Centralization: association between repeated end-range pain responses and behavioral signs in patients with acute non-specific low back pain

Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a literature review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of MDT compared to other traditional physical therapy interventions in individuals with CLBP were considered eligible. For the purpose of this review, MDT was compared to active and passive physical therapy interventions. Independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes investigated were pain and disability.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. Of these, 11 provided data to be included in the meta-analyses. Our findings showed that MDT was no more effective in decreasing pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.44, 0.46) and disability (SMD=0.08, 95% CI: -0.53, 0.68) than other active treatments. Similar results were found when comparing MDT to other passive treatments for pain (SMD=-0.39, 95% CI: -0.90, 0.11) and disability (SMD=-0.13, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.03).

CONCLUSION

There is low to moderate quality evidence that MDT is not superior than other traditional physical therapy interventions in improving pain and disability in people with CLBP.

The McKenzie Method and its association with psychosocial outcomes in low back pain: a systematic review

Study Design: Systematic Literature Review.Background: The McKenzie Method (MDT) is a comprehensive conservative approach commonly used for the management of low back pain (LBP); however, its association with psychosocial outcomes in this population is less clear.Objectives: Evaluate whether MDT has an association with psychosocial outcomes for individuals with LBP.Methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase and AMED. They were systematically searched from the date of inception to August 2019. Included studies had to have participants experiencing LBP who were over 18 years old, utilize MDT as an assessment or intervention, and report outcomes for at least one psychosocial variable. Three reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality of randomized control trials (RCT) using the PEDro scale and observational studies using the GRACE scale.Results: The initial search resulted in 181 articles to review. After screening abstracts, then full articles, a total of 16 studies were included, 5 of which were RCTs rated 5-8/10 on the PEDro scale. A qualitative review was performed and the studies' results were synthesized into five main findings: fear-avoidance beliefs, depression symptoms, pain self-efficacy, psychological distress, and return to work (RTW).Conclusions: There is evidence that MDT has an association with improving fear-avoidance beliefs, pain self-efficacy, depression, and psychological distress. These results should be interpreted with caution as further high-quality randomized control trials addressing this topic are necessary due to the varying methodological and statistical constructs of the included studies.

Classification by pain pattern for patients with cervical spine radiculopathy

OBJECTIVES

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted to (1) report the prevalence of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) classifications, Centralization (CEN), and Non-CEN among patients with Cervical Spine Radiculopathy (CSR), and (2) describe the association between classification via CEN and Non-CEN and clinical outcomes at follow-up.

METHODS

Data were collected from 680 consecutive patients who presented to outpatient, orthopedic physical therapy clinics with primary complaints of neck pain with and without radiculopathy; thirty-nine patients (6%) met the physical examination inclusion criteria for CSR. First examination and follow-up data were completed by 19 patients.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine percent of patients' conditions were classified as Reducible Derangement at first examination and 21% were classified as either Irreducible Derangement, Entrapment, or Mechanically Inconclusive. The prevalence of CEN and Non-CEN was 36.8% and 47.4%, respectively. All patients treated via MDT methods made clinically significant improvements in disability, but not pain intensity, at follow-up. The magnitude of change in clinical outcomes was greatest for patients who exhibited CEN; however, the changes in disability and pain intensity at follow-up were not statistically significant compared to patients who exhibited Non-CEN at first examination. Patients who exhibited CEN were discharged, on average, ten days earlier and had one less treatment visit compared to patients who exhibited Non-CEN.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study show that patients with CSR can be classified and treated via MDT methods and experienced clinically significant improvements in disability, but not pain intensity, at follow-up. Providers should consider MDT classification and treatment to improve clinical outcomes for their patients affected by CSR.

