Reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess posture, pain location, and cervical spine mobility in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: Part 4. A systematic review from the cervical assessment and diagnosis research evaluation (CADRE) collaboration

PURPOSE

To determine the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess posture, pain location, and cervical spine mobility in adults with grades I-IV neck pain and associated disorders (NAD).

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases to update the systematic review of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Eligible reliability and validity studies were critically appraised using modified versions of the QAREL and QUADAS-2 instruments, respectively. Evidence from low risk of bias studies were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles.

RESULTS

We screened 14302 articles, critically appraised 46 studies, and found 32 low risk of bias articles (14 reliability and 18 validity studies). We found preliminary evidence of: 1) reliability of visual inspection, aided with devices (CROM and digital caliper) to assess head posture; 2) reliability and validity of soft tissue palpation to locate tender/trigger points in muscles; 3) reliability and validity of joint motion palpation to assess stiffness and pain provocation in combination; and 4) range of motion tests using visual estimation (in cervical extension only) or devices (digital caliper, goniometer, inclinometer) to assess cervical mobility.

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to support the reliability and validity of clinical tests to assess head posture, pain location and cervical mobility in adults with NAD grades I-III. More advanced validity studies are needed to inform the clinical utility of tests used to evaluate patients with NAD.

Clinical practice guidelines for the noninvasive management of low back pain: A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

We conducted a systematic review of guidelines on the management of low back pain (LBP) to assess their methodological quality and guide care. We synthesized guidelines on the management of LBP published from 2005 to 2014 following best evidence synthesis principles. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, DARE, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Index to Chiropractic Literature and grey literature. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using AGREE II criteria. We screened 2504 citations; 13 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal, and 10 had a low risk of bias. According to high-quality guidelines: (1) all patients with acute or chronic LBP should receive education, reassurance and instruction on self-management options; (2) patients with acute LBP should be encouraged to return to activity and may benefit from paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or spinal manipulation; (3) the management of chronic LBP may include exercise, paracetamol or NSAIDs, manual therapy, acupuncture, and multimodal rehabilitation (combined physical and psychological treatment); and (4) patients with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy may benefit from spinal manipulation. Ten guidelines were of high methodological quality, but updating and some methodological improvements are needed. Overall, most guidelines target nonspecific LBP and recommend education, staying active/exercise, manual therapy, and paracetamol or NSAIDs as first-line treatments. The recommendation to use paracetamol for acute LBP is challenged by recent evidence and needs to be revisited.

SIGNIFICANCE

Most high-quality guidelines recommend education, staying active/exercise, manual therapy and paracetamol/NSAIDs as first-line treatments for LBP. Recommendation of paracetamol for acute LBP is challenged by recent evidence and needs updating.

Exercise in the treatment of chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to determine how effective exercise is in the treatment of chronic pain.

METHODOLOGY

The literature search identified three systematic reviews and three randomized controlled trials addressing the effectiveness of exercise for the management of chronic low back pain, one systematic review and one randomized controlled trial addressing chronic neck pain, two systematic reviews and three randomized controlled trials addressing upper extremity pain, and three randomized controlled trials addressing fibromyalgia.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials were better than systematic reviews for providing details of patient subgroups and of exercise programs, but there was a general lack of evaluation of the different subgroups. The studies also failed to assess the different duration and frequency of exercise programs. For chronic low back pain, a systematic review and two of the three randomized controlled trials found exercise to be effective: other findings were uncertain. For chronic neck pain, both the systematic review and the randomized controlled trial provided generally uncertain results, with only one positive-result study in the systematic review. For upper extremity, positive effects of exercise were shown for chronic lateral epicondylitis and for specific soft tissue shoulder disorders. For fibromyalgia, two of the three randomized controlled trials showed effectiveness of exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise is effective for the management of chronic low back pain for up to 1 year after treatment and for fibromyalgia syndrome for up to 6 months (level 2). There is conflicting evidence (level 4b) about which exercise program is effective for chronic low back pain. For chronic neck pain and for chronic soft tissue shoulder disorders and chronic lateral epicondylitis, evidence of effectiveness of exercise is limited (level 3).

Manipulation and mobilization in the treatment of chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to determine how effective manipulation and mobilization are in the treatment of chronic pain.

METHODOLOGY

The literature search identified three systematic reviews addressing the effectiveness of manipulation and mobilization for low back pain, two systematic reviews addressing chronic neck pain, three randomized controlled trials addressing post-traumatic headache and neck pain, and one systematic review and one randomized controlled trial addressing upper limb (including shoulder) disorders.

RESULTS

Most studies lacked details of the specific interventions, which were often combined with other interventions, and this could have enhanced or masked effectiveness. Subject groups were heterogeneous, and investigators did not indicate effectiveness for subgroups. Systematic reviews of chronic low back pain found evidence of effectiveness compared with placebo and with usual care. Evidence from the systematic reviews for chronic neck pain and from the systematic review and randomized controlled trial for chronic soft tissue shoulder disorders was contradictory. For post-traumatic headache, the randomized controlled trials reported a time-limited positive benefit or no different effects than comparison treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Manipulation and mobilization are more effective for chronic low back pain than placebos or usual care for up to 6 months (level 2). For chronic post-traumatic headache, evidence of effectiveness of manipulation and mobilization is limited (level 3). Manipulation and mobilization may or may not be effective for either chronic neck pain or chronic soft tissue shoulder disorders (level 4b).

Psychometric properties of the neck disability index

OBJECTIVES

To determine if a response set bias existed, to assess the factor structure and internal consistency, and to compare Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores with visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain intensity.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although neck pain is a common problem, few instruments exist to assess the disability that accompanies it. The NDI is a 10 item paper-and-pencil measure of disability resulting from neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross sectional study evaluating the psychometric properties of the NDI.

METHODS

Seven modified versions of the original NDI were developed to assess the presence or absence of response set bias using a one-way analysis of variance. Internal consistency was measured by a Cronbach alpha, two factor analyses (exploratory and confirmatory) were conducted to examine the structure of the NDI and stepwise regression analysis was used to examine the variables most predictive of VAS scores.

RESULTS

Results from 237 neck pain patients show that the responses given on the eight versions of the NDI are a function of the content and not of the format in which the items are presented. The NDI has stable psychometric characteristics, evidenced by high internal consistency (alpha = .92). In both factor analyses, one factor was extracted.

CONCLUSIONS

The NDI possesses stable psychometric properties and provides an objective means of assessing the disability of patients suffering from neck pain.

The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity

Injuries to the cervical spine, especially those involving the soft tissues, represent a significant source of chronic disability. Methods of assessment for such disability, especially those targeted at activities of daily living which are most affected by neck pain, are few in number. A modification of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Index was conducted producing a 10-item scaled questionnaire entitled the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Face validity was ensured through peer-review and patient feedback sessions. Test-retest reliability was conducted on an initial sample of 17 consecutive "whiplash"-injured patients in an outpatient clinic, resulting in good statistical significance (Pearson's r = 0.89, p less than or equal to .05). The alpha coefficients were calculated from a pool of questionnaires completed by 52 such subjects resulting in a total index alpha of 0.80, with all items having individual alpha scores above 0.75. Concurrent validity was assessed in two ways. First, on a smaller subset of 10 patients who completed a course of conservative care, the percentage of change on NDI scores before and after treatment was compared to visual analogue scale scores of percent of perceived improvement in activity levels. These scores correlated at 0.60. Secondly, in a larger subset of 30 subjects, NDI scores were compared to scores on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, with similar moderately high correlations (0.69-0.70). While the sample size of some of the analyses is somewhat small, this study demonstrated that the NDI achieved a high degree of reliability and internal consistency.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)