Subjective and clinical assessment criteria suggestive for five clinical patterns discernible in nonspecific neck pain patients. A Delphi-survey of clinical experts

Efficacy of telerehabilitation in patients with nonspecific neck pain: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

At a rate of more than 30% annually, neck pain is a very prevalent musculoskeletal ailment that is second only to low back pain as the most common cause of disability. Most occurrences of neck pain are nonspecific. Telerehabilitation is regarded as a potentially effective healthcare approach in this setting. This review aims to evaluate how a telerehabilitation-based intervention affected individuals with nonspecific neck pain (NNP) in terms of pain and disability.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and WanFang were consulted from inception to September 2023, with the inclusion of randomized controlled trials only. The experimental data were meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis contained eight studies; there was no significant difference in pain improvement in patients with NNP by telerehabilitation compared to conventional care (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.28), but there was a significant effect on disability improvement (SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.78 to -0.03). Telerehabilitation demonstrated more significant improvements in pain (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.32) and disability (MD = -3.78, 95% CI: -5.29 to -2.27) compared to minimal or no intervention.

DISCUSSION

This study emphasizes the potential benefits of employing telerehabilitation in patients with NNP, especially in reducing pain intensity and improving disability. But additional study is required to fully grasp the potential of telerehabilitation in this field.

Inter- and intra-rater-reliability of a clinical framework for spine-related neck-arm pain

OBJECTIVE

A mechanism-based clinical framework for spine-related pain differentiates (i) somatic referred pain, ii) heightened nerve mechanosensitivity, iii) radicular pain, iv) radiculopathy and mixed-pain. This study aimed to determine the reliability of proposed framework.

METHOD

Fifty-one people with unilateral spine-related neck-arm pain were assessed and categorized by examiner-1. The classifications were compared to those made by two other examiners, based on written documentation of examiner-1. Cohens kappa was calculated between examiner-pairs; Fleiss Kappa among all examiners to assess agreement in classifying subgroups and entire framework.

RESULT

Inter-rater-reliability showed moderate to almost perfect reliability (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.96 (95% CI 0.87-1.0) to 1.0 (95% CI: 1.0-1.0), radicular pain: 0.46 (95% CI: 0.19-0.69) to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.42-0.81), radiculopathy: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.43-0.84) to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.63-0.96) mixed-pain: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.21-0.81) to 0.75 (95% CI: 0.48-0.94). There was almost perfect to moderate reliability among all examiners (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82-1.0), radicular pain: 0.56 (95% CI: 0.40-0.71), radiculopathy: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90), mixed-pain: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.47-0.79), entire framework: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71)). Intra-rater-reliability showed substantial to almost perfect reliability (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-1.0), radicular pain: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57-0.92), radiculopathy: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-0.96), mixed-pain: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.60-1.0), entire framework: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Moderate to almost perfect reliability in subgrouping people with spine-related neck-arm pain and substantial reliability for entire framework support this classification's reliability.

Kinetic chain revisited: consensus expert opinion on terminology, clinical reasoning, examination, and treatment in people with shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to reach consensus on the most appropriate terminology and issues related to clinical reasoning, examination, and treatment of the kinetic chain (KC) in people with shoulder pain among an international panel of experts.

METHODS

A 3-round Delphi study that involved an international panel of experts with extensive clinical, teaching, and research experience in the study topic was conducted. A search equation of terms related to the KC in Web of Science and a manual search were used to find the experts. Participants were asked to rate items across 5 different domains (terminology, clinical reasoning, subjective examination, physical examination, and treatment) using a 5-point Likert-type scale. An Aiken coefficient of validity (V) ≥0.7 was considered indicative of group consensus.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 30.2% (n = 16), whereas the retention rate was high throughout the 3 rounds (100%, 93.8%, and 100%). A total of 15 experts from different fields and countries completed the study. After the 3 rounds, consensus was reached on 102 items: 3 items were included in the "terminology" domain; 17 items, in the "rationale and clinical reasoning" domain; 11 items, in the "subjective examination" domain; 44 items, in the "physical examination" domain; and 27 items, in the "treatment" domain. Terminology was the domain with the highest level of agreement, with 2 items achieving an Aiken V of 0.93, whereas the domains of physical examination and treatment of the KC were the 2 areas with less consensus. Together with the terminology items, 1 item from the treatment domain and 2 items from the rationale and clinical reasoning domain reached the highest level of agreement (V = 0.93 and V = 0.92, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study defined a list of 102 items across 5 different domains (terminology, rationale and clinical reasoning, subjective examination, physical examination, and treatment) regarding the KC in people with shoulder pain. The term "KC" was preferred and a agreement on a definition of this concept was reached. Dysfunction of a segment in the chain (ie, weak link) was agreed to result in altered performance or injury to distal segments. Experts considered it important to assess and treat the KC in particular in throwing or overhead athletes and agreed that no one-size-fits-all approach exists when implementing shoulder KC exercises within the rehabilitation process. Further research is now required to determine the validity of the identified items.