Pain provocation following sagittal plane repeated movements in people with chronic low back pain: Associations with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Provocative pain responses following standardised protocols of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending have not been reported in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Potential differing pain responses to movement likely reflect complex sensorimotor interactions influenced by physical, psychological and neurophysiological factors. To date, it is unknown whether provocative pain responses following repeated bending are associated with different pain sensitivity and psychological profiles. Therefore the first aim of this study was to determine whether data-driven subgroups with different, clinically-important pain responses following repeated movement exist in a large CLBP cohort, specifically using a standardised protocol of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending. The second aim was to determine if the resultant pain responses following repeated movement were associated with pain and disability, pain sensitivity and psychological factors.

METHODS

Clinically-important (≥2-points, 11-point numeric rating scale) changes in pain intensity following repeated forward/backward bending were examined. Participants with different provocative pain responses to forward and backward bending were profiled on age, sex, pain sensitivity, psychological variables, pain characteristics and disability.

RESULTS

Three groups with differing provocative pain responses following repeated movements were derived: (i) no clinically-important increased pain in either direction (n=144, 49.0%), (ii) increased pain with repeated bending in one direction only (unidirectional, n=112, 38.1%), (iii) increased pain with repeated bending in both directions (bidirectional, n=38, 12.9%). After adjusting for psychological profile, age and sex, for the group with bidirectional pain provocation responses following repeated spinal bending, higher pressure and thermal pain sensitivity were demonstrated, while for the group with no increase in pain, better cognitive and affective psychological questionnaire scores were evident. However, these associations between provocative pain responses following movement and pain sensitivity and psychological profiles were weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Provocative pain responses following repeated movements in people with CLBP appear heterogeneous, and are weakly associated with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles.

IMPLICATIONS

To date, suboptimal outcomes in studies examining exercise interventions targeting directional, movement-based subgroups in people with CLBP may reflect limited consideration of broader multidimensional clinical profiles associated with LBP. This article describes heterogeneous provocative pain responses following repeated spinal bending, and their associated pain sensitivity and psychological profiles, in people with CLBP. These findings may help facilitate targeted management. For people with no increase in pain, the lack of pain provocation following repeated spinal bending, in combination with a favourable psychological profile, suggests this subgroup may have fewer barriers to functional rehabilitation. In contrast, those with pain provoked by both forward and backward bending may require specific interventions targeting increased pain sensitivity and negative psychological cognitions and affect, as these may be may be important barriers to functional rehabilitation.

Effect of Adding McKenzie Syndrome, Centralization, Directional Preference, and Psychosocial Classification Variables to a Risk-Adjusted Model Predicting Functional Status Outcomes for Patients With Lumbar Impairments

Study Design Retrospective cohort. Background Patient-classification subgroupings may be important prognostic factors explaining outcomes. Objectives To determine effects of adding classification variables (McKenzie syndrome and pain patterns, including centralization and directional preference; Symptom Checklist Back Pain Prediction Model [SCL BPPM]; and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire subscales of work and physical activity) to a baseline risk-adjusted model predicting functional status (FS) outcomes. Methods Consecutive patients completed a battery of questionnaires that gathered information on 11 risk-adjustment variables. Physical therapists trained in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy methods classified each patient by McKenzie syndromes and pain pattern. Functional status was assessed at discharge by patient-reported outcomes. Only patients with complete data were included. Risk of selection bias was assessed. Prediction of discharge FS was assessed using linear stepwise regression models, allowing 13 variables to enter the model. Significant variables were retained in subsequent models. Model power (R(2)) and beta coefficients for model variables were estimated. Results Two thousand sixty-six patients with lumbar impairments were evaluated. Of those, 994 (48%), 10 (<1%), and 601 (29%) were excluded due to incomplete psychosocial data, McKenzie classification data, and missing FS at discharge, respectively. The final sample for analyses was 723 (35%). Overall R(2) for the baseline prediction FS model was 0.40. Adding classification variables to the baseline model did not result in significant increases in R(2). McKenzie syndrome or pain pattern explained 2.8% and 3.0% of the variance, respectively. When pain pattern and SCL BPPM were added simultaneously, overall model R(2) increased to 0.44. Although none of these increases in R(2) were significant, some classification variables were stronger predictors compared with some other variables included in the baseline model. Conclusion The small added prognostic capabilities identified when combining McKenzie or pain-pattern classifications with the SCL BPPM classification did not significantly improve prediction of FS outcomes in this study. Additional research is warranted to investigate the importance of classification variables compared with those used in the baseline model to maximize predictive power. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(9):726-741. Epub 31 Jul 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6266.

Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with back pain who meet a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation

Recently a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for lumbar regional spinal thrust manipulation (STM) has shown predictive success in patients with back pain who met specific selection criteria. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of STM and mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients who are positive for the STM CPR. Following initial examination, 31 participants were randomized to the STM group (n = 16) and to the MDT group (n = 15). Two weeks following initial examination, four participants chose to cross over from the STM group to the MDT group. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire work subscale (FABQw), and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were administered initially, and at 2-weeks and 4 week follow-up (discharge). Data were analyzed to determine changes in ODI and NPRS scores from initial examination through one month. Of the 31 participants, one patient who met only three of five selection criteria and four others who chose to switch groups were removed from the analysis. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in ODI and NPRS scores from baseline to final visit but there was no significant difference in scores between groups at 4 weeks. In this sample of patients, the selection criteria for this CPR were not exclusive for lumbopelvic STM. Mechanical diagnosis and therapy was an equally viable choice for these patients.

Clinician's ability to identify neck and low back interventions: an inter-rater chance-corrected agreement pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate inter-rater agreement of physical therapists trained in MDT approach and participating in practice-based evidence (PBE) research to identify 72 physical therapy interventions in video demonstrations on a single model and clinical vignettes. PBE is a well designed observational study and demonstrating clinician observational consistency is an important step in conducting PBE research design.

METHODS

Two physical therapists volunteered to participate in pilot reliability testing and seven other physical therapists trained in McKenzie Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) methods volunteered for the inter-rater chance-corrected agreement study. All therapists identified interventions presented within 52 videos and 5 written clinical vignettes describing 20 more intervention techniques. Therapists independently identified all interventions. We assessed inter-rater chance-corrected agreement of therapists' ability to identify intervention techniques using Kappa coefficients with associated 95% confidence intervals and indices for bias and prevalence.

RESULTS

Of the 147 kappa coefficients estimated, 7% were ⩽0·6, 10% were >0·6 and ⩽0·8, and 83% were >0·8. Agreement was lowest for identifying cognitive behavioral techniques (median kappa = 0·79). The minimum and maximum prevalence and bias indices were 0·33 and 0·85 and 0 and 0·33, respectively suggesting kappa coefficient estimates were strong. Generalized kappa coefficients ranged from 0·73 to 1·00.

DISCUSSION

Results provide evidence that substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement could be expected when trained therapists identify physical therapy interventions used for patients with spinal impairments from staged videos and vignettes. This may be helpful to reassure clinicians of the quality of the reporting of intervention(s) performed when conducting multivariable analyses in future pragmatic PBE studies. Additional studies are needed to test whether these results can be validated using larger groups of therapists, trained and not trained in MDT methods, as well as examining different methods to examine inter-rater agreement for identifying diverse interventions commonly used for managing patients during routine practice.

The cross-sectional construct validity of the Waddell score

BACKGROUND

In 1980 the Waddell score, consisting of 8 non-organic or behavioural signs, was developed to measure illness behaviour in patients with low back pain. There is some debate about whether the Waddell score is a valid screening instrument for illness behaviour and psychological distress, or whether it merely reflects elevated pain levels and diminished functional physical capacities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of the Waddell score.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a total of 20 hypotheses about the associations between the Waddell score and measures from different domains were formulated a priori, based on a Medline database search (1980-2010). These hypotheses were tested in a sample of 229 patients with chronic low back pain who attended an outpatient rehabilitation centre.

