594. (67) Finset A, Wigers SH, Gotestam KG. Depressed mood impedes pain treatment response in patients with fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol. 2004;31:976-980. (68) Raphael KG, Janal MN, Nayak S, et al. Familial aggregation of depression in fibromyalgia: a community-based test of alternate hypotheses. Pain. 2004; 110: 449-460. (69) Turk DC, Okifuji A, Starz TW, Sinclair JD. Effects of type of symptom onset on psychological distress and disability in fibromyalgia syndrome patients. Pain. 1996;68:423-430. (70) Yunus MB. Role of central sensitization in symptoms beyond muscle pain, and the evaluation of a patient with widespread pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:481-497. (71) Stratz T, Varga B, Muller W.The influence of depression on the effect of Tropisetron in the therapy of fibromyalgia. Z Rheumatol. 2003;62:42-45. (72) Yilmaz F, Sahin F, Ergoz E, et al. Quality of life assessments with SF-36 in different musculoskeletal diseases. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27:327-332. (73) Oswald J, Salemi S, Michel BA, Sprott H. Use of the Short-Form-36 Health Survey to detect a subgroup of fibromyalgia patients with psychological dysfunction. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27:919-921. (74) Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Brennan GP. Predictive validity of initial fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy: is the FABQ a useful screening tool for identifying patients at risk for a poor recovery? Eur Spine J. 2008; 17:70-79. (75) Eriksen HR, Ursin H. Subjective health complaints, sensitization, and sustained cognitive activation (stress). J Psychosom Res. 2004;56:445-448. (76) Wentz KA, Lindberg C, Hallberg LR. Psychological functioning in women with fibromyalgia: a grounded theory study. Health Care Women Int. 2004;25: 702-729. (77) Van Houdenhove B, Egle UT. Fibromyalgia: a stress disorder? Piecing the biopsychosocial puzzle together. Psychother Psychosom. 2004;73:267-275. (78) Lindh MH, Johansson LG, Hedberg M, Grimby GL. Studies on maximal voluntary muscle contraction in patients with fibromyalgia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75: 1217-1222. (79) Panton LB, Kingsley JD, Toole T, et al. A comparison of physical functional performance and strength in women with fibromyalgia, age- and weight-matched controis, and older women who are healthy. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1479-1488. (80) Kingsley JD, Panton LB, Toole T, et al. The effects of a 12-week strength-training program on strength and functionality in women with fibromyalgia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1713-1721. (81) Schiltenwolf M, Hauser W, Felde E, et al. Physiotherapy, exercise and strength training and physical therapies in the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome. Schmerz. 2008;22:303-312. (82) Gowans SE, deHueck A, Voss S, et al. Effect of a randomized, controlled trial of exercise on mood and physical function in individuals with fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:519-529. (83) Chatzitheodorou D, Kabitsis C, Malliou P, Mougios V. A pilot study of the effects of high-intensity aerobic exercise versus passive interventions on pain, disability, psychological strain, and serum cortisol concentrations in people with chronic low back pain. Phys Ther. 2007;87:304-312. (84) Nichols DS, Glenn TM. Effects of aerobic exercise on pain perception, affect, and level of disability in individuals with fibromyalgia. Phys Ther. 1994;74:327-332. (85) Norregaard J, Bulow PM, Mehisen J, Danneskiold-Samsoe B. Biochemical changes in relation to a maximal exercise test in patients with fibromyalgia. Clin Physiol. 