Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatrics - an international evidence-based position statement for physiotherapists.

INTRODUCTION: An international taskforce of clinician-scientists was formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy - International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) - to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions. METHOD: A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes). RESULTS: Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate.1. It is not recommended to perform:• Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants.• Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children.•Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media.2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising:• Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents;• Spinal mobilisation on children; or• Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only.3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available.Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined. CONCLUSION: Specific directives to guide physiotherapists' clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.

Perceived factors and barriers affecting physiotherapists' decision to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors and barriers, which affect the utilisation of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents. METHODS: Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics were invited to participate in a Delphi investigation using QualtricsⓇ. In Round-1 physiotherapists selected from a list of factors and barriers affecting their decision to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the paediatric population and had opportunity to add to the list. Round-2 asked respondents to select as many factors and barriers that they agreed with, resulting in a frequency count. The subset of responses to questions around barriers and facilitators are the focus of this study. RESULTS: Twelve physiotherapists completed both rounds of the survey. Medical diagnosis, mechanism of injury, patient presentation, tolerance to handling, and therapist's knowledge of techniques were the dominant deciding factors to use spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents across spinal levels. More than 90% of the respondents selected manipulation as inappropriate among infants as their top barrier. Additional dominant barriers to using spinal manipulation among infants and children identified by ≥ 75% of the respondents included fear of injuring the patient, fear of litigation, lack of communication, lack of evidence, lack of guardian consent, and precision of the examination to inform clinical reasoning. CONCLUSION: This international survey provides much needed insight regarding the factors and barriers physiotherapists should consider when contemplating the utilisation of spinal mobilisation and manipulation in the paediatric population.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents: an international Delphi survey of expert physiotherapists.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. METHODS: Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included:Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels.Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic).Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels. CONCLUSION: Consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.

Psychometric measurement properties of patient-reported and observer-reported outcome measures for spinal mobilisations and manipulation on paediatric subjects with diverse medical conditions: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable, valid, and responsive outcomes is foundational to address concerns about the risks and benefits of performing spinal manipulation and mobilization in pediatric populations. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on measurement properties from cohort/case-control/cross-sectional/randomized studies on patient-reported (SQLI - Scoliosis Quality of Life Index; VAS-Visual Analog Scale; PAQLQ - Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), observer-reported (Crying Diaries; ATEC - Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist) and mixed (PedsQL - Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory) outcome measurements identified through a scoping review on manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases, clinicaltrial.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 202221 October 2022. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Qualitative synthesis was performed using COSMIN and Cochrane GRADE methodology to establish the certainty of evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), indeterminate (?). RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2 SQLI for scoliosis; 1 VAS - perceived influence of exertion or movement/position on low back problems; 1 PAQLQ for asthma; 1 Crying Diaries for infantile colic; 8 ATEC for autism; 5 PedsQL for cerebral palsy/scoliosis/healthy) with 9653 participants were selected. ATEC and PedsQL had overall sufficient (+) measurement properties with moderate certainty evidence. PAQLQ had indeterminate measurement properties with moderate certainty evidence. Very low certainty of evidence identified measurement properties to be indeterminate (?) for SQLI, Crying Diaries, and VAS- perceived influence of exertion or movement/position on low back problems. CONCLUSION: ATEC for autism and PedsQL for asthma may be a suitable clinical outcome assessment (COA); additional validation studies on responsiveness and the minimal important difference are needed. Other COA require further validation.

Psychometric properties of clinician-reported and performance-based outcomes cited in a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations with diverse medical conditions: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Risks and benefits of spinal manipulations and mobilization in pediatric populations are a concern to the public, policymakers, and international physiotherapy governing organizations. Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) used in the literature on these topics are contentious. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the quality of clinician-reported and performance-based COAs identified by a scoping review on spinal manipulation and mobilization for pediatric populations across diverse medical conditions. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases, clinicaltrials.gov and Ebsco Open Dissertations were searched up to 21 October 2022. Qualitative synthesis was performed using Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to select studies, perform data extraction, and assess risk of bias. Data synthesis used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) to determine the certainty of the evidence and overall rating: sufficient (+), insufficient (-), inconsistent (±), or indeterminate (?). RESULTS: Four of 17 identified COAs (77 studies, 9653 participants) with supporting psychometric research were classified as:Performance-based outcome measures: AIMS - Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n = 51); or:Clinician-reported outcome measures: LATCH - Latch, Audible swallowing, Type of nipple, Comfort, Hold (n = 10),Cobb Angle (n = 15),Postural Assessment (n = 1).AIMS had an overall sufficient (+) rating with high certainty evidence, and LATCH had an overall sufficient (+) rating with moderate certainty of evidence. For the Cobb Angle and Postural Assessment, the overall rating was indeterminate (?) with low or very low certainty of evidence, respectively. CONCLUSION: The AIMS and LATCH had sufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of spinal manipulation and mobilization for certain pediatric medical conditions. Further validation studies are needed for other COAs.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Neuropathic Pain Associated or Not with a Nociplastic Condition.

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) has been traditionally classified as primarily a neuropathic condition with or without pain. Precision medicine refers to an evidence-based method of grouping patients based on their susceptibility to biology, prognosis of a particular disease, or in their response to a specific treatment, and tailoring specific treatments accordingly. In 2021, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) proposed a grading system for classifying patients into nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic phenotypes. This position paper presents data supporting the possibility of subgrouping individuals with specific CTS related-pain into nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic or mixed-type phenotypes. Carpal tunnel syndrome is a neuropathic condition but can also be comorbid with a nociplastic pain condition. The presence of extra-median symptoms and the development of facilitated pain processing seem to be signs suggesting that specific CTS cases can be classified as the nociplastic pain phenotype. The clinical responses of therapeutic approaches for the management of CTS are inconclusive. Accordingly, the ability to identify the predominant pain phenotype in patients with CTS could likely be problematic for producing efficient treatment outcomes. In fact, the presence of a nociplastic or mixed-type pain phenotype would explain the lack of clinical effect of treatment interventions targeting the carpal tunnel area selectively. We propose a clinical decision tree by using the 2021 IASP classification criteria for identifying the predominant pain phenotype in people with CTS-related pain, albeit CTS being a priori a neuropathic pain condition. The identification of a nociplastic-associated condition requires a more nuanced multimodal treatment approach to achieve better treatment outcomes.

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4th February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition. INTERVENTION: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored. METHOD: Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for 'no significant effect' of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition. CONCLUSION: Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.

The Effectiveness of Neural Mobilization for Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Study Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Objectives To determine the efficacy of neural mobilization (NM) for musculoskeletal conditions with a neuropathic component. Background Neural mobilization, or neurodynamics, is a movement-based intervention aimed at restoring the homeostasis in and around the nervous system. The current level of evidence for NM is largely unknown. Methods A database search for randomized trials investigating the effect of NM on neuromusculoskeletal conditions was conducted, using standard methods for article identification, selection, and quality appraisal. Where possible, studies were pooled for meta-analysis, with pain, disability, and function as the primary outcomes. Results Forty studies were included in this review, of which 17 had a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses could only be performed on self-reported outcomes. For chronic low back pain, disability (Oswestry Disability Questionnaire [0-50]: mean difference, -9.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.50, -4.01; P<.001) and pain (intensity [0-10]: mean difference, -1.78; 95% CI: -2.55, -1.01; P<.001) improved following NM. For chronic neck-arm pain, pain improved (intensity: mean difference, -1.89; 95% CI: -3.14, -0.64; P<.001) following NM. For most of the clinical outcomes in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome, NM was not effective (P>.11) but showed some positive neurophysiological effects (eg, reduced intraneural edema). Due to a scarcity of studies or conflicting results, the effect of NM remains uncertain for various conditions, such as postoperative low back pain, cubital tunnel syndrome, and lateral epicondylalgia. Conclusion This review reveals benefits of NM for back and neck pain, but the effect of NM on other conditions remains unclear. Due to the limited evidence and varying methodological quality, conclusions may change over time. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(9):593-615. Epub 13 Jul 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7117.

The effectiveness of neural mobilizations in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify the effectiveness of neural mobilization techniques in various neuro-musculoskeletal conditions. Outcomes will be analyzed in terms of subgroups such as low back pain, cervico-brachial pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders were ranked as the second largest contributor to disability worldwide in a study on the global burden of disease. Low back pain and neck pain contributed to 70% of disability in this comprehensive population-based study. Low back pain and neck pain are multifactorial, with heterogeneous populations. It has been proposed that targeting subgroups of patients may result in better treatment outcomes. Neck pain associated with upper limb pain is prevalent. These patients are more disabled than patients with neck pain alone. Similarly, low back pain with leg pain is a common phenomenon and is acknowledged as a predictor for chronicity.Neuropathic pain is often associated with musculoskeletal complaints including low back pain, whiplash associated disorders (WAD) and acute or chronic radiculopathy, and can be a feature of syndromes such as cervico-brachial pain syndrome. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, neuropathic pain can be described as "pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system." Leg pain associated with back pain can be caused by central sensitization, denervation, nerve sensitization or somatically referred pain. In patients with WAD, neck pain is the most common symptom, but upper limb pain, weakness, paraesthesia and anesthesia are often present. Other conditions in which neural tissue is thought to contribute to the clinical picture are, for instance, lateral epicondalalgia and carpal tunnel syndrome.Management strategies for back pain and neck pain are often multimodal. However, the evidence for effective treatment of nerve related pain is lacking. Neural mobilizations are often used to affect the neural structures in conditions with signs of neural involvement or neural mechano-sensitivity. Neural mobilizations are defined as interventions aimed at affecting the neural structures or surrounding tissue (interface) directly or indirectly through manual techniques or exercise. Neural mobilizations have been studied in various populations such as low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, lateral epicondalalgia and cervico-brachial pain. Neural mobilization techniques studied include cervical lateral glides for cervico-brachial pain, nerve gliding exercises for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical lateral glides for lateral epicondalalgia and the slump as a neural mobilization technique in the treatment of low back pain. No specialized equipment is needed in the performance of neural mobilization techniques, which contributes to its popularity.Neural mobilization is said to affect the axoplasmic flow, movement of the nerve and its connective tissue and the circulation of the nerve by alteration of the pressure in the nervous system and dispersion of intraneural oedema. Neural mobilization decreases the excitability of dorsal horn cells. Neural mobilizations can be performed in various ways using passive movement, manual mobilization of the nerve or interface, and exercise. The aim of neural mobilization is to restore the mechanical and neurophysiological function of the nerve.Only one systematic review on the effectiveness of neural mobilizations could be identified in the literature. Since this review, several more studies have been published on this subject. The authors hypothesize that a review of the more recent literature (2008-2014) may confirm positive support for the use of neural mobilizations for neuro-musculoskeletal complaints as previously seen by Ellis and Hing. This review aims to include a meta-analysis and subgrouping of conditions which will be an extension of the previous review by Ellis and Hing. The outcomes of this systematic review may be used to inform clinical practice and the development of best practice guidelines.