Discriminant validity and relative precision for classifying patients with nonspecific neck and back pain by anatomic pain patterns

Inter-rater Reliability of the McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for the Provisional Classification of Low Back Pain in Adolescents and Young Adults

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the inter-rater reliability of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT)-trained Diplomats in classifying adolescents and young adults with lumbar pain.

METHODS

Forty-three participants (mean age 15 ± 2 years) with lumbar pain, with or without lower extremity symptoms, were assessed simultaneously by three MDT Diploma holders and classified into one of three groups: 1) Derangement, 2) Dysfunction, 3) Postural/OTHER. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the Fleiss kappa statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were repeated with the younger (11 to 15 years old) and older (16 to 21 years old) age groups.

RESULTS

There was moderate reliability (Fleiss kappa = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.54) for the entire sample, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was good reliability in older participants (Fleiss kappa = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.70), but poor reliability in younger participants (Fleiss kappa = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.39). There was 100% agreement in classifications among assessors for 70% of participants.

DISCUSSION

The MDT system has moderate reliability when classifying lumbar pain in adolescents and young adults. Future reliability studies may include a balanced group for classifications or a second session.

Are within and/or between session improvements in pain and function prognostic of medium and long-term improvements in musculoskeletal problems? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Initial or between session improvements in pain and/or function are often considered to be predictive of ultimate outcomes in musculoskeletal problems.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term prognostic value of within and between session improvements to pain and function.

DESIGN

Systematic review of relevant literature.

METHOD

A search was made of multiple databases (Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane, Cinahl, and AMed) using relevant search terms. Titles, abstracts, and then full texts were filtered to find articles that met the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Searching, data extraction, and quality assessment, using GRADE, were done independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Only 13 articles met the criteria for inclusion. For the effect of pain location or pain intensity changes in the first treatment session on medium or long-term pain, disability, return-to-work, or global outcomes nine outcomes were available. Findings were mostly inconclusive (5) or negative (3). There was only one study evaluating between session improvements with ambiguous results. There were no studies evaluating the prognostic value of early improvements in function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence to support the concept that early changes in pain location or pain intensity offer a good longer-term prognosis on a variety of outcomes; and no evidence relating to early improvements in function. The idea that patients who appear to improve in the first treatment session will do well longer term is not supported by the literature.

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.

Initial pain and disability characteristics can assist the prediction of the centralization phenomenon on initial assessment of patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Determine whether the achievement of the centralization phenomenon on initial assessment of patients with low back pain (LBP) can be predicted by history and physical examination variables.

METHODS

Ninety patients referred to physical therapy due to LBP completed pain, disability, and fear-avoidance questionnaires, followed by a complete history and a physical examination based on mechanical diagnosis and therapy principles. Patients were subsequently classified as centralizers or noncentralizers. Univariate, followed by multivariate analysis was performed to identify history and physical examination variables that predicted the occurrence of the CP. Factors retained in the multivariate analysis were used to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (31%) were classified as centralizers immediately following assessment. Three predictors were retained in the multivariate analysis: (1) modified Oswestry Disability Index score lower than 33%; (2) intensity of the most distal symptom lower than 6/10; and (3) back pain equal to or greater than leg pain. The resultant CPR indicated the presence of all three variables increased the post-test likelihood of the CP to 57%.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study suggest the CP may be considerably more likely in less severe cases of LBP characterized by lower disability, lower intensity of distal symptoms, and a greater back-versus-leg pain intensity. Pending future validation, the CPR developed in this study may aide decision making regarding the initial management strategy of patients with LBP.

Directional preference constructs for patients' neck pain in the absence of centralization

Objectives: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study to (1) report the prevalence of Directional Preference (DP) constructs at first examination for patients with cervical spine challenges, and (2) determine the association between DP constructs and clinical outcomes at discharge from physical therapy. Methods: We analyzed data collected from 718 consecutive patients who presented to outpatient, private practice clinics with primary complaints of non-specific neck pain; 200 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed first examination and discharge data. Statistical analysis determined the association between DP constructs at first examination and clinical outcomes at discharge. Results: The findings in this investigation were that (1) the most prevalent DP constructs at first examination were related to ROM and pain intensity including Patient Reported Improvement in ROM (79.5%), Increase in Spine ROM (32.5%), and Pain Intensity Change (15.0%), (2) all DP groups improved and met the MCID for disability and pain intensity change at discharge except for the group that did not exhibit Increase in Spine ROM for pain intensity, (3) no clinically significant differences in pain intensity or disability existed between DP groups at discharge, and (4) 28.5% and 6.5% of patients exhibited a relative increase in cervical spine extension and flexion ROM, respectively, post-repeated movement testing on the first examination. Discussion: The most prevalent DP constructs at first examination were related to ROM and pain intensity, and each was associated with a comparable clinical trajectory in terms of pain and disability outcomes at discharge. The findings of this study help Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) providers understand the common DP constructs encountered in routine clinical practice and their relation to pain and disability outcomes for patients with cervical spine challenges. Level of Evidence: 2b.