RESULTS

The percentage of hypotheses that were confirmed for the association between the Waddell score and the domain pain was 100%, for the domain physical 80%, for the domain illness behaviour 80% and 50% for the domain psychological. Correlation coefficients and kappa values varied between 0.06 and 0.44 for the measures that were expected to be associated with the Waddell score.

CONCLUSION

Most of our challenging a priori hypotheses were accepted, and the Waddell score was found to have satisfactory cross-sectional construct validity. However, the presence of Waddell signs does not indicate exactly what the specific problems are and must therefore be conceptualized and understood in the total clinical picture of the patient. The association between the Waddell score and measures from different domains is weak. The Waddell score cannot be regarded as a straightforward psychological "screener".

Centralization and directional preference: a systematic review

Centralization is a symptom response to repeated movements that can be used to classify patients into sub-groups, determine appropriate management strategies, and prognosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature relating to centralization and directional preference, and specifically report on prevalence, prognostic validity, reliability, loading strategies, and diagnostic implications. Search was conducted to June 2011; multiple study designs were considered. 62 studies were included in the review; 54 related to centralization and 8 to directional preference. The prevalence of centralization was 44.4% (range 11%-89%) in 4745 patients with back and neck pain in 29 studies; it was more prevalent in acute (74%) than sub-acute or chronic (42%) symptoms. The prevalence of directional preference was 70% (range 60%-78%) in 2368 patients with back or neck pain in 5 studies. Twenty-one of 23 studies supported the prognostic validity of centralization, including 3 high quality studies and 4 of moderate quality; whereas 2 moderate quality studies showed evidence that did not support the prognostic validity of centralization. Data on the prognostic validity of directional preference was limited to one study. Centralization and directional preference appear to be useful treatment effect modifiers in 7 out of 8 studies. Levels of reliability were very variable (kappa 0.15-0.9) in 5 studies. Findings of centralization or directional preference at baseline would appear to be useful indicators of management strategies and prognosis, and therefore warrant further investigation.

Using intake and change in multiple psychosocial measures to predict functional status outcomes in people with lumbar spine syndromes: a preliminary analysis

BACKGROUND

Managing patients with lumbar spine syndromes who are seeking outpatient physical therapy represents a complex problem where psychosocial constructs such as fear-avoidance beliefs regarding physical activities or work activities, somatization, and depressive symptoms may affect functional status (FS) outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether intake or changes in fear-avoidance beliefs regarding physical or work activities, somatization, and depressive symptoms assessed simultaneously affect FS outcomes prediction.

DESIGN

This study was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected, longitudinal, observational cohort data.

METHODS

Data analyzed were from adult patients (n=323) with lumbar syndromes classified as elevated versus not elevated on single-item screening instruments for fear-avoidance beliefs regarding physical or work activities, somatization, and depressive symptoms at intake and discharge. Prediction of minimal clinically important difference in FS was assessed separately for intake and change from intake to discharge classifications using logistic regression models controlling for important variables.

RESULTS

Intake and change models were strong (McFadden rho-squared values=.31 and .49, respectively). Patients classified as not elevated in fear-avoidance beliefs regarding physical activities but elevated in fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work activities, somatization, and depressive symptoms at intake were 5 out of 100 times less likely to report clinically important outcomes compared with being elevated in each measure. Patients not elevated in fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work activities and somatization at intake and discharge were 8 to 14 times more likely to report clinically important outcomes compared with being elevated in each measure.

LIMITATIONS

Sample size was limited. Data analyses were retrospective with no control of missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Combinations of multiple psychosocial constructs were important predictors of FS outcomes and may assist patient management by: (1) identifying patients with elevated psychosocial constructs at intake and (2) tracking change in psychosocial variables for improved outcomes prediction. This model may prove helpful for future clinical and research applications to determine optimal psychosocial screening methods.