1994; 14:159-167. (86) Acasuso-Diaz M, Collantes-Estevez E. Joint hypermobility in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome.Arthritis Care Res. 1998;11: 39-42. (87) Sendur OF, Gurer G, Bozbas GT. The frequency of hypermobility and its relationship with clinical findings of fibromyalgia patients. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26: 485-487. (88) Karaaslan Y, Haznedaroglu S, Ozturk M. Joint hypermobility and primary fibromyalgia: a clinical enigma. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1774-1776. (89) Alexander RW, Bradley LA, Alarcon GS, et al. Sexual and physical abuse in women with fibromyalgia: association with outpatient health care utilization and pain medication usage. Arthritis Care Res. 1998;11: 102-115. (90) Kadam LIT, Thomas E, Croft PR. Is chronic widespread pain a predictor of all-cause morbidity? A 3-year prospective population-based study in family practice. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1341-1348. * Performance Attainment Associates, PO Box 528, Lindstrom, MN 55045. ([dagger]) Pain Diagnostics and Thermography Inc, 233 East Shore Road, Great Neck, NY 11023. ([double dagger]) StatSoft Inc, 2300 E 14th St, Tulsa, OK 74104. M. Friedrich, MD, is Associate Professor and Head, Department of Orthopedic Pain Management, Orthopaedic Hospital Speising, Speisinger Strasse 109, Vienna 1130, Austria. Address all correspondence to Dr Friedrich at: katharina.gernesch@oss.at. J. Hahne, MSc, is Scientific Staff Member, Center of Excellence for Orthopaedic Pain Management, Orthopaedic Hospital Speising. F. Wepner, MD, is Resident in Orthopaedics, Center of Excellence for Orthopaedic Pain Management, Orthopaedic Hospital Speising. [Friedrich M, Hahne J, Wepner F. A controlled examination of medical and psychosocial factors associated with low back pain in combination with widespread musculoskeletal pain. Phys Ther. 2009;89:786-803.]
Table 1.
Tests Conducted in the 3 Groups (a)
CLBP+ Control CLBP-Only
Test WMP Group Group Group
Self-reported measures
Social history and
demographic data
Age x x x
Sex x x x
Marital status x x x
Body mass index x x x
Education x x x
Extent of employment x x x
No. of comorbidities x x x
Years since onset of pain x x x
No. of treatments x x x
Income x x
Job satisfaction x x
Fear of job loss
No. of work hours per week x x
Native speaker x x
No. of people living in x x
same household
No. of children x x
Family members with chronic x x
musculoskeletal pain
School absenteeism related x x
to pain
Regular sports activities x x
Accidents with ensuing illness x x
Legal proceedings because x x
of accidents
Surgery, breast and ovaries x x
Comorbidities x x
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory x x
Somatization scale of SCL-90-R x x
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs x x x
Questionnaire
General Depression Scale x x
Kiel Pain Inventory x x
SF-36 x x x
Oswestry Low Back Pain x x x
Disability Index
Pain intensity (101-NRS) x x x
Psychological interview x x
Clinical assessment
Signs of radicular lesions x x x
Active head rotation x x
Fingertip-to-floor distance x x
Interscapular fingertip x x
distance
One-leg stand x x
Tender points x x
Beighton Hypermobility Score x x
(a) CLBP+WMP group=participants with chronic low back pain and
widespread musculoskeletal pain, control group=individuals who were
pain-free and had no history of musculoskeletal problems, CLBP-only
group= participants with chronic low back pain and without
widespread musculoskeletal pain. SCL-90-R=Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised
instrument, SF-36=Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health
Survey questionnaire.
Table 2.
