Beliefs and practice patterns in spinal manipulation and spinal motion palpation reported by canadian manipulative physiotherapists

Beliefs and practice patterns of spinal thrust manipulation for mechanical low back pain of physical therapists in the state of Minnesota

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions and utilization of spinal thrust manipulation (STM) techniques of physical therapists who treat patients with low back pain (LBP) in the State of Minnesota. A secondary purpose was to investigate differences between physical therapists who perform STM and those who do not.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was utilized through the completion of an electronic survey. 74 respondents completed the survey. Descriptive measures were recorded as frequencies for categorical data or mean ± standard deviation for continuous data. For between-group comparisons, chi-square analyses were used for categorical items of nominal or ordinal data and t-tests were utilized for continuous data. The alpha level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULT

60.2% of respondents reported using STM when treating patients with LBP. 69.9% of respondents utilize a classification system. 76.7% of individuals answered correctly regarding the Minnesota State practice act. Of those who use STM, 81.8% utilize a Clinical Prediction Rule. Respondents who use STM were more likely to have a specialist certification (chi-square = 6.471, p = 0.011) and to have completed continuing education courses on manual therapy (chi-square = 4.736, p = 0.030).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists who perform STM are more likely to have a better understanding of their state practice act, be board certified, and have completed continuing education in manual therapy.

Incomplete reporting of manual therapy interventions and a lack of clinician and setting diversity in clinical trials for neck pain limits replication and real-world translation. A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a leading cause of disability, and manual therapy (MT) is a common intervention used across disciplines and settings to treat it. While there is consistent support for MT in managing neck pain, questions remain about the feasibility of incorporating MT from research into clinical practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the adequacy of MT intervention descriptions and the variability in clinician and setting for MT delivery in trials for neck pain.

METHODS

Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, PEDRo, and the Cochrane Central Registry for Controlled Trials were searched for clinical trials published from January 2010 to November 2021. A 11-item tool modified from the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template was used to assess appropriateness of intervention reporting. Clinicians, subclassifications of neck pain, and clinical settings were also extracted.

RESULTS

113 trials were included. A low percentage of studies provided the recommended level of detail in the description of how MT was delivered (4.4%), while 39.0% included no description at all. Just over half of trials included clinician's qualifications (58.4%), dose of MT (59.3%), and occurrence of adverse events (55.8%). The proportion of trials with clinicians delivering MT were physical therapists (77.9%), chiropractors (10.6%), and osteopaths (2.7%).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

These results reveal incomplete reporting of essential treatment parameters, and a lack of clinician diversity. To foster reproducibility, researchers should report detailed descriptions of MT interventions. Future research should incorporate a variety of MT practitioners to improve generalizability.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Inter-rater Accuracy and Reliability of a Palpation Protocol of the C7 Spinous Process Comprising a Combination of 3 Traditional Palpation Techniques

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and intrarater reliability of a palpatory protocol based on a combination of 3 palpatory methods to identify both the C7 spinous process (C7 SP) and the factors that affect the errors and inaccuracy of palpation.

METHODS

Twenty-five women between the ages of 18 and 60 years were submitted to a palpation protocol of the C7 SP, and a radiopaque marker was fixed on the skin at the possible location of the vertebrae. A radiograph and a photograph of the cervical spine were obtained in the same posture by a first rater. A second rater performed the same palpation protocol and took a second photograph. The accuracy and measurement error of the palpation protocol of C7 SP were assessed through radiographic images. The inter-rater reliability was estimated by the interclass correlation coefficient and assessed using photographs of each rater. The Pearson's correlation coefficients (r), the Fisher exact test, and the χ² test were used to identify the factors associated with the error and inaccuracy of palpation.

RESULTS

Accuracy of the C7 palpation was 76% with excellent reliability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.99). There was a moderate correlation between weight and the measurement of palpation error (r = -0.6; P = .003). One hundred percent of inaccuracy palpation was related to the increased soft-tissue thickness (P = .005) in the cervical region.

CONCLUSION

The palpation protocol described in this study was accurate and presented excellent reliability in identifying the C7 SP. Increased weight and dorsocervical fat pad were associated to error and palpation inaccuracy, respectively.

