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

International Framework for Examination of the Cervical Region for Potential of Vascular Pathologies of the Neck Prior to Musculoskeletal Intervention: International IFOMPT Cervical Framework

SYNOPSIS: This position statement, stemming from the International IFOMPT (International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists) Cervical Framework, was developed based upon the best contemporary evidence and expert opinion to assist clinicians during their clinical reasoning process when considering presentations involving the head and neck. Developed through rigorous consensus methods, the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework guides assessment of the cervical spine region for potential vascular pathologies of the neck in advance of planned interventions. Within the cervical spine, events and presentations of vascular pathologies of the neck are rare but are an important consideration as part of patient examination. Vascular pathologies may be recognizable if the appropriate questions are asked during the patient history-taking process, if interpretation of elicited data enables recognition of this potential, and if the physical examination can be adapted to explore any potential vasculogenic hypothesis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(1):7-22. Epub: 14 September 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11147.

Improving the recognition of cervical arterial dissection in clinical practice: investigation of a five criteria diagnostic support tool

BACKGROUND

Cervical arterial dissection (CeAD) is a serious condition that can mimic a musculoskeletal condition. A diagnostic tool using five key criteria could help prompt early medical referral, but these criteria may occur in healthy people or benign neck pain/headache.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of CeAD criteria in healthy individuals and those with neck pain/headache, and identify refinements needed to improve specificity.

METHODS

An interview and neurological screen to identify the presence of the five criteria was conducted. Definitions were refined and the frequency of the modified criteria in each individual was determined. The criteria were re-administered using data from 37 CeAD cases of the derivation cohort, to examine how the modifications impact sensitivity of the tool.

RESULTS

One hundred healthy and 20 participants with neck pain/headache were interviewed. Most participants had ≤ 2 criteria, mainly age or trauma, 3% had 3 criteria, but had migraine or resolving symptoms. None had >3. Modifications to definitions were needed to improve potential specificity of the tool (96.7%). Changes did not impact sensitivity of the tool (81%). Further refinements may be required.

CONCLUSIONS

Strictly defined CeAD criteria may assist in identifying when to refer, when to wait and monitor, or when management can proceed. Trialing the tool in those with migraine and in emergency departments to calculate risk scores is recommended.