Change in psychosocial distress associated with pain and functional status outcomes in patients with lumbar impairments referred to physical therapy services

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort design.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to examine the association between changes in psychosocial distress (PD), and functional status (FS) and pain intensity at discharge from physical therapy.

BACKGROUND

Patients with lumbar impairments seeking physical therapy commonly demonstrate elevated PD. However, it is not clear if PD changes that occur during physical therapy management are associated with improved clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data from adults (n = 692) with lumbar impairment were analyzed. Patients were screened using the Symptom Checklist Back Pain Prediction Model questionnaire (SCL BPPM) to identify patients at intake and discharge into 3 levels of risk for persistent disability (high, intermediate, or low). SCL BPPM classifications allowed for 5 patterns of change in PD during therapy (decreased, stable low, stable intermediate, stable high, or increased). Associations between PD change patterns and discharge FS and pain intensity were assessed using multivariable linear regression models, controlling for selected risk-adjustment variables.

RESULTS

Proportions of patients classified by patterns of PD change for decreased, stable low, stable intermediate, stable high, and increased were 0.34, 0.52, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.03, respectively. Compared to the decreased PD group, (1) increased, stable high, and stable intermediate PD patterns were associated with worse discharge FS scores (-7.9 [95% CI: -13.5, -2.21], -10.9 [95% CI: -15.25, -6.49], and -8.9 [95% CI: -13.65, -4.21] units, respectively), and (2) stable high and stable intermediate PD patterns were associated with higher pain intensity (2.59 [95% CI: 1.81, 3.56] and 2.14 [95% CI: 1.25, 3.04] units, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower FS and higher pain intensity outcomes were associated in similar but not identical patterns with patients whose SCL BPPM classification of PD increased, or remained at high or intermediate levels during physical therapy. Serial assessments of change in PD during rehabilitation are recommended as a possible treatment-monitoring tool.

Application of a diagnosis-based clinical decision guide in patients with low back pain

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is common and costly. Development of accurate and efficacious methods of diagnosis and treatment has been identified as a research priority. A diagnosis-based clinical decision guide (DBCDG; previously referred to as a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule) has been proposed which attempts to provide the clinician with a systematic, evidence-based means to apply the biopsychosocial model of care. The approach is based on three questions of diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to present the prevalence of findings using the DBCDG in consecutive patients with LBP.

Methods

Demographic, diagnostic and baseline outcome measure data were gathered on a cohort of LBP patients examined by one of three examiners trained in the application of the DBCDG.

Results

Data were gathered on 264 patients. Signs of visceral disease or potentially serious illness were found in 2.7%. Centralization signs were found in 41%, lumbar and sacroiliac segmental signs in 23% and 27%, respectively and radicular signs were found in 24%. Clinically relevant myofascial signs were diagnosed in 10%. Dynamic instability was diagnosed in 63%, fear beliefs in 40%, central pain hypersensitivity in 5%, passive coping in 3% and depression in 3%.

Conclusion

The DBCDG can be applied in a busy private practice environment. Further studies are needed to investigate clinically relevant means to identify central pain hypersensitivity, poor coping and depression, correlations and patterns among the diagnostic components of the DBCDG as well as inter-examiner reliability and efficacy of treatment based on the DBCDG.

Application of a diagnosis-based clinical decision guide in patients with neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck pain (NP) is a common cause of disability. Accurate and efficacious methods of diagnosis and treatment have been elusive. A diagnosis-based clinical decision guide (DBCDG; previously referred to as a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule) has been proposed which attempts to provide the clinician with a systematic, evidence-based guide in applying the biopsychosocial model of care. The approach is based on three questions of diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to present the prevalence of findings using the DBCDG in consecutive patients with NP.

METHODS

Demographic, diagnostic and baseline outcome measure data were gathered on a cohort of NP patients examined by one of three examiners trained in the application of the DBCDG.

RESULTS

Data were gathered on 95 patients. Signs of visceral disease or potentially serious illness were found in 1%. Centralization signs were found in 27%, segmental pain provocation signs were found in 69% and radicular signs were found in 19%. Clinically relevant myofascial signs were found in 22%. Dynamic instability was found in 40%, oculomotor dysfunction in 11.6%, fear beliefs in 31.6%, central pain hypersensitivity in 4%, passive coping in 5% and depression in 2%.

CONCLUSION

The DBCDG can be applied in a busy private practice environment. Further studies are needed to investigate clinically relevant means to identify central pain hypersensitivity, oculomotor dysfunction, poor coping and depression, correlations and patterns among the diagnostic components of the DBCDG as well as inter-examiner reliability, validity and efficacy of treatment based on the DBCDG.

Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain refers to the pain arising from the SIJ joint structures. SIJ dysfunction generally refers to aberrant position or movement of SIJ structures that may or may not result in pain. This paper aims to clarify the difference between these clinical concepts and present current available evidence regarding diagnosis and treatment of SIJ disorders. Tests for SIJ dysfunction generally have poor inter-examiner reliability. A reference standard for SIJ dysfunction is not readily available, so validity of the tests for this disorder is unknown. Tests that stress the SIJ in order to provoke familiar pain have acceptable inter-examiner reliability and have clinically useful validity against an acceptable reference standard. It is unknown if provocation tests can reliably identify extra-articular SIJ sources of pain. Three or more positive pain provocation SIJ tests have sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 78%, respectively. Specificity of three or more positive tests increases to 87% in patients whose symptoms cannot be made to move towards the spinal midline, i.e., centralize. In chronic back pain populations, patients who have three or more positive provocation SIJ tests and whose symptoms cannot be made to centralize have a probability of having SIJ pain of 77%, and in pregnant populations with back pain, a probability of 89%. This combination of test findings could be used in research to evaluate the efficacy of specific treatments for SIJ pain. Treatments most likely to be effective are specific lumbopelvic stabilization training and injections of corticosteroid into the intra-articular space.

Total number and severity of comorbidities do not differ based on anatomical region of musculoskeletal pain

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) compare differences in individual comorbidity rates among patients with cervical, lumbar, and extremity pain complaints and (2) compare rates based on total number and severity in these same patient groups.

BACKGROUND

Comorbidities can impact recovery, prognosis, and potentially hinder participation in rehabilitation. Few studies have compared comorbidity rates among patients with different anatomical region of pain, to determine whether specific screening is warranted in physical therapy settings.

METHODS

Included in the analyses were 2375 patients who reported complete demographic, clinical, and comorbidity information using Patient Inquiry software. Comorbidity data were collected from the Functional Comorbidity Index (18 items) and 6 additional comorbidities, to assess the presence of medical disease across multiple body systems. Comorbidities were further classified as "nonsevere" or "severe," based on inclusion in the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Chi-square analyses investigated differences in the rates of total number and severe comorbidities. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on rates with statistically significant differences (P<.001), using the lumbar spine as the reference group.

RESULTS

Of the 24 comorbid conditions included in this analysis, 3 nonsevere medical conditions (degenerative disc disease, obesity, and headache) had different rates among anatomical region. A lower rate for degenerative disc disease was associated with the extremity conditions (χ2 = 66.3; OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.50). Higher rate of headache (χ2 = 115.3; OR = 3.01; 95% CI: 2.45, 3.70) and lower rate of obesity (χ2 = 16.2; OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.80) were associated with cervical conditions. There were no differences among the 3 anatomical regions for total number or severe comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Focused screening for degenerative disc disease, obesity, and headache may be warranted. However, the same strategy was not supported for total number or severe comorbidities, at least when considering comparative rates from this cohort. Physical therapists should consider the potential influence of total number and severe comorbidities equally for all anatomical regions of musculoskeletal pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Differential diagnosis/symptom prevalence, level 3b.

Depressive symptoms, anatomical region, and clinical outcomes for patients seeking outpatient physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines advocate the routine identification of depressive symptoms for patients with pain in the lumbar or cervical spine, but not for other anatomical regions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and impact of depressive symptoms for patients with musculoskeletal pain across different anatomical regions. Design This was a prospective, associational study.

METHODS

Demographic, clinical, depressive symptom (Symptom Checklist 90-Revised), and outcome data were collected by self-report from a convenience sample of 8,304 patients. Frequency of severe depressive symptoms was assessed by chi-square analysis for demographic and clinical variables. An analysis of variance examined the influence of depressive symptoms and anatomical region on intake pain intensity and functional status. Separate hierarchical multiple regression models by anatomical region examined the influence of depressive symptoms on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Prevalence of severe depression was higher in women, in industrial and pain clinics, and in patients who reported chronic pain or prior surgery. Lower prevalence rates were found in patients older than 65 years and those who had upper- or lower-extremity pain. Depressive symptoms had a moderate to large effect on pain ratings (Cohen d=0.55-0.87) and a small to large effect on functional status (Cohen d=0.28-0.95). In multivariate analysis, depressive symptoms contributed additional variance to pain intensity and functional status for all anatomical locations, except for discharge values for the cervical region.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of depressive symptoms varied slightly based on anatomical region of musculoskeletal pain. Depressive symptoms had a consistent detrimental influence on outcomes, except on discharge scores for the cervical anatomical region. Expanding screening recommendations for depressive symptoms to include more anatomical regions may be indicated in physical therapy settings.

Association between centralization, depression, somatization, and disability among patients with nonspecific low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether depression and somatization subscores of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), which have been shown to identify chronic disability in individuals with nonspecific low back pain, are applicable to a different population of individuals with low back pain; and to determine if this potential association is confounded by a combination of centralization and subsequent treatment based on centralization.

BACKGROUND

To help direct management of patients with nonspecific low back pain, recommendations include performing tests designed to identify psychosocial risk factors predictive of poor patient outcomes. SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores have been shown to predict chronic disability among patients with low back pain.

METHODS

SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores and data on centralization were collected during the initial physical therapy examination of 231 consecutive patients treated for low back pain in 2 clinics. Disability was assessed by the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire at intake and discharge from physical therapy, and work status was determined by patient self-report at 6 and 12 months after discharge. Pain intensity was assessed by the numeric pain rating scale at the initial visit, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Data were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Odds ratios for the association between depression and somatization subscores and patient outcomes ranged from 0.76 to 2.93. For analyses in which the data suggested a trend toward an association, the association was less evident following adjustment for centralization and centralization-based treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, in which all individuals received physical therapy, and those who centralized received interventions based on the direction of centralization, SCL-90-R depression and somatization subscores were moderately associated with chronic pain and disability. This association was reduced when centralization and centralization-based treatment was considered in multivariable analyses.

A Case Study Examining the Effectiveness of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in a Patient who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Spinal Manipulation

This single-subject case study was conducted as a part of a randomized trial investigating the efficacy of mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) and spinal thrust manipulation (STM) in patients who meet a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for spinal manipulation. Following initial examination, a patient who met the CPR was treated initially with STM and then eventually with MDT. The Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were administered at the initial examination and at a two-week follow-up. Data were analyzed based on changes in the pain rating scale, ODI, and straight leg raise scores from initial examination to discharge. In accordance with a study protocol in which the patient was part of, this patient was changed from STM to MDT after the second physical therapy visit due to failure of overall improvement. The patient received MDT during the third session and continued with this approach until discharge. This patient responded favorably to MDT presenting with a 20 degrees improvement in SLR on the left and 10 degrees on the right, 6 points lower on the NPRS, and a 4% decrease on the OSW after a total of 6 visits.

Screening for elevated levels of fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work or physical activities in people receiving outpatient therapy

BACKGROUND

Screening people for elevated levels of fear-avoidance beliefs is uncommon, but elevated levels of fear could worsen outcomes. Developing short screening tools might reduce the data collection burden and facilitate screening, which could prompt further testing or management strategy modifications to improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop efficient yet accurate screening methods for identifying elevated levels of fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work or physical activities in people receiving outpatient rehabilitation.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of data collected prospectively from people with a variety of common neuromusculoskeletal diagnoses was conducted.

METHODS

Intake Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) data were collected from 17,804 people who had common neuromusculoskeletal conditions and were receiving outpatient rehabilitation in 121 clinics in 26 states (in the United States). Item response theory (IRT) methods were used to analyze the FABQ data, with particular emphasis on differential item functioning among clinically logical groups of subjects, and to identify screening items. The accuracy of screening items for identifying subjects with elevated levels of fear was assessed with receiver operating characteristic analyses.

RESULTS

Three items for fear of physical activities and 10 items for fear of work activities represented unidimensional scales with adequate IRT model fit. Differential item functioning was negligible for variables known to affect functional status outcomes: sex, age, symptom acuity, surgical history, pain intensity, condition severity, and impairment. Items that provided maximum information at the median for the FABQ scales were selected as screening items to dichotomize subjects by high versus low levels of fear. The accuracy of the screening items was supported for both scales.

LIMITATIONS

This study represents a retrospective analysis, which should be replicated using prospective designs. Future prospective studies should assess the reliability and validity of using one FABQ item to screen people for high levels of fear-avoidance beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of differential item functioning in the FABQ scales in the sample tested in this study suggested that FABQ screening could be useful in routine clinical practice and allowed the development of single-item screening for fear-avoidance beliefs that accurately identified subjects with elevated levels of fear. Because screening was accurate and efficient, single IRT-based FABQ screening items are recommended to facilitate improved evaluation and care of heterogeneous populations of people receiving outpatient rehabilitation.

Centralization: prevalence and effect on treatment outcomes using a standardized operational definition and measurement method

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort design.

OBJECTIVES

Purpose 1 was to determine the association between age, symptom chronicity, and prevalence of centralization in a sample of patients with nonserious cervical or lumbar spinal syndromes referred to a hospital-based outpatient rehabilitation clinic. Purpose 2 was to examine if classifying these patients at intake to centralization or noncentralization predicts functional status, pain intensity, and number of treatment visits at discharge from rehabilitation. Purpose 3 was to compare clinically meaningful changes in functional status and pain intensity between patients subgrouped by centralization and noncentralization.

BACKGROUND

Variations in operational definitions and measurements used to identify centralization affect patient classification, contribute to variation in reported prevalence rates, and influence treatment strategy and outcome interpretation. Investigating a standardized operational definition and measurement method for centralization may reduce practice and outcomes variation.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Adults (n=418) with cervical or low back syndromes (mean +/- SD age, 58 +/- 17 years; range, 19-91 years; 33% male; 76% lumbar symptoms; 53% chronic symptoms) were assessed. Therapists classified patients using a standardized operational definition and method for centralization during initial evaluation. Prevalence rates were calculated for centralization by age and acuity. Multivariate models were used to assess discharge functional status, pain intensity, and visits while controlling important variables. Percentage of patients subgrouped by centralization and noncentralization achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in functional status and pain intensity was assessed.

RESULTS

Overall prevalence rate for centralization was 17%, but increased for patients who were younger and reported acute symptoms regardless of body part. For patients with lumbar syndromes, noncentralization was associated with lower discharge functional status and more pain, but not associated with number of visits compared to patients classified as centralization. For patients with cervical syndromes, noncentralization was associated with more pain but not associated with functional status or number of visits compared to patients classified as centralization. Pain pattern classification affected percentage of patients with lumbar and cervical impairment achieving MCID.

CONCLUSION

Results supported the clinical use of a standardized definition of centralization to facilitate patient classification and management and interpretation of outcomes.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with the McKenzie method

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.