Adverse effects as a consequence of being the subject of orthopaedic manual therapy training, a worldwide retrospective survey

IFOMPT's Educational Standards and International Monitoring: A member survey and review

BACKGROUND

The International Federation of Manual and Musculoskeletal Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) membership requires accreditation of countries postgraduate musculoskeletal physiotherapy programmes to meet IFOMPT's Educational Standards through International Monitoring. The Educational Standards and International Monitoring are both being reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To seek insight and feedback from IFOMPT's membership on the Educational Standards and International Monitoring to inform the current review.

DESIGN

Online survey of registered members, external assessors, programme leaders, international delegates.

METHOD

IFOMPT members were invited to participate in the Educational Standards and International Monitoring survey, between December 2023-January 2024. Content validity was assessed to refine the survey. The survey was offered in 14 languages. Descriptive and inferential analyses were used for closed questions; content analysis was used for open questions.

RESULTS

869 participants were eligible and completed the survey. IFOMPT's membership clearly valued both the Educational Standards and International Monitoring, and believe they are contemporary and evidence-informed. However, opinion was divided regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the Educational Standards and International Monitoring and whether the Educational Standards represented a minimum or maximum standard. Constructive recommendations were provided for the improvement of the Educational Standards and International Monitoring, including reduction of size and complexity, with increased flexibility to ensure they are fit for purpose into the future and serve towards the growth of IFOMPT.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the largest member-wide survey of IFOMPT examining the Educational Standards and International Monitoring. The findings of the survey are extremely valuable to inform the current review of the Educational Standards and International Monitoring, particularly given the divided opinion concerning the useability and content of the Educational Standards.

Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of spinal manipulation: a cross-sectional survey of Italian physiotherapists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.

METHODS

An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

METHODS

An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.

RESULTS

From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).

CONCLUSION

A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.

Interexaminer Agreement and Reliability of an Internationally Endorsed Screening Framework for Cervical Vascular Risks Following Manual Therapy and Exercise: The Go4Safe Project

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment.

IMPACT

The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework.

Thoracic adverse events following spinal manipulative therapy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Objectives: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is widely used by manual therapists to manage spinal complaints. Notwithstanding the perceived relative safety of SMT, instances of severe thoracic adverse events (AE) have been documented. An evidence synthesis is required to understand the nature, severity and characteristics of thoracic AE following all SMT. The primary objective of this study was to report thoracic AE following SMT and secondly to report patient characteristics to inform further research for safe practice. Methods: A systematic review and data synthesis were conducted according to a registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42019123140). A sensitive topic-based search strategy for key databases, gray literature and registers used study population terms and keywords, to search to 12/6/19. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Using the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) the level evidence was evaluated with grade presented for each AE. Results were reported in the context of overall quality. Results: From 1013 studies identified from searches, 19 studies (15 single case studies and 4 case series) reporting 21 unique thoracic AE involving the spinal cord tissues [nonvascular (n = 7), vascular (n = 6)], pneumothorax or hemothorax (n = 3), fracture (n = 3), esophageal rupture (n = 1), rupture of thoracic aorta (n = 1), partial pancreatic transection (n = 1). Reported outcomes included fully recovery (n = 8), permanent neurological deficit (n = 5), and death (n = 4). Conclusion: Although causality cannot be confirmed, serious thoracic AE to include permanent neurological deficit and death have been reported following SMT. Findings highlight the importance of clinical reasoning, including pre-thrust examination, as part of best and safe practice for SMT.

Knowledge and pre-thoracic spinal thrust manipulation examination: a survey of current practice in the UK

OBJECTIVES

The perceived relative safety of thoracic thrust joint manipulation (TTJM) has contributed to evidence supporting its use. Yet, TTJM is not without risk, where transient side effects (SE) and severe adverse events (AE) have been documented. With evidence supporting the importance of prethrust examination in reducing AE in other spinal regions this study investigated TTJM knowledge and pre-TTJM examination. Method: An e-survey, informed by existing evidence and expertise was designed and piloted. Eligibility criteria: UK-trained physiotherapists who use TTJM. Recruitment via professional networks and social media from December 2016 to February 2017. Data analysis included descriptive analyses (means, standard deviation and frequencies/central tendencies), and content analysis (themes and frequencies) for free text data. Results: From 306 responses, the sample comprised 146 (53%) males, mean (SD) age 36.37(8.68) years, with 12.88(8.67) years in practice, 11.07(8.14) years specialization, working in National Health Service/private practice (81%) and performing 0-5 TTJM/week (86%).

EXAMINATION

40% (n = 83) utilized pre-TTJM examination with 45% (n = 139) adapting the examination for different regions. Technique selection and effect: preferred technique was prone rotational TTJM (67%). Perception of the primary underlying effect was neurophysiological (54%), biomechanical (45%) or placebo (1%). Knowledge: Levels of agreement were found for contraindications (85%), precautions (75%), and red flags (86%) with more variability for risks including AE and SE (61%).

DISCUSSION

UK physiotherapists demonstrated good knowledge and agreement of contraindications, precautions, and red flags to TTJM. With <50% respondents utilizing pre-TTJM examination, variable knowledge of TTJM risks, and therapeutic effects of TTJM further research is required.