Directional preference constructs for patients' low back pain in the absence of centralization

Objectives: A detailed description of how Directional Preference (DP) constructs are measured could accelerate research to practice translation and improve research findings for Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) stakeholders. A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study was conducted to understand (1) the type and prevalence of DP constructs at first examination and (2) the relationships between DP constructs and clinical outcomes at follow-up. Methods: Data were collected and analyzed from 1485 consecutive patients who presented to outpatient, private practice clinics with primary complaints of non-specific low back pain (LBP); 400 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed first examination and follow-up data. Statistical analysis determined prevalence and the relationships between DP constructs at first examination and clinical outcomes at follow-up. Results: The primary findings in this investigation were that (1) the most prevalent DP constructs at first examination were related to range of motion (ROM) and pain intensity (Patient Reported Improvement in ROM (74.8%), Increase in Spine ROM (29.5%), and Pain Intensity Change (17.3%)), (2) all groups improved and made clinically meaningful improvements in disability and pain intensity at follow-up, (3) no clinically significant differences in disability or pain intensity were found between the groups at follow-up, and (4) 26.5% and 6.5% of patients exhibited a relative increase in lumbar spine extension and flexion ROM, respectively, post repeated movement testing on the first examination. Discussion: The findings in this study assist providers in making assessment and treatment decisions with their patients by offering insight regarding the most prevalent DP constructs typically found at the first examination and their subsequent association with outcome when Centralization (CEN) does not occur. Recommendations for researchers have been made to further explore the DP framework used in this study.

The Multidimensional Symptom Index: A new patient-reported outcome for pain phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

There are few patient-reported outcomes routinely used that capture frequency and interference of different pain-related symptoms on a single scale. The purpose of this study was to describe the development and initial validation of the new Multidimensional Symptom Index (MSI).

METHODS

Items were generated from patient interviews of the experience of chronic pain. Health valuations were created from rankings of 82 healthy subjects for each of 120 symptom (×10) × frequency (×3) × interference (×4) combinations using preference-based health valuations (0-100). Ranks for each symptom combination were then used in scale scoring. A sample of 300 patients with acute or chronic pain subsequently completed the MSI and a battery of other tools. Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses were triangulated with theory to arrive at the factor structure. Convergent validity was tested against established measures.

RESULTS

Health rankings resulted in scores of 0-12 for each of the 10 symptom types. Factor analyses revealed two factors: MSI Somatic Symptoms and MSI Non-Somatic Symptoms. The MSI also quantified number of symptoms experienced (/10), mean frequency (/3) and mean interference (/4). The indices showed appropriate associations with the established PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

The MSI is a new symptom-focused PRO that allows patient phenotyping and may have value for screening, prognosis and evaluating change.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article presents the development and psychometric properties of a new measure of pain and related symptom frequency and interference. This measure could aid clinicians in establishing clinically relevant pain phenotypes for screening, prognosis and treatment decisions.

Pain pattern classification and directional preference for patients with neck pain

Objectives: Pain Pattern Classification (PPC) and Directional Preference (DP) have been shown to be predictive of health care outcomes and serve to guide orthopedic clinical decision making. We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study to verify the association between PPC, DP, and clinical outcomes. Methods: Clinical outcome measures including pain intensity and disability were completed at first examination and follow-up by 335 patients. A Pearson's chi-squared test was used to determine differences in prevalence rates for the categorical variables, and two-sample t-tests were used to determine differences in rates for the continuous variables. A Tukey's range test was used to determine differences in follow-up pain intensity and disability for neck pain dual-classification schemes. Results: The prevalence of DP was 82.4%. The prevalence of CEN, Non-CEN, and Non-Classifiable (NC) was 15.2%, 42.1%, and 25.1%, respectively. The prevalence of DP was lowest for patients with sub-acute symptoms and who were <45 years old. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average 2.62 NDI units less than patients classified as Non-DP. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 0.90 pain intensity units less than patients classified as Non-DP at follow-up. Patients who demonstrated DP CEN did not have clinically significant lower pain intensity or disability at follow-up than patients who demonstrated Non-DP. Discussion: The results of this investigation need to be interpreted with caution with respect to the study design and it's subsequent strengths and limitations. Level of Evidence: 1b.

Pain pattern classification and directional preference are associated with clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain

Pain Pattern Classification (PPC) and Directional Preference (DP) have shown merit as reliable and predictable clinical solutions to help reduce the burden posed by low back pain (LBP). We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study to verify the association between PPC, DP, and clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that (1) patients who demonstrated DP Centralization (CEN) would have lower pain intensity and disability at follow-up than patients who demonstrated Non-DP Non-CEN, and (2) the prevalence of DP at first examination would be lowest for patients with chronic LBP and are greater than 65 years old. First examination and follow-up data were completed by 639 patients. Clinical outcome measures, including pain intensity and disability, were collected at first examination and follow-up. Baseline comparisons were made between groups with first examination data only and groups with first examination data and follow-up data. A Pearson's chi-squared test was used to determine differences in prevalence rates for the categorical variables, and two-sample t-tests were used for the continuous variables. A Turkey's range test was used to determine differences in follow-up pain intensity and disability for LBP dual-classifications. Multiple regression was used to investigate DP prevalence considering risk adjusted factors. Overall prevalence of DP was 84.5% and prevalence was lowest for patients with sub-acute symptoms. No significant difference existed for the prevalence of DP for patients based on age. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 1.99 pain intensity units less than patients classified as Non-DP Non-CEN at follow-up. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 3.43 RMDQ units less than patients classified as Non-DP Non-CEN at follow-up.These findings support previous reports, verifying the association between LBP dual-classification schemes and clinical outcomes.

Measurement of outcomes for patients with centralising versus non-centralising neck pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether individuals with neck pain who demonstrate centralisation of symptoms have more favourable outcome than individuals who do not demonstrate centralisation.