Psychological Questionnaires and Results of the Interview of the
Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain and Widespread
Musculoskeletal Pain (CLBP+WMP Group) and the Individuals Who
Were Pain-free (Control Group) (a)
CLBP+WMP Control
Psychological Data Group (n=97) Group (n=97)
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 46.20 (12.0) * 32.90 (9.21) *
(20-80), mean (SD) ([dagger])
Somatization scale of SCL-90-R 21.09 (13.3) * 3.03 (3.5) *
(12-72), mean (SD) ([dagger])
General Depression Scale (0-60), 20.0 (9.7) * 8.00 (5.76) *
mean (SD) ([dagger])
Kiel Pain Inventory, cognitive
reactions to pain,mean (SD)
([double dagger])
Helplessness and 35.72 (16.31) * 16.36 (8.56) *
hopelessness (0-54)
Disability (0-36) 21.40 (9.24) * 12.14 (6.43) *
Catastrophizing (0-39) 14.99 (5.95) 11.94 (6.05)
Endurance capacity (0-24) 16.43 (5.65) * 10.96 (5.65) *
Trivializing/pain 14.44 (5.31) 13.84 (1.69)
minimization (0-24)
Reacting to pain with any 17.36 (3.85) * 12.37 (3.74) *
coping strategies (0-24)
Psychical cause 6.07 (2.85) * 3.94 (1.69) *
attribution (0-12)
Coping reactions in pain
situations ([dagger])
Avoidance of social 29.51 (12.54) 26.74 (13.96)
activities (0-54)
Support seeking (0-72) 20.97 (13.03) 21.17 (13.91)
Avoidance of physical 34.76 (10.26) 34.57 (12.95)
activities (0-60)
Nonverbal pain reaction 27.75 (6.47) * 21.95 (8.82) *
(0-42)
Tension-reducing 13.14 (7.52) 9.78 (7.80)
diversion (0-36)
Psychological 34.36 (11.51) 29.41 (12.69)
encouragement (0-66)
Passive strategies (0-30) 16.33 (6.82) * 13.13 (6.91) *
Active strategies (0-18) 9.50 (3.67) 7.84 (3.81)
Interview
No. of psychological stresses 1 (0-4) * 1 (0-4) *
from earlier years,median
(range) ([dagger])
No. of present stresses, 3 (0-8) * 1 (014) *
median (range)
No. of
Psychological Data Missings
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 0
(20-80), mean (SD) ([dagger])
Somatization scale of SCL-90-R 0
(12-72), mean (SD) ([dagger])
General Depression Scale (0-60), 0
mean (SD) ([dagger])
Kiel Pain Inventory, cognitive
reactions to pain,mean (SD)
([double dagger])
Helplessness and 0
hopelessness (0-54)
Disability (0-36) 0
Catastrophizing (0-39) 0
Endurance capacity (0-24) 0
Trivializing/pain 0
minimization (0-24)
Reacting to pain with any 0
coping strategies (0-24)
Psychical cause 0
attribution (0-12)
Coping reactions in pain
situations ([dagger])
Avoidance of social 0
activities (0-54)
Support seeking (0-72) 0
Avoidance of physical 0
activities (0-60)
Nonverbal pain reaction 0
(0-42)
Tension-reducing 0
diversion (0-36)
Psychological 0
encouragement (0-66)
Passive strategies (0-30) 0
Active strategies (0-18) 0
Interview
No. of psychological stresses 0
from earlier years,median
(range) ([dagger])
No. of present stresses, 0
median (range)
(a) SCL-90-R=Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised instrument.
* Significant at P [less than or equal to] .001,
([dagger]) calculated with analysis of variance,
([double dagger]) calculated with Mann-Whitney U test.
Table 3.
Characteristics of the Participants With Chronic Low Back
Pain and Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain (CLBP + WMP Group)
and the Individuals Who Were Pain-free (Control Group) (a)
CLBP+WMP
Group (n=97)
Variable
Income (<500 [euro], in 1,000-1,500 [euro] *
500 [euro] increments to
>2,500 [euro]) ([section])
Job satisfaction (very Quite satisfied*
satisfied, quite satisfied,
less satisfied, quite
dissatisfied, very
dissatisfied) ([section])
