External validation and updating of prognostic prediction models for nonrecovery among older adults seeking primary care for back pain

Abstract

Abstract Prognostic prediction models for 3 different definitions of nonrecovery were developed in the Back Complaints in the Elders study in the Netherlands. The models' performance was good (optimism-adjusted area under receiver operating characteristics [AUC] curve ≥0.77, R 2 ≥0.3). This study aimed to assess the external validity of the 3 prognostic prediction models in the Norwegian Back Complaints in the Elders study. We conducted a prospective cohort study, including 452 patients aged ≥55 years, seeking primary care for a new episode of back pain. Nonrecovery was defined for 2 outcomes, combining 6- and 12-month follow-up data: Persistent back pain (≥3/10 on numeric rating scale) and persistent disability (≥4/24 on Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire). We could not assess the third model (self-reported nonrecovery) because of substantial missing data (>50%). The models consisted of biopsychosocial prognostic factors. First, we assessed Nagelkerke R 2, discrimination (AUC) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large [CITL], slope, and calibration plot). Step 2 was to recalibrate the models based on CITL and slope. Step 3 was to reestimate the model coefficients and assess if this improved performance. The back pain model demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.79), and R 2 was 0.23. The disability model demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.85), and R 2 was 0.35. Both models had poor calibration (CITL <0, slope <1). Recalibration yielded acceptable calibration for both models, according to the calibration plots. Step 3 did not improve performance substantially. The recalibrated models may need further external validation, and the models' clinical impact should be assessed.