METHODS

Eleven subjects with neck pain were evaluated and treated by two physical therapists certified in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT). Eleven physical therapy patients underwent a routine initial evaluation and were treated 2-3 times per week using MDT principles and other physical therapy interventions. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) tool was administered at the initial examination, approximately 2 weeks following the initial examination, each subsequent re-evaluation, and at discharge from the study to measure changes in functional outcomes for each subject. Patients continued with treatments until they were discharged or removed from the study. Four subjects were referred back to their physician by treating physical therapist secondary to non-centralisation (NC) and worsening of symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the 11 subjects, six demonstrated centralisation (CEN) and five demonstrated NC. At initial evaluation, the average NDI score for the CEN group was 51.0 (SD ± 19.4) and 56.4 (SD ± 17.6) for the NC group. For the CEN group, the average change in NDI score between initial evaluation and discharge was 41.2 (SD ± 13.2 and 12.2 (SD ± 13.0) for the NC group. The correlation coefficient of CEN and change in NDI score was 0.772 and was statistically significant (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In this limited sample, people with neck pain demonstrated more favourable outcomes when the CEN phenomenon was observed. Future research on CEN should be investigated with a larger sample size and with a greater number of clinicians trained in the MDT approach.

Three-dimensional Cervical Movement Characteristics in Healthy Subjects and Subgroups of Chronic Neck Pain Patients Based on Their Pain Location

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional observational study of three-dimensional (3D) cervical kinematics in 41 chronic neck pain (CNPs) patients and 156 asymptomatic controls.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate 3D cervical kinematics by analyzing and comparing quantitative and qualitative parameters in healthy subjects and CNPs. Furthermore, subgroups were formed to explore the influence of pain-location on cervical kinematics. The possible correlation of kinematic parameters with the degree of functional disability was examined as well.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In patients with chronic neck pain, a clear pathological cause is frequently not identifiable. Therefore, the need to assess neck pain with a broader view than structure or anatomical-based divergences is desirable.

METHODS

Movements of the cervical spine were registered using an electromagnetic tracking system. Quantitative and qualitative kinematics were analyzed for active axial rotation, lateral bending, and flexion-extension motion components.

RESULTS

During lateral bending, the range of the main motion demonstrated significant higher values (P = 0.001) in the controls (mean: 68.67° ± 15.17°) than patients (mean: 59.28° ± 15.41°). Significant differences were demonstrated between subgroups for several kinematic parameters (P < 0.05). Although differences were predominantly recorded between the "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical" pain group, some parameters also distinguished subgroups from controls. On average, the symmetrical group showed significant less harmonic movement patterns, expressed by qualitative parameters, in comparison with the "asymmetrical" group and controls. Furthermore, the "asymmetrical" group showed significant lower scores on quantitative parameters than the "symmetrical" group and controls. The degree of functional disability correlated moderately with changes in qualitative parameters.

CONCLUSION

In this study, chronic neck pain patients with a symmetrical pain pattern showed significant poorer quality of movement, while those with asymmetrical pain showed a significant reduction in quantitative measures. Subgrouping of neck patients based on pain location may be of help for further research and clinics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the McKenzie Method to Motor Control Exercises in People With Chronic Low Back Pain and a Directional Preference

Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Background Motor control exercises are believed to improve coordination of the trunk muscles. It is unclear whether increases in trunk muscle thickness can be facilitated by approaches such as the McKenzie method. Furthermore, it is unclear which approach may have superior clinical outcomes. Objectives The primary aim was to compare the effects of the McKenzie method and motor control exercises on trunk muscle recruitment in people with chronic low back pain classified with a directional preference. The secondary aim was to conduct a between-group comparison of outcomes for pain, function, and global perceived effect. Methods Seventy people with chronic low back pain who demonstrated a directional preference using the McKenzie assessment were randomized to receive 12 treatments over 8 weeks with the McKenzie method or with motor control approaches. All outcomes were collected at baseline and at 8-week follow-up by blinded assessors. Results No significant between-group difference was found for trunk muscle thickness of the transversus abdominis (-5.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -15.2%, 3.7%), obliquus internus (-0.7%; 95% CI: -6.6%, 5.2%), and obliquus externus (1.2%; 95% CI: -4.3%, 6.8%). Perceived recovery was slightly superior in the McKenzie group (-0.8; 95% CI: -1.5, -0.1) on a -5 to +5 scale. No significant between-group differences were found for pain or function (P = .99 and P = .26, respectively). Conclusion We found no significant effect of treatment group for trunk muscle thickness. Participants reported a slightly greater sense of perceived recovery with the McKenzie method than with the motor control approach. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b-. Registered September 7, 2011 at www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12611000971932). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(7):514-522. Epub 12 May 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6379.

Inter-examiner reliability of diplomats in the mechanical diagnosis and therapy system in assessing patients with shoulder pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the inter-examiner reliability of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT)-trained diplomats in classifying patients with shoulder disorders. The MDT system has demonstrated acceptable reliability when used in patients with spinal disorders; however, little is known about its utility when used for appendicular conditions.

METHODS

Fifty-four clinical scenarios were created by a group of 11 MDT diploma holders based on their clinical experience with patients with shoulder pain. The vignettes were made anonymous, and their clinical diagnoses sections were left blank. The vignettes were sent to a second group of six international McKenzie Institute diploma holders who were asked to classify each vignette according to the MDT categories for upper extremity. Inter-examiner agreement was evaluated with kappa statistics.

RESULTS

There was 'very good' agreement among the six MDT diplomats for classifying the McKenzie syndromes in patients with shoulder pain (kappa = 0.90, SE = 0.018). The raw overall level of multi-rater agreement among the six clinicians in classifying the vignettes was 96%. After accounting for the actual MDT category for each vignette, kappa and the raw overall level of agreement decreased negligibly (0.89 and 95%, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Using clinical vignettes, the McKenzie system of MDT has very good reliability in classifying patients with shoulder pain. As an alternative, future reliability studies could use real patients instead of written vignettes.