Fear of job loss (% no) 43.3 *
([double dagger])
No. of work hours per week, 38.90 (16.70)
mean (SD) ([dagger])
Native speaker (% yes) 79.4
([double dagger])
No. of people living in same 2 (0-7)
household, median (range)
([section])
No. of children, median 1 (0-4)
(range) ([section])
Family members with chronic 44.3
musculoskeletal pain
(% yes) ([double dagger])
School absenteeism related 8.9
to pain (% yes)
([double dagger])
Regular sports activities 38.7 *
(% yes) ([double dagger])
Accidents with ensuing 23.7
illness (% yes)
([double dagger])
Legal proceedings because 20.0 (9.7) *
of accidents (% yes)
([double dagger])
Surgery, breast and ovaries 44.58 *
(% yes, women only)
([double dagger])
Comorbidities (no. of
problems in specific areas),
median (range) ([section])
Cardiovascular diseases 1 (0-3) *
Gastrointestinal diseases 1 (0.87) *
Metabolic diseases 0(0-2)
Diseases of the lung 0(0-2)
Clinical data
Active head rotation, left/ 63.40 (12.53) *
right ([degrees]), mean
(SD) ([dagger])
Fingertip-to-floor distance -7.02 (17.25) *
(cm), mean (SD) ([dagger])
Interscapular fingertip -7.77 (12.85) *
distance, left/right
(cm),mean (SD) ([dagger])
Straight-leg-raise test, 77.80 (13.83) *
left/right ([degrees]),
mean (SD) ([dagger])
One-leg stand, left/right 7.50 (8.15) *
(s), mean (SD) ([dagger])
No. of tender points (out 15 (0-18)
of 18), median (range)
([section])
Beighton Hypermobility 0 (0-10)
Score, median (range)
([section])
Control No. of
Variable Group (n=97) Missings
Income (<500 [euro], in 1,500-2,000 [euro] * 0
500 [euro] increments to
>2,500 [euro]) ([section])
Job satisfaction (very Very satisfied * 14
satisfied, quite satisfied,
less satisfied, quite
dissatisfied, very
dissatisfied) ([section])
Fear of job loss (% no) 75.3 * 28
([double dagger])
No. of work hours per week, 31.35 (15.28) 46
mean (SD) ([dagger])
Native speaker (% yes) 90.70 0
([double dagger])
No. of people living in same 2 (0-6) 18
household, median (range)
([section])
No. of children, median 1 (0-4) 0
(range) ([section])
Family members with chronic 30.9 0
musculoskeletal pain
(% yes) ([double dagger])
School absenteeism related 2.1
to pain (% yes)
([double dagger])
Regular sports activities 70.2 * 7
(% yes) ([double dagger])
Accidents with ensuing 10.4 5
illness (% yes)
([double dagger])
Legal proceedings because 8.0 (5.76) * 162
of accidents (% yes)
([double dagger])
Surgery, breast and ovaries 15.07 * 0
(% yes, women only)
([double dagger])
Comorbidities (no. of 0
problems in specific areas),
median (range) ([section])
Cardiovascular diseases 1 (0-2) *
Gastrointestinal diseases 0 (0-2) *
Metabolic diseases 0 (0-2)
Diseases of the lung 0 (0-2)
Clinical data
Active head rotation, left/ 73.40 (9.36) * 0
right ([degrees]), mean
(SD) ([dagger])
Fingertip-to-floor distance 4.59 (11.26) * 0
(cm), mean (SD) ([dagger])
Interscapular fingertip 0.11 (7.64) * 0
distance, left/right
(cm),mean (SD) ([dagger])
Straight-leg-raise test, 83.87 (9.60) * 0
left/right ([degrees]),
mean (SD) ([dagger])
One-leg stand, left/right 16.14 (10.69) * 0
(s), mean (SD) ([dagger])
No. of tender points (out 2 (0-13) 0
of 18), median (range)
([section])
Beighton Hypermobility 1 (0-6) 0
Score, median (range)
([section])
(a) Explanation of symbols:
* Significant at P [less than or equal to].001,
([dagger]]) calculated with analysis of variance,
([double dagger]) calculated with chi-square test,
([section]) calculated with Mann-Whitney U test.
Table 4.