Eligibility Criteria of Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants in randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing conservative management for cervical radiculopathy (CR), to determine if any consensus exists within the literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A 2012 systematic review identified a lack of uniformity for the eligibility criteria of participants in RCTs evaluating conservative interventions for CR. Since then, a large number of RCTs have been published, signaling the need for an updated evaluation of this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We electronically searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022, to identify RCTs assessing conservative management of CR. Information extracted was analyzed to determine the level of homogeneity and/or heterogeneity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria across studies.

RESULTS

Seventy-six RCTs met our inclusion criteria with 68 distinct trials identified. The inclusion of arm pain with or without another symptom ( i.e. numbness, paresthesia, or weakness) was required in 69.12% of trials, 50% of trials required participants to exhibit neck symptoms, and 73.53% of studies required some form of clinical examination findings, but inconsistencies existed for the number and type of tests used. Furthermore, 41.18% of trials included imaging, with 33.82% of trials requiring magnetic resonance imaging findings. The most common exclusion criteria included were the presence of red flags and cervical myelopathy in 66.18% and 58.82% of trials, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is still a lack of uniformity for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of trials assessing the conservative management of CR, with some improvements noted compared with the 2012 review. Based on the current literature assessing the diagnostic utility of clinical symptoms and confirmatory tests, we proposed inclusion criteria for trials assessing conservative interventions. Future research should aim to develop standardized classification criteria to improve consistency among studies.

Comparison of the Beta-Band Intermuscular Pool Coherence Between Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain and Healthy Subjects

Objectives: The current study aimed to compare between the chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) and healthy subjects during four phases of the trunk flexion-extension task (standing, flexion, relaxation, and extension phases) by using pool coherence as well as pairwise coherence of Beta band Intermuscular coherence (Bb-IMC) and flexion relaxation phenomena. Methods: Twenty-four men with CNSLBP and 20 healthy men voluntarily participated in this study. All subjects performed three tests of Flexion-extension task (F-ET) while the surface electromyography (sEMGs) were recorded from the right erector spinal muscle of the lumbar region “1”, left erector spinal muscle of the lumbar region “2”, right gluteus maximus muscle”3”, left gluteus maximus muscle”4”, right hamstring muscle”5” and left hamstring muscle”6”. Accordingly, group A contains muscles 1, 4, and 6 and group B consists of muscles 2, 3, and 5. The pool coherence (PC) and the pairwise coherence (PWC) for all the above-mentioned muscles were calculated using Beta-band intermuscular coherence analysis. Thereafter, the mean pool coherence (mPC) was considered for group A and group B for four phases of F-ET in three groups as following: CNSLBP patients group, healthy subjects group and the third group included all subjects that participated in this study, whether patients or healthy and it was called the general group. Moreover, the mean pairwise coherence (mPWC) among each pair of group A and B muscles was calculated for four phases of F-ET using Bb-IMC in CNSLBP patients and healthy subjects. Results: These results indicated a high value of A mPC in the general group and healthy subjects in the flexion phase, whereas the same A mPC in CNSLBP patients was high in all phases of F-ET. On the other hand, while B mPC was high in the general group and healthy subjects in the extension phase; it was high in all phases of F-ET in CNSLBP patients; B mPC in CNSLBP patients was high in extension, standing, and flexion phases. A mPWC and B mPWC were not significantly different between CNSLBP patients and healthy subjects in all phases of F-ET. However, only A mPWC “1 - 4” and the A mPWC “4 - 6” were significantly smaller in CNSLBP patients compared to the healthy subjects in the relaxation and flexion phases, respectively. Hence, we suggest pool coherence of Bb-IMC, not pairwise coherence of Bb-IMC, to compare CNSLBP patients and healthy subjects. Conclusions: According to the present findings, we suggest using the pool coherence of Bb-IMC in the clinical examination for CNSLBP patients and studying the probable cortical effects and the effectiveness of various treatments on corticospinal tract function in CNSLBP.

Using the diagnostic thinking inventory in musculoskeletal physiotherapy: a validity and reliability study

BACKGROUND

Development of clinical reasoning is an essential aspect in musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice that is linked to better outcomes. The measurement of clinical reasoning has placed an emphasis on diagnostic reasoning using different types of examinations. The Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI) is a self-assessment tool developed to measure two aspects of diagnostic reasoning: flexibility in thinking (FT) and structure in memory (SM). DTI is valid and reliable that has been used extensively in medical field.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the validity and reliability of DTI in musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice.

METHODS

Two groups of musculoskeletal physiotherapists completed DTI. Expert musculoskeletal physiotherapists assessed face and content validity. Data from the second group of musculoskeletal physiotherapists were used to assess test-retest reliability. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed by comparing both groups. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS statistics 25.0 version.

RESULTS

The experts agreed that DTI measures diagnostic reasoning. For test-retest reliability, average intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91, 0.92 and 0.90 (p < 0.001) for DTI, FT and SM scores, respectively. Cronbach's alpha was 0.909, 0.919 and 0.897 (p < 0.001) for DTI, FT and SM, respectively. The independent samples t-test demonstrated that the experts group achieved higher and statistically significant score (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

DTI is valid and reliable in measuring diagnostic reasoning in the context of musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice. It can be used to assess the impact of continuing education on musculoskeletal physiotherapists' diagnostic reasoning.

Application and utility of a clinical framework for spinally referred neck-arm pain: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study protocol

BACKGROUND

The clinical presentation of neck-arm pain is heterogeneous with varying underlying pain types (nociceptive/neuropathic/mixed) and pain mechanisms (peripheral/central sensitization). A mechanism-based clinical framework for spinally referred pain has been proposed, which classifies into (1) somatic pain, (2) neural mechanosensitivity, (3) radicular pain, (4) radiculopathy and mixed pain presentations. This study aims to (i) investigate the application of the clinical framework in patients with neck-arm pain, (ii) determine their somatosensory, clinical and psychosocial profile and (iii) observe their clinical course over time.

METHOD

We describe a study protocol. Patients with unilateral neck-arm pain (n = 180) will undergo a clinical examination, after which they will be classified into subgroups according to the proposed clinical framework. Standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) measurements will be taken in their main pain area and contralateral side. Participants will have to complete questionnaires to assess function (Neck Disability Index), psychosocial factors (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Depression, anxiety and stress scale), neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, PainDETECT Questionnaire) and central sensitization features (Central Sensitization Inventory). Follow-ups at three, six and 12 months include the baseline questionnaires. The differences of QST data and questionnaire outcomes between and within groups will be analyzed using (M)AN(C)OVA and/or regression models. Repeated measurement analysis of variance or a linear mixed model will be used to calculate the differences between three, six, and 12 months outcomes. Multiple regression models will be used to analyze potential predictors for the clinical course.

CONCLUSION

The rationale for this study is to assess the usability and utility of the proposed clinical framework as well as to identify possible differing somatosensory and psychosocial phenotypes between the subgroups. This could increase our knowledge of the underlying pain mechanisms. The longitudinal analysis may help to assess possible predictors for pain persistency.

Neck pain patterns and subgrouping based on weekly SMS-derived trajectories

BACKGROUND

Neck and low back pain represent dynamic conditions that change over time, often with an initial improvement after the onset of a new episode, followed by flare-ups or variations in intensity. Pain trajectories were previously defined based on longitudinal studies of temporal patterns and pain intensity of individuals with low back pain. In this study, we aimed to 1) investigate if the defined patterns and subgroups for low back pain were applicable to neck pain patients in chiropractic practice, 2) explore the robustness of the defined patterns, and 3) investigate if patients within the various patterns differ concerning characteristics and clinical findings.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study including 1208 neck pain patients from chiropractic practice. Patients responded to weekly SMS-questions about pain intensity and frequency over 43 weeks. We categorized individual responses into four main patterns based on number of days with pain and variations in pain intensity, and subdivided each into four subgroups based on pain intensity, resulting in 16 trajectory subgroups. We compared baseline characteristics and clinical findings between patterns and between Persistent fluctuating and Episodic subgroups.

RESULTS

All but two patients could be classified into one of the 16 subgroups, with 94% in the Persistent fluctuating or Episodic patterns. In the largest subgroup, "Mild Persistent fluctuating" (25%), mean (SD) pain intensity was 3.4 (0.6) and mean days with pain 130. Patients grouped as "Moderate Episodic" (24%) reported a mean pain intensity of 2.7 (0.6) and 39 days with pain. Eight of the 16 subgroups each contained less than 1% of the cohort. Patients in the Persistent fluctuating pattern scored higher than the other patterns in terms of reduced function and psychosocial factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The same subgroups seem to fit neck and low back pain patients, with pain that typically persists and varies in intensity or is episodic. Patients in a Persistent fluctuating pattern are more bothered by their pain than those in other patterns. The low back pain definitions can be used on patients with neck pain, but with the majority of patients classified into 8 subgroups, there seems to be a redundancy in the original model.

Widespread impairment of tactile spatial acuity and sensory-motor control in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain with neuropathic features

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in tactile spatial acuity and in sensory-motor control between patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNSNP) with and without neuropathic features (NF), as well as asymptomatic.

METHODS

183 participants were included, 135 had CNSNP classified by the Self-report version of Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs scale in order to identify pain with NF: (1) CNSNP with NF (n = 67), (2) CNSNP with No-NF (n = 68), and (3) asymptomatic subjects (n = 48). The following tests in the following order were assessed after determining the participants' clinical characteristics: 1) two-point discrimination, 2) joint position error, and 3) craniocervical flexion test.

RESULTS

Both neck pain groups showed a significant reduction in their ability to discriminate two points in the trapezium and masseter, as well as a significant deficit of a moderate to large magnitude in craniocervical motor control compared with the asymptomatic group. However, only the CNSNP with NF group showed a significant impairment of the two-point discrimination in the tibia (d = 0.57) and a significant impairment of the kinesthetic sense (neck rotation, d = 0.73; neck lateroflexion, d = 0.69), compared with the asymptomatic group. Significant differences in pain intensity, disability and psychological factors between the CNSNP groups were also found, observing the poorest results in the NF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CNSNP with NF have a greater sensory, motor and psychological impairment than those without NF, more pain intensity, disability and negative psychological factors, as well as more impaired tactile spatial acuity in areas remote to the pain and impaired cervical kinesthetic sense.

The interrater reliability of a pain mechanisms-based classification for patients with nonspecific neck pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine the interrater reliability and agreement of a pain mechanisms-based classification for patients with nonspecific neck pain (NSNP).

METHODS

Design - Observational, cross-sectional reliability study with a simultaneous examiner design.

SETTING

University hospital-based outpatient physical therapy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of 48 patients, aged between 18 and 75 years old, with a primary complaint of neck pain was included.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects underwent a standardized subjective and clinical examination, performed by 1 experienced physical therapist. Two assessors independently classified the participants' NSNP on 3 main outcome measures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Cohen kappa, percent agreement, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the interrater reliability for (1) the predominant pain mechanism; (2) the predominant pain pattern; and (3) the predominant dysfunction pattern (DP).

RESULTS

There was almost perfect agreement between the 2 physical therapists' judgements on the predominant pain mechanism, kappa=.84 (95% CI, .65-1.00), p<.001. There was substantial agreement between the raters' judgements on the predominant pain pattern and predominant DP with respectively kappa=.61 (95% CI, .42-.80); and kappa=.62 (95% CI, .44-.79), p<.001.

CONCLUSION(S)

The proposed classification exhibits substantial to almost perfect interrater reliability. Further validity testing in larger neck pain populations is required before the information is used in clinical settings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03147508 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03147508).

Clinical classification criteria for nonspecific low back pain: A Delphi-survey of clinical experts

BACKGROUND

Nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) is a common problem. Attempts have been made to classify NSLBP patients into homogenous subgroups. Classification systems based on identifying the underlying mechanism(s) driving the disorder are clinically useful to guide specific interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To establish consensus among experts regarding clinical criteria suggestive of a dominance of 'articular', 'myofascial', 'neural', 'central', and 'sensorimotor control' dysfunction patterns (DPs) in NSLBP patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A 2-phase sequential design of a focus group and Delphi-study.

METHODS

A focus group with 10 academic experts was organized to elaborate on the different DPs discernible in LBP patients. Consecutively, a 3-round online Delphi-survey was designed to obtain consensual symptoms and physical examination findings for the 5 DPs resulting from the focus group.

RESULTS

Fifteen musculoskeletal physical therapists from Belgium and the Netherlands experienced in assessing and treating LBP patients completed the Delphi-survey. Respectively, 34 (response rate, 100.0%), 20 (58.8%) and 15 (44.12%) respondents replied to rounds 1, 2 and 3. Twenty-two 'articular', 20 'myofascial', 21 'neural', 18 'central' and 11 'sensorimotor control' criteria reached a predefined ≥80% consensus level. For example, after round 2, 85.0% of the Delphi-experts agreed to identify 'referred pain below the knee' as a subjective examination criterion suggestive for a predominant 'neural DP'.

CONCLUSION

These indicators suggestive of a clinical dominance of the proposed DPs could help clinicians to assess and diagnose NSLBP patients. Future reliability and validity testing is needed to determine how these criteria may help to improve physical therapy outcome for NSLBP patients.