Intradiscal electrothermal therapy treatment for back pain

The intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) procedure is a minimally invasive technique designed to treat discogenic chronic low back pain. The debate surrounding IDET ranges from the concept of the procedure, the technique and patient selection, to its effectiveness. The procedure provides modest improvement; however, it is considered less invasive and destructive than other modalities of treatments available at the present time, and has lower cost. The effectiveness evidence is limited at the present time, but based on the results of six recently published positive single-arm studies, it appears that patients experienced a perceptible clinical benefit from the IDET procedure. Thus, IDET is recommended in patients with moderate functional impairment, relatively well-maintained disc heights and discogenic pain caused by annular tears or protrusions less than 3-4 mm after the failure of less invasive procedures.

Association between centralization and directional preference and functional and pain outcomes in patients with neck pain

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

In subjects with neck pain, the present study aimed (1) to describe the prevalence of centralization (CEN), noncentralization (non-CEN), directional preference (DP), and no directional preference (no DP); (2) to determine if age, sex, fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity, number of comorbid conditions, or symptom duration varies among subjects who demonstrate CEN versus non-CEN and DP versus no DP; and (3) to determine if CEN and/or DP are associated with changes in function and pain.

BACKGROUND

CEN and DP are prevalent among patients with low back pain and should be considered when determining treatment strategies and predicting outcomes; however, these findings are not well investigated in patients with neck pain.

METHODS

Three hundred four subjects contributed data. CEN and DP prevalence were calculated, as was the association between CEN and DP, and age, sex, number of comorbid conditions, fear-avoidance beliefs, and symptom duration. Multivariate models assessed whether CEN and DP predicted change in function and pain.

RESULTS

CEN and DP prevalence were 0.4 and 0.7, respectively. Younger subjects and those with fewer comorbid conditions were more likely to centralize; however, subjects who demonstrated DP were more likely to have acute symptoms. Subjects who centralized experienced, on average, a 3.6-point (95% confidence interval: -0.3, 7.4) improvement in function scores, whereas subjects with a DP averaged a 5.4-point (95% confidence interval: 0.8, 10.0) improvement. Neither CEN nor DP was associated with pain outcomes.

CONCLUSION

DP and, to a lesser extent, CEN represent evaluation categories that are associated with improvements in functional outcomes.

Using the bootstrap to establish statistical significance for relative validity comparisons among patient-reported outcome measures

Background

Relative validity (RV), a ratio of ANOVA F-statistics, is often used to compare the validity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. We used the bootstrap to establish the statistical significance of the RV and to identify key factors affecting its significance.

Methods

Based on responses from 453 chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients to 16 CKD-specific and generic PRO measures, RVs were computed to determine how well each measure discriminated across clinically-defined groups of patients compared to the most discriminating (reference) measure. Statistical significance of RV was quantified by the 95% bootstrap confidence interval. Simulations examined the effects of sample size, denominator F-statistic, correlation between comparator and reference measures, and number of bootstrap replicates.

Results

The statistical significance of the RV increased as the magnitude of denominator F-statistic increased or as the correlation between comparator and reference measures increased. A denominator F-statistic of 57 conveyed sufficient power (80%) to detect an RV of 0.6 for two measures correlated at r = 0.7. Larger denominator F-statistics or higher correlations provided greater power. Larger sample size with a fixed denominator F-statistic or more bootstrap replicates (beyond 500) had minimal impact.

Conclusions

The bootstrap is valuable for establishing the statistical significance of RV estimates. A reasonably large denominator F-statistic (F > 57) is required for adequate power when using the RV to compare the validity of measures with small or moderate correlations (r < 0.7). Substantially greater power can be achieved when comparing measures of a very high correlation (r > 0.9).

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.

Prevalence of classification methods for patients with lumbar impairments using the McKenzie syndromes, pain pattern, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules

OBJECTIVES

Aims were (1) to determine the proportion of patients with lumbar impairments who could be classified at intake by McKenzie syndromes (McK) and pain pattern classification (PPCs) using Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) assessment methods, manipulation, and stabilization clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and (2) for each Man CPR or Stab CPR category, determine classification prevalence rates using McK and PPC.

METHODS

Eight physical therapists practicing in eight diverse clinical settings classified patients typically referred to rehabilitation by McKenzie syndromes (i.e. derangement, dysfunction, posture, or other), pain pattern classification [i.e. centralization (CEN), not centralization (Non CEN), and not classified (NC)], Manipulation CPR (positive, negative), and stabilization CPR (positive, negative). Prevalence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each classification category by McK, PPC, and manipulation and stabilization CPRs. Prevalence rates (95% CIs) for McK and PPC were calculated for each CPR category separately.

RESULTS

Data from 628 adults [mean age: 52±17 years, 56% female] were analyzed. Prevalence rates were: McK - derangement 67%, dysfunction 5%, posture 0%, other 28%; PPC - CEN 43%, Non CEN 39%, NC 18%; manipulation CPR - positive 13%; Stab CPR - positive 7%. For patients positive for manipulation CPR (n = 79), prevalence rates for derangement were 89% and CEN 68%. For patients positive for stabilization CPR (n = 41), prevalence rates for derangement were 83% and CEN 80%.

DISCUSSION

The majority of patients classified based on initial clinical presentation by manipulation and stabilization CPRs were also classified as derangements whose symptoms centralized. Manipulation and stabilization CPRs may not represent a mutually exclusive treatment subgroup but may include patients who can be initially treated using a different classification method.

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.

Lumbar computerized adaptive test and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: relative validity and important change

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of longitudinal, observational cohort data.