Descriptive Characteristics of Variables in All 3 Groups (a)
CLBP-Only CLBP+WMP
Variable Group (n=52) Group (n=97)
Age (y), mean (SD) ([dagger]) 43.21 (4.86) 44.57 (8.64)
Sex, female/male 63.5/36.5 85.6/14.4
(%) ([double dagger])
Marital status
(%) ([double dagger])
Single 21.2 11.5
Married 72.2 78.1
Divorced 7.7 7.3
Widowed 3.1
Body mass index (kg/[m.sup.2]), 26.39 (4.47) 26.76 (5.40)
mean (SD) ([dagger])
Education (%) ([double dagger])
No completed education 0.0 3.1
Elementary school 1.9 25.8
Apprenticeship 48.1 34.0
School-leaving examination 32.7 21.6
(general qualification
for university entrance)
High school diploma 17.3 13.4
Unknown 2.1
Extent of employment (%)
([double dagger])
None 0.0 32.0
Part-time or full-time 100.0 68.0
No. of comorbidities, median 1 (0-5) 3 (0-10)
(range) ([section])
SF-36, mean (SD) ([dagger])
Physical component 47.02 (8.01) 32.24 (9.03)
summary score (0-100)
Mental component 53.19 (7.29) 42.96 (13.20)
summary score (0-100)
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs 27.02 (12.72) 50.08 (19.78)
Questionnaire ([dagger])
Oswestry Low Back Pain 7.60 (5.49) 18.61 (7.21)
Disability Index ([dagger])
Control Group No. of
Variable (n=97) Missings
Age (y), mean (SD) ([dagger]) 41.04 (10.07) 0
Sex, female/male 75.3/24.7 0
(%) ([double dagger])
Marital status 1
(%) ([double dagger])
Single 26.8
Married 58.8
Divorced 12.4
Widowed 2.1
Body mass index (kg/[m.sup.2]), 23.33 (3.37) 1
mean (SD) ([dagger])
Education (%) ([double dagger]) 0
No completed education 0.0
Elementary school 8.2
Apprenticeship 28.9
School-leaving examination 33.0
(general qualification
for university entrance)
High school diploma 23.7
Unknown 6.2
Extent of employment (%) 0
([double dagger])
None 23.7
Part-time or full-time 76.3
No. of comorbidities, median 1 (0-5) 0
(range) ([section])
SF-36, mean (SD) ([dagger])
Physical component 56.30 (4.60) 7
summary score (0-100)
Mental component 51.30 (8.08) 7
summary score (0-100)
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs 7.28 (8.19) 7
Questionnaire ([dagger])
Oswestry Low Back Pain 4.82 (4.52) 0
Disability Index ([dagger])
(a) CLBP+WMP group=participants with chronic low back pain
and widespread musculoskeletal pain, CLBP-only group=
participants with chronic low back pain but without
widespread musculoskeletal pain, control group= individuals
who were pain-free and had no history of musculoskeletal
problems, SF-36=Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form
Health Survey questionnaire. ([dagger]) calculated with
analysis of variance, ([double dagger]) calculated with
chi-square test, [(section)] calculated with Kruskal-Wallis
test.
Table 5.
Results of the Analyses of Variance for Variables of the 3 Study
Groups (a)
Measure Sum of Squares df F P
Age 4.09 .018
Between groups 609.71 2
Within groups 18098.32 243
Body mass index 15.96 .000
Between groups 644.51 2
Within groups 4886.82 242
Oswestry Low Back Pain 141.93 .000
Disability Index
Between groups 9918.26 2
Within groups 8490.40 243
SF-36, physical component 255.43 .000
summary score
Between groups 27483.71 2
Within groups 12696.56 236
SF-36, mental component 22.45 .000
summary score
Between groups 4724.76 2
Within groups 24830.12 236
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs 205.36 .000
Questionnaire
Between groups 88924.38 2
Within groups 51095.64 236
(a) SF-36=Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey
questionnaire.
Table 6.
Results of Correlations Calculated for the Participants With Chronic
Low Back Pain and Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain(CLBP+WMP Group)
and the Individuals Who Were Pain-free (Control Group) (a)
Correlation CLBP+WMP Group (n=97) Control Group (n=97)
Depression: SF-36 -.659 (.000) * -.640 (.000) *
mental component
summary score
Depression: SF-36 -.127 (.224) -.128 (.216)
physical component
summary score
Depression: pain .236 (.022)
intensity at the
time of examination
Depression: no. of .252 (.013) * -.050 (.629)
tender points
([dagger])
No. of tender points: .259 (.012) *
pain intensity at
the time of
examination
([dagger])
No. of tender points: -.203 (.052) -.136 (.190)
SF-36 mental
component summary
score ([dagger])
No. of tender points: -.378 (.000) * -.080 (.440)
SF-36 physical
component summary
score ([dagger])
No. of tender points: -.018 (.857) -.063 (.542)
body mass index
([dagger])
No. of tender points: .163 (.110) .049 (.632)
Oswestry Low Back
Pain Disability
Index ([dagger])
No. of tender points: .177 (.084) .029 (.779)
Fear-Avoidance
Beliefs
Questionnaire
([dagger])
(a) Values are mean correlation coefficients (P). SF-36=Medical
Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire.