Assessing Cranial Nerves in Physical Therapy Practice: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey and Implication for Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Serious pathologies of the neck can potentially result in cranial nerve palsy. Knowledge about cranial nerve examination (CNE) seems sparse, and its use is still unknown. We aim to investigate the knowledge, skills, and utilization of CNE of Italian physiotherapists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey.

RESULTS

396 completed the survey, reaching the required sample size. Although Italian physiotherapists consider CNE relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 ± 2.0), over half of all responders (n = 229 (57.8%)) were not trained in the fundamentals and around a third did not use it in their daily practice (n = 138 (34.8%)). Additionally, participants were unconfident and insecure in conducting (n = 152 (38.4%) and n = 147 (37.1%)), interpreting (n = 140 (35.4%) and n = 164 (41.4%)), and managing the CNE (n = 141 (35.6%) and n = 154 (38.9%)). Possessing a musculoskeletal specialization was associated with an increased value attributed to clinical practice guidelines and reduced the lack of confidence in conducting, interpreting, and managing the CNE (respectively, n = 35 (25.5%), p = 0.0001; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002; n = 32 (23.4%) p = 0.0002). Working in a direct access setting significantly increased the considered relevance of guidelines and the concerns about arterial (p = 0.004) and other serious pathologies (p = 0.021). Pain and visual disturbances were considered the main indicators to CNE, demonstrating limited knowledge of signs and symptoms' indicating CNE. Participants considered specific training in CNE as relevant (mean ± SD = 7.6/10 = 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

a substantial proportion of Italian physiotherapists are not schooled in the fundamentals of cranial nerve examination. Given the number of physiotherapists who work in first contact roles, this is a professional concern.

Do physical therapists follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions? Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Physicians often refer patients with musculoskeletal conditions to physical therapy. However, it is unclear to what extent physical therapists' treatment choices align with the evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentage of physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions agree with management recommendations in evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

We performed searches in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Scopus and Web of Science combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' from the earliest record to April 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes and other methods (eg, audits of billing codes, clinical observation) were eligible for inclusion.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Using medians and IQRs, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who chose treatments that were recommended, not recommended and had no recommendation, and summarised the percentage of physical therapy treatments provided for various musculoskeletal conditions within the categories of recommended, not recommended and no recommendation. Results were stratified by condition and how treatment choices were assessed (surveys of physical therapists vs audits of clinical notes).

RESULTS

We included 94 studies. For musculoskeletal conditions, the median percentage of physical therapists who chose recommended treatments was 54% (n=23 studies; surveys completed by physical therapists) and the median percentage of patients that received recommended physical therapy-delivered treatments was 63% (n=8 studies; audits of clinical notes). For treatments not recommended, these percentages were 43% (n=37; surveys) and 27% (n=20; audits). For treatments with no recommendation, these percentages were 81% (n=37; surveys) and 45% (n=31; audits).

CONCLUSIONS

Many physical therapists seem not to follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions. There is considerable scope to increase use of recommended treatments and reduce use of treatments that are not recommended.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094979.

Spinal manipulation after multiple fusions in an adult with scoliosis: a case report

BACKGROUND

Spinal fusion (SF)is a common surgical intervention for individuals with idiopathic scoliosis. However, individuals may experience continued pain and disability from suspected mechanical dysfunction.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this case report was to describe how specific thrust manipulation (TM) was used to treat a patient with scoliosis after multilevel SF. The 25-year-old female patient presented with left-sided pain in the rib, thoracic, and lumbar and sacroiliac joint regions that had been aggravated by trail running. After clearance from her surgeon, physical therapy examination and subsequent diagnosis were consistent with mechanical dysfunction of the ribs, lumbar spine, and sacroiliac joint causing decreased ability to participate in high-level activities, such as running.

OUTCOMES

The patient was treated for eight visits her 4 months with specific TM, movement analysis, and physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises. Pain and function were assessed with the Trunk Appearance Perception scale (TAPS), Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and spirometry. Pain and function improved during treatment, but outcomes for the ODI and spirometry remained the same.

DISCUSSION

The current case report suggests specific TM to areas outside of the fused spinal segments may be beneficial for decreasing pain and improving functional activities and participation levels. However, more research is needed to verify the efficacy of this treatment in clinical practice.

Exploring the teaching and learning of clinical reasoning, risks, and benefits of cervical spine manipulation

The aim of this study was to examine how risks and benefits of cervical spine manipulation (CSM) were framed and discussed in the context of mentorship and their impact on the perception of safe practice of CSM in clinical physiotherapy settings. A multi-method qualitative approach was employed, including a document analysis of established educational guidelines, observations of mentoring sessions, and individual face-to-face interviews with five mentees in the process of learning CSM, and four mentors with Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) certification. Results demonstrated that participants' clinical decision-making processes to perform CSM were primarily oriented to the mitigation of risk. Achieving proficiency in the "science" of clinical reasoning and the "art" of "feel" related to mastering technical skills were viewed as means to mitigating risk and enhancing confidence to use CSM safely in clinical practice. While the "art" of technical skill mastery was of high importance to mentees and considered important to developing competency in performing CSM, it was discussed as distinct from their clinical reasoning processes. Thus, promoting a more balanced and integrated use of the "art" and "science" of safe practice for CSM in OMPT training may result in greater confidence and judicious use of CSM by physiotherapists.

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

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists (PTs) use a range of manual therapy techniques developed to an advanced level through postgraduate orthopaedic manipulative physical therapy (OMPT) programmes. The aim of this study was to describe the adverse effects experienced by students after having techniques performed on them as part of their OMPT training.

DESIGN

A descriptive online survey of current students and recent graduates (≤5 years)m of OMPT programmes across the 22 Member Organisations of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 1640 respondents across 22 countries (1263 graduates, 377 students. Some 60% of respondents reported never having experienced adverse effects during their manual therapy training. Of the 40% who did, 66.4% reported neck pain, 50.9% headache and 32% low back pain. Most reports of neck pain started after a manipulation and/or mobilisation, of which 53.4% lasted ≤24 h, 38.1% > 24 h but <3 months and 13.7% still experienced neck pain to date. A small percentage of respondents (3.3%) reported knowing of a fellow student experiencing a major adverse effect.

CONCLUSION

Mild to moderate adverse effects after practising manual therapy techniques are commonly reported, but usually resolve within 24 h. However, this survey has identified the reported occurrence of major adverse effects that warrant further investigation.

Core and Complementary Chiropractic: Lowering Barriers to Patient Utilization of Services

OBJECTIVE

The use of chiropractic services has stalled while interest in accessing manipulation services is rising. The purpose of this paper is to consider this dilemma in the context of the dynamics of professional socialization, surveys of public attitudes, and a potential strategic action.

DISCUSSION

This is a reflection work grounded in the literature on professional socialization and the attitudes held regarding chiropractic in modern society, to include its members, and in original data on training programs. Data were interpreted on the background of the authors' cross-cultural experiences spanning patient care, research, education, and interprofessional collaboration. Recommendation on a strategic action to counter barriers in patient referrals was synthesized. Professional socialization is the process by which society enables professional privilege. Illustration of typical and divergent professional socialization models emerged that explain cognitive dissonance toward the profession. Questions of trust are commensurate with the experiences during patient encounters rather than with a common identity for the profession. Diversity among encounters perpetuates the uncertainty that affects referral sources. Commonality as an anchor for consistent professional identity and socialization through the content of core chiropractic, defined by training and practice, offers a means to offset uncertainty. Complementary chiropractic, analogous to complementary medicine, provides an outlet under professional socialization for the interests to explore additional methods of care.

CONCLUSION

The practice workplace is an effective lever for altering barriers to the use of services. Clarifying rhetoric through conceptualization of core and complementary practices simplifies the socialization dynamic. Further, it takes advantage of accepted cultural semantics in meaningful analogy while continuing to empower practical diversity in care delivery in response to evolving scientific evidence.

Clinical practice in line with evidence? A survey among primary care physiotherapists in western Sweden

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based practice is becoming increasingly important in primary care physiotherapy. Clinical practice needs to reflect current best evidence and be concordant with evidence-based clinical guidelines. There is limited knowledge about therapeutic interventions used in primary care physiotherapy in Sweden. The objectives were to examine preferred treatment interventions reported by publicly employed physiotherapists in primary care for three common musculoskeletal disorders (low back pain, neck pain and subacromial pain), the extent to which these interventions were supported by evidence, and associations with demographic variables.

METHODS

419 physiotherapists in primary care in western Sweden were surveyed using a validated web-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 271 respondents (65%). Median number of interventions reported was 7 (range 1-16). The most common treatment interventions across the three conditions were advice on posture (reported by 82-94%), advice to stay active (86-92%), and different types of exercise (65-92%). Most of these interventions were supported by evidence. However, interventions with insufficient evidence, such as advice on posture, TENS and aquatic exercise, were also used by 29-96%. Modalities such as laser therapy and ultrasound were sparingly used (<5%), which is in line with evidence. For neck pain, use of evidence-based interventions was associated with gender and for subacromial pain, with work experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Advice and exercise therapy were the interventions most frequently reported across the three diagnoses, illustrating an active treatment strategy. While most reported interventions are supported by evidence, interventions with unclear or no evidence of effect were also used to a high extent.

Indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain: protocol of an inter-examiner reliability study among manual therapists

BACKGROUND

Manual spinal joint mobilisations and manipulations are widely used treatments in patients with neck and low-back pain. Inter-examiner reliability of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the cervical and lumbar spine, perceived as important for indicating these interventions, is poor within a univariable approach. The diagnostic process as a whole in daily practice in manual therapy has a multivariable character, however, in which the use and interpretation of passive intervertebral motion assessment depend on earlier results from the diagnostic process. To date, the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of a multivariable diagnostic decision-making process in patients with neck or low-back pain is unknown.

METHODS

This study will be conducted as a repeated-measures design in which 14 pairs of manual therapists independently examine a consecutive series of a planned total of 165 patients with neck or low-back pain presenting in primary care physiotherapy. Primary outcome measure is therapists' decision about whether or not manual spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations, or both, are indicated in each patient, alone or as part of a multimodal treatment. Therapists will largely be free to conduct the full diagnostic process based on their formulated examination objectives. For each pair of therapists, 2×2 tables will be constructed and reliability for the dichotomous decision will be expressed using Cohen's kappa. In addition, observed agreement, prevalence of positive decisions, prevalence index, bias index, and specific agreement in positive and negative decisions will be calculated. Univariable logistic regression analysis of concordant decisions will be performed to explore which demographic, professional, or clinical factors contributed to reliability.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide an estimate of the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain based on a multivariable diagnostic reasoning and decision-making process, as opposed to reliability of individual tests. As such, it is proposed as an initial step toward the development of an alternative approach to current classification systems and prediction rules for identifying those patients with spinal disorders that may show a better response to manual therapy which can be incorporated in randomised clinical trials. Potential methodological limitations of this study are discussed.

Determining adverse events in patients with neck pain receiving orthopaedic manual physiotherapy: a pilot and feasibility study

PURPOSE

To pilot and determine the feasibility of estimating adverse events in patients with neck pain treated with cervical manipulation/mobilization by Canadian orthopaedic manual physiotherapists (OMPTs) using an online data-collection system to provide estimates for a future larger multi-centre international study.

METHODS

In a prospective multi-site two-group cohort study, participants received usual care and either (a) combined manipulation and mobilization or (b) mobilization only. Study feasibility objectives and criteria for success were set a priori. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were recruited from 6 of 16 participating centres, 17 to the mobilization group and 3 to the combined group. Barriers to data collection included low recruitment, difficulties in using the online data-collection system, and clinicians' and patients' being too busy to participate. Missing data for the primary outcome averaged 28.5%. A total of 69 symptom occurrences were reported during the treatment phase, all benign and transient. Most began within 0-12 hours after treatment (66/69, 95.6%) and lasted for 0-2 days (56/69, 81.2%). Kappa estimates of agreement between therapists and patients on reporting of adverse symptoms across visits 1-5 was substantial (κ=0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84; p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates substantial challenges in conducting a large multi-centre trial. Brief, benign, and transient adverse events were common; no substantial adverse events were observed.