OBJECTIVES

To compare discriminating ability and minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) calculated using functional status (FS) measures estimated from the lumbar computerized adaptive test (LCAT) and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODQ).

BACKGROUND

The LCAT and ODQ are commonly used to estimate FS in patients seeking outpatient therapy but have not been compared directly.

METHODS

Data from 8198 adult patients who completed the LCAT and ODQ at intake were analyzed, 3379 (41%) of whom completed both surveys at discharge. Global ratings of change data were available for 980 patients. Discriminating ability of FS estimates from the LCAT and ODQ was estimated using relative validity, calculated by dividing F values from LCAT and ODQ analyses of covariance for important risk-adjustment variables. MCII was estimated using receiver-operating-characteristic analyses by quartiles of intake FS values, and areas under the curves were compared.

RESULTS

Relative validity ratios favored the LCAT for age (3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0, 8.9), acuity (1.3; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.6), comorbidities (1.8; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.6), and surgical history (1.8; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9). MCII cut scores per quartile favored the LCAT. Receiver-operating-characteristic areas under the curves were not different.

CONCLUSION

FS measures estimated by both questionnaires had similar psychometric characteristics. The LCAT FS estimates tended to be more discriminating than ODQ FS estimates. MCII cut scores by quartile of intake FS favored the LCAT. Given the need to be efficient and precise in estimating measures of FS, particularly in older patients, results favor the LCAT in busy, automated outpatient therapy clinics, which are increasingly serving an aging population.

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.

Centralization in patients with sciatica: are pain responses to repeated movement and positioning associated with outcome or types of disc lesions?

AIM

To determine the frequency of different patterns of centralization and their association with outcomes and MRI findings in patients experiencing sciatica.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal cohort study of 176 patients with radicular pain below the knee, who all had an MDT clinical assessment. Based on their pain response, patients were divided into five groups: abolition centralization, reduction centralization, unstable centralization, peripheralization, and "no effect". Patients had an MRI.

RESULTS

Overall, 84.8% of patients reported experiencing centralization, 7.3% peripheralized and 7.9% reported "no effect". The median reduction in RMQ scores across all the three centralization groups was 9.5 points at 3 months, and 12.0 points at 12 months. The peripheralization group improved similarly. The 'no effect' group improved significantly lower (p < 0.001), by 3.0 at both time points. Patients who centralized, and peripheralized had a significantly reduction in leg pain, the "no effect" group demonstrated a less favorable outcome (p < 0.02). There was no association between pain responses and the type of disc lesion.

CONCLUSION

In patients with sciatica, centralization was common and associated with improvement in activity limitation and leg pain. Centralization was very common in ruptured disc therefore the study does not support the theory, that centralization only occurs if the intra-discal hydrostatic mechanism is functional.

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.

Manual correction of an acute lumbar lateral shift: maintenance of correction and rehabilitation: a case report with video

The acute onset lumbar lateral shift, otherwise known as a list or acute scoliosis, is a common clinical observation associated with low back pain. In general orthopaedics, the presence of a lateral shift is associated with a poor prognosis; however, a manual correction method devised by McKenzie is claimed to produce rapid reversal of the deformity and reduction in pain. This single-case report presents the details of the McKenzie Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment (MDT) management of a major right-sided lateral shift, which includes the manual correction technique, self-correction and management, prophylaxis, pain ablation, and rehabilitation to a high level of athletic function, with long-term follow-up at 9 months. The lateral shift is widely accepted as being associated with disc pathology, but the exact mechanism of shift production remains speculative. hypotheses include muscle spasm, avoidance of irritation of a spinal nerve, and space-occupying or space-deficient disc mechanics. The hypotheses used to explain the lateral shift phenomena are discussed. (Case report is supplemented by video stream, available at jmmtonline.com/).

Prescriptive clinical prediction rules in back pain research: a systematic review

Prescriptive clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are a way of using a small selection of clinical findings to match patients to optimal interventions. A number of CPRs have been developed for use with back pain patients, but these have not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this review was to evaluate existing CPRs against established criteria to determine the quality of the studies and the overall development of the CPR against a set number of stages. Medline was searched up until June 2008, and 16 studies were reviewed that related to 9 different CPRs. These studies investigated and attempted to find clinical characteristics for responders to manipulation, stabilization exercise, physical therapy, chiropractic, traction, rehabilitation, usual care, and zygapophyseal joint injections. Eleven of these studies related to the derivation stage and five to the validation stage. The manipulation and stabilization CPRs had been the most studied. The derivation studies were mostly high quality, whereas none of the validation studies were. Some of the validation studies did not provide evidence that validated the CPR. Most of these CPRs need further evaluation before they can be applied clinically; most did not pass the lowest level of evidence hierarchy. As regards the manipulation CPR, evidence to date for its clinical utility is limited and contradictory. For the stabilization CPR, there was limited evidence that it may be considered but only with caution and in similar patients. Overall, there is limited evidence to support the general application of spinal CPRs.

Effect of fear-avoidance beliefs of physical activities on a model that predicts risk-adjusted functional status outcomes in patients treated for a lumbar spine dysfunction

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 30 858 patients being treated for a lumbar spine dysfunction in outpatient physical therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine effect of adding a single-item screening variable classifying patients with elevated versus not-elevated scores of fear-avoidance beliefs of physical activities at intake, on a model predicting risk-adjusted functional status (FS) outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes must be risk-adjusted before making meaningful interpretations. Elevated fear-avoidance beliefs scores have been predictive of poor outcomes. But the importance of elevated fear-avoidance scores in a multivariable model predicting FS outcomes needs further study.

METHODS

Using retrospective analyses, predictive ability (R2) of multivariable linear regression models of discharge FS with and without classification by elevated versus not-elevated fear-avoidance scores were compared, while controlling for intake FS, age, symptom acuity, surgical history, gender, number of comorbidities, and payer. Percent variance controlled and beta coefficients (95% confidence intervals) of each variable in both models were compared. A split-half design was used for model cross-validation. Predictive ratios (predicted FS, divided by actual discharge FS) were assessed.

RESULTS

Adding fear-avoidance beliefs classification to the discharge FS model improved (P<.001) model predictive ability but only slightly (R2 without, and with, fear-avoidance classification, 0.2997 and 0.3010, respectively). Variables impacted models similarly (95% confidence intervals not different). Fear-avoidance classification added 0.2% data variance control to the existing model. Cross-validation was supported. Predictive ratios were 1.09 and 1.10, without and with fear-avoidance, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although screening for elevated fear-avoidance beliefs of physical activities significantly improves the FS outcomes predictive model, the amount of additional meaningful interpretation of FS outcomes was minimal. Exploration of other clinically relevant variables designed to improve outcomes prediction is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 2c.

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.

Spondyloarthritis in a patient with unilateral buttock pain and history of Crohn disease

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients with inflammatory spinal conditions related to spondyloarthritis are rarely seen by primary care practitioners. However, patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease and chronic low back or buttock pain should be examined carefully for the presence of spondyloarthritis, as proper management may include referral to a rheumatologist and appropriate medical intervention.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 27-year-old woman with a 6-month history of posterior buttock pain was referred for physical therapy with a diagnosis of piriformis syndrome. During the second physical therapy visit, a nonmechanical source of lumbopelvic pain was suspected, and the patient was referred for medical consultation. The patient underwent evaluation by a rheumatologist and was eventually diagnosed with spondyloarthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

OUTCOMES

The patient initiated treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor medication to address the spondyloarthritis. Medical management resulted in significant improvement in all outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

Clinical suspicion of spondyloarthritis is raised when specific historical, examination, and imaging findings are present. The posttest probability of spondyloarthritis is increased with the presence of inflammatory back pain and specific spondyloarthritic features, such as a positive history of inflammatory bowel disease, radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis, and improvement with anti-inflammatory medication. Referral of patients with these findings for a rheumatological evaluation is warranted, as these diseases are managed effectively with specific treatment.

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: can low back pain patterns be predicted from the first consultation with a chiropractor? A longitudinal pilot study

BACKGROUND

It is widely believed that non-specific low back pain (LBP) consists of a number of subgroups which should be identified in order to improve treatment effects. In order to identify subgroups, patient characteristics that relate to different outcomes are searched for. However, LBP is often fluctuating or recurring rather than clearly limited in time. Therefore it would be relevant to consider outcome after completed treatment from a longitudinal perspective (describing "course patterns") instead of defining it from an arbitrarily selected end-point.

AIMS

The objectives of this pilot study were to investigate the interobserver reliability of a diagnostic classification system and to evaluate whether diagnostic classes or other baseline characteristics are associated with the LBP course pattern over a period of 18 weeks.

METHODS

Patients visiting one of 7 chiropractors because of LBP were classified according to a diagnostic classification system, which includes end-range loading, SI-joint pain provocation tests, neurological examination and tests for muscle tenderness and abnormal nerve tension. In addition, age, gender, duration of pain and presence of leg pain were registered in the patient's file. By weekly SMS-messages on their mobile phones, patients were asked how many days they had LBP the preceding week, and these answers were transformed into pain course patterns and the total number of LBP days.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were included and 76 (69%) completed follow-up. Thirty-five patients were examined by two chiropractors. The agreement regarding diagnostic classes was 83% (95% CI: 70 - 96). The diagnostic classes were associated with the pain course patterns and number of LBP days. Patients with disc pain had the highest number of LBP days and patients with muscular pain reported the fewest (35 vs. 12 days, p < 0.01). Men had better outcome than women (17 vs. 29 days, p < 0.01) and patients without leg pain tended to have fewer LBP days than those with leg pain (21 vs.31 days, p = 0.06). Duration of LBP at the first visit was not associated with outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The study indicated that there is a clinically meaningful relationship between diagnostic classes and the course of LBP. This should be evaluated in more depth.

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.

The prognostic value of symptom responses in the conservative management of spinal pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prognostic value of clinically induced changes in spinal symptoms (i.e., symptom response) in the conservative management of spinal pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Symptom response is used by clinicians to inform management decisions. Understanding the prognostic value of symptom response can aid in this decision-making process.

METHODS

A search of Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Ovid-Cinahl, Ovid-Amed, reference lists and citation tracking was performed. Methodologic quality was assessed independently by 2 raters.

RESULTS

We included 22 articles reporting 18 different cohorts. The evidence was limited and mainly involved low back pain. We found no association between most symptom responses and clinical outcomes. Only for changes in pain location and/or intensity with repeated spinal movement testing or as a response to treatment did the data provide support for use of symptom response to inform management. Further work is needed to confirm these findings. Limited evidence of an association with disability was found for the prone instability test in low back pain patients attending a stabilization program. The evidence for neurodynamic testing was conflicting for low back pain. The strength of identified associations and the extent of confounding between investigated prognostic factors remain uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Further investigation of symptom responses in spinal pain is needed before their use can be recommended.

Is it reasonable to use an individual patient's progress after treatment as a guide to ongoing clinical reasoning?

Systematic assessment of a patient's progress after an intervention is frequently used to inform decision making in ongoing conservative management of patients with musculoskeletal symptoms. Although reassessment of impairments immediately after treatment is commonplace in clinical practice, relatively little research has considered whether this method is reasonable. The history of, rationale behind, and evidence for the use of patient responses to inform clinical reasoning are explored in this commentary. Although the evidence is not conclusive, an argument is presented suggesting it is more reasonable to use a patient's response to treatment to inform ongoing clinical reasoning than to follow predetermined protocols. A methodical approach that considers change in parameters such as patient impairments is likely to be a useful guide for decision making during ongoing patient management but only when the change being reassessed can be directly linked to functional goals. Changes in active range of movement or centralization of pain appear to be better indicators of treatment effectiveness than changes in either pain intensity or assessment of joint position. There is limited evidence to support the use of changes in segmental stiffness to guide ongoing management. Although reassessment of some impairments has been found to be useful, the author suggests that care is required in the selection of reassessments used to guide ongoing management. The usefulness of any reassessment is considered to rely on how well a change in the selected impairment predicts that individual patient's ability to achieve their goals.

Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice

OBJECTIVE

To identify how treatment processes are related to functional outcomes for patients seeking treatment for musculoskeletal impairments while controlling for demographic and health characteristics at intake.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational cohort study. Treatment processes were not altered. Data were collected continuously from June 2005 to January 2008. Descriptive statistics were applied to compare patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes between impairment categories. Ordinary least-squares multiple regressions were used to examine associations between patient characteristics at intake, treatment processes, and functional outcomes.

SETTING

Fifty-four community-based outpatient physical therapy clinics of Maccabi Healthcare Services, a public health plan in Israel.

PARTICIPANTS

A consecutive sample of 22,019 adult patients (mean age 51.2 y, standard deviation=15.7, range 18-96, 58% women) seeking treatment due to lumbar spine, knee, cervical spine, or shoulder impairments with functional measurements at intake and discharge.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Functional status at discharge.

RESULTS

Explanatory power ranged from 30% to 39%. Better outcomes were associated with patient compliance with self-exercise and therapy attendance, application of therapeutic exercise and manual therapy, and completion of 3 or more functional surveys during the episode of care. Worse outcomes were associated with women, electrotherapy for pain management, and therapeutic ultrasound for shoulder impairments. Mixed results were found for group exercise programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes helps to describe practice and can be used to suggest ways to improve outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice.

Centralization of symptoms and lumbar range of motion in patients with low back pain

This quasi-experimental repeated measures study examined the relationship between centralization of symptoms and lumbar flexion and extension range of motion (ROM) in patients with low back pain. Rapid and lasting changes in lumbar ROM have been noted with centralization of symptoms. However, no study has objectively measured the changes in lumbar ROM occurring with centralization. Forty-two adult subjects (mean age, 45.68 years; SD=15.76 years) with low back pain and associated lower extremity symptoms were followed by McKenzie trained physical therapists. Subjects' lumbar ROM was measured at the beginning and end of each patient visit by using double inclinometers, and pain location was documented. Subjects were grouped as 1) centralized, 2) centralizing, or 3) noncentralized for comparisons of symptom and ROM changes. Data were analyzed by using multivariate analysis of variance and one-way analysis of variance. Significance was set at 0.05. A significant difference was found between initial and final mean extension ROM in the centralized and centralizing groups (p=0.003). No significant difference was found in the noncentralized group (p<0.05). Subjects (n=23) who demonstrated a change in pain location during the initial visit also showed a significant (p<0.001) change in extension ROM, whereas patients with no change in pain location (n=19) did not (p=0.848). Lumbar extension ROM increased as centralization occurred.

A diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for spinal pain part 2: review of the literature

Background

Spinal pain is a common and often disabling problem. The research on various treatments for spinal pain has, for the most part, suggested that while several interventions have demonstrated mild to moderate short-term benefit, no single treatment has a major impact on either pain or disability. There is great need for more accurate diagnosis in patients with spinal pain. In a previous paper, the theoretical model of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule was presented. The approach is designed to provide the clinician with a strategy for arriving at a specific working diagnosis from which treatment decisions can be made. It is based on three questions of diagnosis. In the current paper, the literature on the reliability and validity of the assessment procedures that are included in the diagnosis-based clinical decision rule is presented.

Methods

The databases of Medline, Cinahl, Embase and MANTIS were searched for studies that evaluated the reliability and validity of clinic-based diagnostic procedures for patients with spinal pain that have relevance for questions 2 (which investigates characteristics of the pain source) and 3 (which investigates perpetuating factors of the pain experience). In addition, the reference list of identified papers and authors' libraries were searched.

Results

A total of 1769 articles were retrieved, of which 138 were deemed relevant. Fifty-one studies related to reliability and 76 related to validity. One study evaluated both reliability and validity.

Conclusion

Regarding some aspects of the DBCDR, there are a number of studies that allow the clinician to have a reasonable degree of confidence in his or her findings. This is particularly true for centralization signs, neurodynamic signs and psychological perpetuating factors. There are other aspects of the DBCDR in which a lesser degree of confidence is warranted, and in which further research is needed.

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.

The comparative prognostic value of directional preference and centralization: a useful tool for front-line clinicians?

A large number of prognostic factors have been associated with recovery from an episode of back pain, and much emphasis has been placed on psychosocial prognostic factors. The large number of prognostic factors and the lack of comparative analysis of different factors make use of these difficult in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative usefulness of a range of factors to predict outcome using data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which 312 patients with sub-acute to chronic back pain received a mechanical evaluation and were sub-grouped based on the presence or absence of directional preference (DP). Patients were then randomized to treatment that was matched or unmatched to that DP. Patients with a minimal reduction of 30% in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score were defined as the good outcome group. Seventeen baseline variables were entered into a step-wise logistic regression analysis for the ability to predict a good outcome. Of the patients, 84 met the good outcome criteria and had a mean RMDQ decrease of 58.2% (9.8 points) in 4 visits. Leg pain, work status, depression, pain location, chronicity, and treatment assignment were significant predictors of outcome in univariate analysis. Only leg bothersomeness rating and treatment assignment survived multivariate analysis. Subjects with DP/centralization who received matched treatment had a 7.8 times greater likelihood of a good outcome. Matching patients to their DP is a stronger predictor of outcome than a range of other biopsychosocial factors.

Clinical databases in physical therapy

Clinical databases in physical therapy provide increasing opportunities for research into physical therapy theory and practice. At present, information on the characteristics of existing databases is lacking. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical databases in which physical therapists record data on their patients and treatments and to investigate the basic aspects, data sets, output, management, and data quality of the databases. Identification of the databases was performed by contacting members of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy, searching Pubmed, searching the Internet, and snowball sampling. A structured questionnaire was used to study the characteristics of the databases. The search was restricted to North America, Australia, Israel, and Western Europe. Seven clinical databases on physical therapy were identified. Four databases collected data on specific patient categories, whereas the others collected data on all patients. All databases collected data on patient characteristics, referrals, diagnoses, treatments, and closure, whereas some databases also collected functional status information. The purposes of the databases were diverse, but they can be summarized as quality improvement, research, and performance management. Although clinical databases are new to the field, they offer great potential for physical therapy research. Potential can be increased by further cooperation among databases allowing international comparative studies.

Contribution of centralization phenomenon to the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of diskogenic low back pain

The centralization phenomenon is the migration of low back and/or radiating pain to the spinal midline in response to specific positions or movements, for instance during a McKenzie mechanical assessment. However, differences in the definition of the centralization phenomenon occur across studies, most notably regarding the smallest required change in pain location and the time to centralization. Standardized criteria would be useful. Available data fail to establish that centralization is sufficiently specific of diskogenic pain as to obviate the need for investigations, particularly in patients considered for surgical treatment (e.g., fusion or implant). Although centralization correlates strongly with a positive diskography, the value of this last finding as a sign of diskogenic pain or an indicator that surgery is needed remains highly controversial. Nevertheless, centralization may indicate a high likelihood of diskogenic pain and may provide therapeutic guidance. Because centralization is associated with better outcomes after nonsurgical treatment, even in patients with nerve root pain, its presence may constitute an argument against surgical treatment. Finally, the McKenzie assessment may induce pain relief, albeit to a modest extent and for no longer than 3 months.

Preliminary examination of a proposed treatment-based classification system for patients receiving physical therapy interventions for neck pain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neck pain frequently is managed by physical therapists. The development of classification methods for matching interventions to subgroups of patients may improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to describe a proposed classification system for patients with neck pain by examining data for consecutive patients receiving physical therapy interventions.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Standardized methods for collecting baseline and intervention data were used for all patients receiving physical therapy interventions for neck pain over 1 year. Outcome variables were the Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric pain rating, and number of visits. Treatment was provided at the discretion of the physical therapist. After the completion of treatment, each patient was classified by use of baseline variables. The interventions received by the patient were categorized as being matched or not matched to the classification. Outcomes for patients who received matched interventions were compared with those for patients who received nonmatched interventions. The interrater reliability of the classification algorithm was examined with a subset of 50 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients were included in this study (74% women; age [X+/-SD]=44.4+/-16.0 years). The most common classification was centralization (34.7%); next were exercise and conditioning (32.8%) and mobility (17.5%). The interrater reliability for classification decisions was high (kappa=.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87-1.0). A total of 113 patients (41.2%) received interventions matched to the classification. Receiving matched interventions was associated with greater improvements in the NDI (mean difference=5.6 points, 95% CI=2.6-8.6) and in pain ratings (mean difference=0.74 point, 95% CI=0.21-1.3) than receiving nonmatched interventions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The development of classification methods for patients with neck pain may improve the outcomes of physical therapy intervention. This study was done to examine a previously proposed classification system for patients receiving physical therapy interventions for neck pain. Receiving interventions matched to the classification system was associated with better outcomes than receiving nonmatched interventions. Although the design of this study prohibited drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the system, the results suggest that further research on the system may be warranted.

Subclassification of low back pain: a cross-country comparison

Various health professionals have attempted to classify low back pain (LBP) subgroups and have developed several LBP classification systems. Knowing that culture has an effect on LBP symptomatology, assessment findings and clinical decision making, the aim of this review is to perform a cross-country comparative review amongst the published classification systems, addressing each country's similarities and differences as well as exploring whether cultural factors have been incorporated into the subclassification process. A systematic search of databases limited to human adults was undertaken by Medline, Cinahl, AMED and PEDro databases between January 1980 and October 2005. Classification systems from nine countries were identified. Most studies were classified according to pathoanatomic and/or clinical features, whereas fewer studies utilized a psychosocial and even less, a biopsychosocial approach. Most studies were limited in use to the country of the system's developer. Very few studies addressed cultural issues, highlighting the lack of information on the impact of specific cultural factors on LBP classification procedures. However, there seem to be certain 'cultural trends' in classification systems within each country, which are discussed. Despite the plethora of classification studies, there is still no system which is internationally established, effective, reliable and valid. Future research should aim to develop a LBP classification system within a well identified cultural setting, addressing the multi-dimensional features of the LBP presentation.