* Significant P [less than or equal to] .05, [(dagger)] calculated
as Spearman correlation.
Table 7.
Results of Regression Analyses of Models 1 and 2 (Between
Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain and Widespread
Musculoskeletal Pain and Individuals Who Were Pain-free)
Odds Ratio
Change-2 (95% Confidence
Variable Log-Likelihood P Interval)
Model 1
Income (<500 [euro], 6.74 .009 5.41 (0.94-31.08)
in 500 [euro]
increments to >2,500
[euro])
General Depression 14.10 <.000 1.47 (0.63-2.31)
Scale
State-Trait Anxiety 33.96 <.000 1.01 (1.00-1.02)
Inventory fear
scale/Fear-Avoidance
Beliefs
Questionnaire
Model 2
Endurance capacity 12.45 <.000 1.25 (1.10-1.44)
One-leg stand 16.71 <.000 0.90 (0.85-0.95)
Table 8.
Variables Comparing the Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain and
Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain (CLBP+WMP Group) and the Participants
With Chronic Low Back Pain but Without Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain
(CLBP-Only Group)
CLBP+WMP Group CLBP-Only Group
Variable (n=72) (n=52) P
Pain intensity at 64.37 (22.59) 27.37 (25.33) <.000
the time of
examination, mean
(SD)
Years since onset of 10 (1-41) 6 (1-25) .039
pain, mean (SD)
Oswestry Low Back 18.61 (7.21) 7.60 (5.49) <.000
Pain Disability
Index (10-60), mean
(SD)
No. of treatments, 3 (0-7) 1 (0-5) <.000
median (range)
Table 9.
Results of Correlations Calculated for Participants With Chronic Low
Back Pain and Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain (CLBP+WMP Group) and
the Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain but Without Widespread
Musculoskeletal Pain (CLBP-Only Group) (a)
CLBP+WMP Group CLBP-Only Group
Correlation (n=72) (n=52)
Pain intensity at -.544 (.000) * -.518 (.000) *
the time of
examination: SF-36
physical component
summary score
Pain intensity at -.067 (.529) .049 (.740)
the time of
examination: SF-36
mental component
summary score
Pain intensity: body -.044 (.672) -.083 (.570)
mass index
Pain intensity: .349 (.001) .347 (.014)
Oswestry Low Back
Pain Disability
Index
SF-36 physical -.224 (.031) * -.162 (.262)
component summary
score: body mass
index
SF-36 mental .013 (.898) -.021 (.884)
component summary
score: body mass
index
Oswestry Low Back .352 (.000) .315 (.035) *
Pain Disability
Index:
Fear-Avoidance
Beliefs
Questionnaire
Oswestry Low Back .285 (.006) * .180 (215)
Pain Disability
Index: years since
onset of paint
(a) Values are mean correlation coefficients (P). SF-36= Medical
Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire.
* Significant P [less than or equal to] .05, ([dagger]) calculated
as Spearman correlation.
Table 10.
Results of Regression Analyses Comparing the Participants With
Chronic Low Back Pain and Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain
(CLBP+WMP Group) and the Participants With Chronic Low Back
Pain but Without Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain (CLBP-Only Group)
Change-2 Log- P Odds Ratio (95%
Variable Likelihood Confidence Interval)
No. of treatments 14.16 <.000 2.29 (1.34-3.91)
Oswestry Low Back 25.48 <.000 1.34 (1.15-1.14)
Pain Disability
Index
Fear-Avoidance 10.43 .001 1.08 (1.02-1.12)
Beliefs
Questionnaire
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion