A systematic review of thrust manipulation for non-surgical shoulder conditions

Chiropractic attitude and utilisation of evidence-based practice in South Africa: a secondary analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is a model utilised by the majority of healthcare professionals and is a clinical framework that assists with decision-making related to patient care, to improve outcomes and patient satisfaction. The study aimed to analyse the attitudes, skills, and utilization of evidence-based practice (EBP) among South African chiropractors, focusing on perceived skill levels, training, use and identifying facilitators and barriers to EBP application.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative secondary analysis was conducted by inviting registered chiropractors in South Africa (n = 920) to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire using the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude and Utilisation Survey (EBASE).

RESULTS

A total of 132 chiropractors completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 14.4%. Of the respondents, 59.9% were female, 52.3% were between 26 and 35 years old, and 63.3% had graduated from the University of Johannesburg. A third of respondents stated they have poor clinical research skills. Over half of the respondents (56.8%) indicated that EBP constituted a significant part of their education except for completing systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Published clinical evidence was ranked 6th as a source of information for clinical decisions. The obstacles indicated were time constraints and a lack of clinical research in complementary and alternative medicine. Access to the internet, databases and research tools were facilitators that were deemed to be "very useful" in promoting EBP.

CONCLUSION

The majority of South African chiropractors are generally favourable towards EBP, and this practice therefore appears to be utilised and embraced, with the requisite skills.

Health Care Utilization for Common Shoulder Disorders: Analysis of the 2010-2019 National Patient Sample Data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea

Background and Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze trends in surgical and non-surgical service utilization for common shoulder disorders in Korea from 2010 to 2019. Methods and Materials: This retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study utilized National Patient Sample data from the Health Insurance and Review Assessment Service (HIRA) of Korea. These data constitute a 2% sample out of the entire Korean population and include data for a variety of parameters instrumental for health care research. Patients with at least one medical service use for rotator cuff syndrome or tear, impingement syndrome, or adhesive capsulitis between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Trends in healthcare utilization by disorder type, patient demographics, seasonal service use, and treatment details were examined. Results: There was an upward trend in the total number of patients and costs for shoulder disorders, from 35,798 patients and USD 5,485,196 in 2010 to 42,558 and USD 11,522,543 in 2019, respectively. The number of patients aged ≥60 and hospital visits increased. March had the highest number of claims. Physical therapy was the most common non-surgical procedure, while nerve block claims more than doubled. Opioid prescription rates also tripled. Surgical treatments were dominated by shoulder rotator cuff repair and acromioplasty. Conclusions: There was a significant increase in healthcare utilization for shoulder disorders, marked by rising costs and patient numbers. The use of nerve blocks and opioids notably increased. These data are valuable for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers.

Spinal manipulation does not improve short-term pain and function in persons with painful shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the benefit of spinal high-velocity low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) in improving pain and disability in persons with painful shoulder as primary outcomes. Function, quality of life, persons (and clinicians) satisfaction, adverse events rate, and time for recovery were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted and MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro until 20 September 2023 were investigated. Two thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine records were retrieved and nine studies were included. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed through the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The certainty of evidence of the pooled results was graded with GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The analysis included nine studies (441 persons). The pooled results showed non-significant differences between HVLAT versus sham in pain at pre-post follow-up (MD -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60; 0.35; p = 0.61, I2 = 0%), and at <4 days follow-up (SMD 0.16, 95%CI -0.16; 0.48; p = 0.34, I2 = 23%); in function at <4 days follow-up (SMD -0.29, 95%CI -0.69; 0.11; p = 0.16, I2 = 50%). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

HVLAT was not more effective than sham in improving pain and function at pre-post and at <4 days follow-up. When used as an "add-on technique", HVLAT did not improve pain nor disability.

An overview of systematic reviews examining the quantitative sensory testing-derived hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy for musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Changes in quantitative sensory testing (QST) after manual therapy can provide insight into pain relief mechanisms. Prior systematic reviews have evaluated manual-therapy-induced QST change. This overview of systematic reviews aims to consolidate this body of literature and critically review evidence on the hypoalgesic effects of manual therapy in clinical populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were eligible if the reviews examined the effect of manual therapy compared to non-manual therapy interventions on QST outcomes in clinical populations. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Meta-analysis results and qualitative (non-meta-analysis) interpretations were summarized by type of manual therapy. Overlap of studies was examined with the corrected covered area (CCA) index.

RESULTS

Thirty systematic reviews, including 11 meta-analyses, met inclusion. There was a slight overlap in studies (CCA of 1.72% for all reviews and 1.69% for meta-analyses). Methodological quality was predominantly low to critically low. Eight (27%) reviews examined studies with a range of manual therapy types, 13 (43%) reviews focused on joint-biased manual therapy, 7 (23%) reviews focused on muscle-biased manual therapy, and 2 (7%) reviews focused on nerve-biased manual therapy. Twenty-nine (97%) reviews reported on pressure pain threshold (PPT). Meta-analytic results demonstrated conflicting evidence that manual therapy results in greater hypoalgesic effects compared to other interventions or controls.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of QST effects, which has relevance to mechanisms underlying hypoalgesia, shows conflicting evidence from mostly low to critically low systematic reviews.

Is there 'trustworthy' evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review

The primary objective of this review was to create a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published 'trustworthy' systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy and safety of the orthopaedic manipulation techniques of the Lin School of Lingnan Region in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: protocol of a participant-and-assessor-blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common developmental spine disorder among children. It is characterized by a lateral deviation of the spine that gives rise to the distinctive "S" or "C" shaped bending of the spine. The Lin School of Lingnan Region (LSLR), one of the prominent schools for bare-handed orthopaedic manipulation in southern China, provides preliminary evidences that the orthopaedic manipulation techniques help to correct deviations of the spine. Previous research found that Orthopaedic Manipulation Techniques of LSLR (OMT-LSLR) could reduce the Cobb's angles in patients with AIS. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the OMT-LSLR in treating teenagers with AIS.

METHODS

In this participant-and-assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial, 50 participants identified AIS without surgical indications will be recruited and randomized into two groups to receive physiotherapy scoliosis-specific exercises training with either orthopaedic manipulation or sham manipulation treatment for 16 weeks, followed by post-treatment visits at week 24. Primary outcome measure is the change of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire score. Secondary outcome measures include Traditional Chinese version of Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (TC-SAQ) score, Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life (ISYQOL) score, the change of Cobb's angle measured by Xray, and the change of Cobb's angle, spinal rotation and muscle volume measured by three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound. The trial will be conducted at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Specialty Clinic cum Clinical Teaching and Research Centre in Hong Kong (CUHK-CMSCTRC).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will establish comprehensive clinical evidence about the efficacy and safety of the Orthopaedic Manipulation Techniques of the Lin School of Lingnan Region in the Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. One of the characteristics of this trial is that it is a participant-and-assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial with sham manipulation. The study would also apply three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound technology to investigate the relationship between the change of the muscle volume and the spinal curve.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05639023 ) on December 6, 2022.

Diagnosing, Managing, and Supporting Return to Work of Adults With Rotator Cuff Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline covering the assessment, management, and return to work of adults with rotator cuff disorders. DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline. METHODS: Using systematic reviews, appraisal of the literature, and an iterative approach to obtain consensus from key stakeholders, clinical recommendations and algorithms were developed in the context of the health care system and work environment of the province of Quebec (Canada). RESULTS: Recommendations (n = 73) and clinical decision algorithms (n = 3) were developed to match the objectives. The initial assessment should include the patient's history, a subjective assessment, and a physical examination. Diagnostic imaging is only necessary in select circumstances. Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and injection therapies may be useful to reduce pain in the short term. Clinicians should prescribe an active and task-oriented rehabilitation program (exercises and education) to reduce pain and disability in adults with rotator cuff disorders. Subacromial decompression is not recommended to treat rotator cuff tendinopathy. Surgery is appropriate for selected patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear. A return-to-work plan should be developed early, in collaboration with the worker and other stakeholders, and must combine multiple strategies to promote return to work. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline was developed to assist the multidisciplinary team of clinicians who provide health care for adults with a rotator cuff disorder. The CPG guides clinical decisionmaking for diagnosis and treatment, and planning for successful return to work. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(10):647-664. Epub: 27 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11306.

Clinical efficacy of different shoulder joint drug injections for rotator cuff injuries: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff injury is a common clinical disorder of the musculoskeletal system. It is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain and shoulder joint dysfunction. Intra-articular injection therapy is one of the common conservative treatments for rotator cuff injury in clinical practice, but scholars have been controversial about the different drugs used for injection therapy and their clinical effectiveness, and there is no complete agreement on the choice of different injectables, and the existing original studies are mostly direct comparisons in 1 arm, lacking indirect comparisons, making it difficult to have a clear and comprehensive understanding.

OBJECTIVE

A network Meta-analysis was used to comprehensively compare the effectiveness of drug injection therapies for rotator cuff injuries.

METHODS

The PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature on disc, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wan-Fang databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of steroid injections for the comparative treatment of rotator cuff injury for the period April 19, 2013 to April 19, 2022 (the last decade). Two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and evaluated the quality of the literature in parallel. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software to compare the differences in efficacy of each treatment measure and rank the efficacy using the ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect indicator.

RESULTS

10 RCTs with a total of 861 patients with rotator cuff injury were included, involving 4 therapeutic measures: corticosteroid injection therapy (COR), platelet-rich plasma injection therapy (PRP), Hyaluronic acid injection therapy (HA), and prolotherapy therapy (PRO).Meta-analysis results showed that the ranking results of the 4 therapeutic measures were: corticosteroid injection + hyaluronic acid injection > platelet-rich plasma injection + corticosteroid injection > corticosteroid injection > platelet-rich plasma injection > PRO > platelet-rich plasma injection + hyaluronic acid injection > hyaluronic acid injection.

CONCLUSION

we recommend that corticosteroid injections combined with hyaluronic acid injections can be used for the non-surgical conservative clinical management of rotator cuff injuries.

Real versus Sham Manual Therapy in Addition to Therapeutic Exercise in the Treatment of Non-Specific Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate if manual therapy added to a therapeutic exercise program produced greater improvements than a sham manual therapy added to same exercise program in patients with non-specific shoulder pain. This was an evaluator-blinded randomized controlled trial. Forty-five subjects were randomly allocated into one of three groups: manual therapy (glenohumeral mobilization technique and rib-cage technique); thoracic sham manual therapy (glenohumeral mobilization technique and rib-cage sham technique); or sham manual therapy (sham glenohumeral mobilization technique and rib-cage sham technique). All groups also received a therapeutic exercise program. Pain intensity, disability and pain-free active shoulder range of motion were measured post treatment and at 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. Mixed-model analyses of variance and post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were constructed for the analysis of the outcome measures. All groups reported improved pain intensity, disability and pain-free active shoulder range of motion. However, there were no between-group differences in these outcome measures. The addition of the manual therapy techniques applied in the present study to a therapeutic exercise protocol did not seem to add benefits to the management of subjects with non-specific shoulder pain.

Dosage of joint mobilisation for the management of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is the most common diagnosis of shoulder pain, which ranks as the third most common musculoskeletal disorder. The first-line treatment for patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is physiotherapy, and joint mobilisation is widely used in conjunction with other modalities. The type and dosage of joint mobilisations could influence treatment outcomes for patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, although research evidence is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) systematically search, identify and map the reported type and dosage of joint mobilisations used in previous studies for the management of patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain; and (2) summarise the rationale for adopting a specific joint mobilisation dosage.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and report the results as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. Two authors will independently screen and extract data from the six databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and SPORTDiscus, with publication date from their inceptions to 25 August 2021. A third author will be consulted if the two authors disagree about the inclusion of any study in the review. We will summarise the results using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this protocol. Mapping and summarising the reported type and dosage of joint mobilisations for patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain from previous studies will provide a foundation for further optimal selection of type and dosage of joint mobilisations for treating patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. The review is part of an ongoing research that focuses on joint mobilisation for patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. The results will be disseminated through presentations at academic conferences and a peer-reviewed publication.

Efficacy of myofascial therapy and kinesitherapy in improving function in shoulder pathology with prolonged immobilization: A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The best physiotherapeutic approach in shoulder pathology that generates prolonged immobilization is still uncertain. Kinesitherapy remains the most widely used option. Myofascial therapy is a therapeutic approach in which the aim is to release fascial tension and regain mobility although its efficacy in shoulder pathology has not been sufficiently studied. This Prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial in a university hospital setting aimed to compare the efficacy of myofascial therapy and kinesitherapy in improving function in shoulder pathology with prolonged immobilization.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to a control group or to the intervention group.Both groups completed a therapeutic exercise program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The QuickDash questionnaire was the primary outcome, Pain Visual Analog Scale and the Range Of Motion of the shoulder were the secondary outcomes. The outcomes were evaluated at baseline (T0), at 4 (T2), 8 (T2), and 12 weeks (T3) RESULTS: 44 participants were included. In the analysis of evolution over time, a significant improvement in functionality and range of motion measurements was observed in both groups (p < 0.05), although at 12 weeks only Myofasical Group achieved a clinically and statistically significant reduction in pain. Comparative analysis at 12 weeks revealed no statistically significant differences between the two therapies in the variables explored.

CONCLUSIONS

Both, myofascial therapy and kinesitherapy can improve function, mobility, and pain in patients with painful shoulder associated with prolonged immobilization, with no significant differences between therapies, although in the medium term only myofascial therapy achieves a clinically and statistically significant improvement in pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04944446.

The predictors of the use of complementary and alternative medicine among type 2 diabetes patients based on the health belief model

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with type 2 diabetes based on the health belief model (HBM).

Methods

This cross-sectional study was performed in 2019 (from April to September) on 837 type 2 diabetic patients by multi-stage sampling method. Valid and reliable tools (questionnaire of using CAM modalities based on the HBM, self-care behavior section, and use of CAM section) were used to collect data. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 24.

Results

Based on the results, the constructs of the HBM were able to predict 37% of the variance of behavior using CAM. Constructs of perceived threat, perceived barriers, and cues to action had the most significant effect on predicting the behavior of using CAM (p < 0.001). In this study, the mean (±SD) of patients' self-care behaviors were 26.72 (±3.21) (out of a score of 40). Based on the results of the Pearson correlation, a significant positive correlation was observed between perceived threat (r = 0.374) and cues to action (r = 0.303) with using CAM modalities (p < 0.001). There was also a significant negative correlation between perceived barriers and using of CAM (r = -0.589, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Based on the obtained results, the HBM is useful in predicting the use of CAM, and due to the significant impact constructs of perceived threat, perceived barriers, and cues to action, it is better to pay more attention to these constructs in educational programs for patients with type 2 diabetes.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

Background

A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial.

Objectives

We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Global summit

The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence.

Systematic review of the literature

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus.

Results

We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report.

Conclusion

Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness

Background

Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP).

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change.

Results

Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes.

Conclusions

The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another.

The bench-top accuracy of the VerteTrack spinal stiffness assessment device

BACKGROUND

The assessment of spinal stiffness by manual palpation in clinical settings has demonstrated both poor accuracy and reliability. More recently, mechanical methods for assessment of spinal stiffness have demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability. However, mechanical methods of spinal stiffness assessment can be expensive, time consuming and/or unsuited to clinical practice. While a new device has been designed to address these issues (VerteTrack), its benchtop performance remains unknown.

AIM

To measure the bench-top performance of VerteTrack.

METHODS

A series of laboratory-based experiments were conducted in February 2018 to investigate the accuracy (precision and bias) of load and displacement measurements obtained by VerteTrack and then were compared against an appropriate reference standard. Measurements of both multiple-level continuous assessment (multiple spinal levels measured), and single-level assessment (single spinal level measured) were performed on a viscoelastic foam medium (AIREX® balance beam, Switzerland) and the resulting stiffness calculated.

RESULTS

VerteTrack demonstrated high precision at all loads and displacements. There was minimal systematic measurement bias identified for applied versus reference load (mean bias = - 0.123 N; 95%CI - 0.182 to 0.428 N, p < .001), and no systematic measurement bias for measured versus reference displacement (mean difference = 0.02 mm; 95%CI - 0.09 to 0.14 mm, p < .001). The magnitude of stiffness obtained during multiple-level continuous assessment was on average 0.25 N/mm (2.79%) less than that for single-level assessment (95%CI - 0.67 to 0.17 N/mm, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

VerteTrack demonstrated high accuracy (high precision, low bias) under bench-top conditions. The difference in stiffness found between multiple versus single spinal levels should be considered in the research context, but is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The results of this study demonstrate that VerteTrack may be suitable for both single and multi-level spinal stiffness measurements in-vivo.

The effects of spinal manipulation on performance-related outcomes in healthy asymptomatic adult population: a systematic review of best evidence

Introduction

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for improving athletic performance in healthy athletes is unclear. Assessing the effect of SMT on other performance outcomes in asymptomatic populations may provide insight into the management of athletes where direct evidence may not be available. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on the effect of SMT on performance-related outcomes in asymptomatic adults.

Methods

MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from 1990 to March 23, 2018. Inclusion criteria was any study examining a performance-related outcome of SMT in asymptomatic adults. Methodological quality was assessed using the SIGN criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were considered scientifically admissible for a best evidence synthesis. We calculated the between group mean change and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Of 1415 articles screened, 20 studies had low risk of bias, seven were randomized crossover trials, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and three were RCT pilot trials. Four studies showed SMT had no effect on physiological parameters at rest or during exercise. There was no effect of SMT on scapular kinematics or transversus abdominus thickness. Three studies identified changes in muscle activation of the upper or lower limb, compared to two that did not. Five studies showed changes in range of motion (ROM). One study showed an increase lumbar proprioception and two identified changes in baropodometric variables after SMT. Sport-specific studies show no effect of SMT except for a small increase in basketball free-throw accuracy.

Conclusion

The preponderance of evidence suggests that SMT in comparison to sham or other interventions does not enhance performance-based outcomes in asymptomatic adult population. All studies are exploratory with immediate effects. In the few studies suggesting a positive immediate effect, the importance of such change is uncertain. Further high-quality performance specific studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0246-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Immediate Effects of Spinal Manipulation on Shoulder Motion Range and Pain in Individuals With Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Trial

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of thoracic spinal manipulation (SM) on shoulder pain and ranges of motion in individuals with shoulder pain.

Methods

The sample was composed of 60 individuals, randomly allocated into the manipulation group (n = 30), who received the SM, and the placebo group (n = 30) who received a placebo manipulation. Pain evaluation was performed using the visual analog scale, and evaluation of shoulder flexion and abduction ranges of motion was assessed using a goniometer pre- and post-intervention. The intervention was performed by either upper thoracic SM or a placebo manipulation.

Results

The manipulation group demonstrated increased flexion and abduction of the painful shoulder (P < .01) and increased abduction of the nonpainful shoulder (P = .03), but only the abduction of the painful shoulder reached the minimal detectable change. The placebo group showed a post-intervention increase in the flexion (P = .03) and abduction (P < .01) movement of the painful shoulder. Both groups presented a statistically significant reduction in post-intervention pain (P < .01), but not clinically significant.

Conclusion

Although the SM demonstrated a statistically significant difference for shoulder pain, this was not over the clinically meaningful change. Only the abduction of the painful shoulder reached the minimal detectable change.

Towards an integrated clinical framework for patient with shoulder pain

Background

Shoulder pain (SP) represents a common musculoskeletal condition that requires physical therapy care. Along the years, the usual evaluation strategies based on clinical tests and diagnostic imaging has been challenged. Clinical tests appear unable to clearly identify the structures that generated pain and interpretation of diagnostic imaging is still controversial. The current patho-anatomical diagnostic categories have demonstrated poor reliability and seem inadequate for the SP treatment.

Objectives

The present paper aims to (1) describe the different proposals of clinical approach to SP currently available in the literature; to (2) integrate these proposals in a single framework in order to help the management of SP.

Conclusion

The proposed clinical framework, based on a bio-psychosocial vision of health, integrates symptoms characteristics, pain mechanisms and expectations, preferences and psychosocial factors of patients that may guide physiotherapist to make a diagnostic triage and to choose the right treatment for the individual patient.

A systematic review of thrust manipulation combined with one conservative intervention for rotator cuff and related non-surgical shoulder conditions

OBJECTIVE

To determine effects of thrust manipulation plus one conservative intervention for non-surgical shoulder pain and disability due to rotator cuff dysfunction.

METHODS

This review followed PRISMA guidelines. The databases searched were PubMed, PEDro, ICL, CINAHL, and AMED. Included were randomized trials with at least one group assigned to receive thrust manipulation and one adjunct conservative therapy. The PEDro scale was used to assess methodological quality and GRADE for analysis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2088 articles with one meeting eligibility criteria. The trial examined thrust manipulation with exercise compared to sham. Statistically significant improvements in pain and disability were reported within but not between groups. Evidence quality according to the PEDro scale was good; GRADE was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Few trials have been conducted studying thrust manipulation plus another conservative intervention for rotator cuff conditions rendering available evidence of thrust manipulation plus exercise insufficient to determine effects of this combined treatment.