One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. METHODS: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSION: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was performed according to the COSMIN guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO - ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified GRADE approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM. RESULTS: The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use. CONCLUSION: No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.

Pain and disability were related to Y-balance test but not with proprioception acuity and single-leg triple-hop test in patients with patellofemoral pain: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Patellofemoral pain is a common complaint between physically active subjects. Patients with patellofemoral pain present limitations to performing daily activities. Pain could alter proprioceptive acuity and lead to movement impairment. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of pain and disability with proprioception acuity and physical performance in patients with patellofemoral pain. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with patellofemoral pain [age 31.15 (5.91) years; 30 (62.50%) males] were recruited. Data collected included pain intensity, pain duration, disability, joint position sense (JPS) test at 20° and 60° of knee flexion, and physical performance tests (Single-Leg Triple-Hop Test and Y- Balance Test). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed to assess the relationship between the variables. RESULTS: Pain intensity was correlated with Y-Balance Test posteromedial component (rs = -0.32, 95%CI = -0.55 to -0.03, p = 0.029) and the composite score (rs = -0.35, 95%CI = -0.58, -0.07, p = 0.015). Pain duration was correlated with Y-Balance Test posterolateral component (rs = -0.23, 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.01, p = 0.047). Disability was correlated with Y-Balance Test posteromedial component (rs = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.62, p = 0.004). Pain and disability were not correlated with JPS and the Single-Leg Triple-Hop Test. CONCLUSION: Pain and disability were related to Y-Balance Test but not to proprioceptive acuity and Single-Leg Triple-Hop Test in patients with patellofemoral pain.

Uncovering emotional and network dynamics in the speech of patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Computational linguistics allows an understanding of language structure and different forms of expression of patients' perceptions. AIMS: The aims of this study were (i) to carry out a descriptive analysis of the discourse of people with chronic low back pain using sentiment analysis (SA) and network analysis; (ii) to verify the correlation between patients' profiles, pain intensity and disability levels with SA and network analysis; and (iii) to identify clusters in our sample according to language and SA using an unsupervised machine learning technique. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a qualitative study including participants with chronic non-specific low back pain. We used the data related to participants' feelings when they received the diagnosis. The SA and network analysis were performed using the Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner, and the Speech Graph, respectively. Clustering was performed using the K-means algorithm. RESULTS: In the SA, the mean composite score was -0.31 (Sd. = 0.58). Most participants presented a negative discourse (n = 41; 72%). Word Count (WC) and Largest Strongly connected Component (LSC) positively correlated with education. No statistically significant correlations were observed between pain intensity, disability levels, SA, and network analysis. Two clusters were identified in our sample. CONCLUSION: The SA showed that participants reported their feeling when describing the moment of the diagnosis using sentences with negative discourse. We did not find a statistically significant correlation between pain intensity, disability levels, SA, and network analysis. Education level presented positive correlation with WC and LSC.

Falta de conhecimento sobre os fatores de risco não ocupacionais da dor lombar entre profissionais de saúde ocupacional brasileiros: um estudo observacional transversal / Lack of knowledge about non-occupational low back pain risk factors among brazilian occupational health professionals: a cross-sectional observational study

INTRODUÇÃO: A dor lombar possui alta prevalência, sendo uma das principais causas de incapacidade no Brasil e no mundo. A dor lombar apresenta etiologia multifatorial, sendo extremamente comum em trabalhadores. OBJETIVOS: Verificar o conhecimento sobre os fatores de risco para dor lombar, crenças e atitudes sobre o manejo da dor lombar entre profissionais de saúde (fisioterapeutas e ergonomistas) atuantes na área ocupacional. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foi realizado um estudo observacional transversal com 81 profissionais de saúde ocupacional brasileiros. Os participantes preencheram um questionário eletrônico composto por dados profissionais, sociodemográficos, itens sobre fatores de risco para dor lombar e a Brazilian version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. Conhecimentos, crenças e atitudes foram analisados por meio do teste do qui-quadrado para fatores de risco para dor lombar e um modelo de regressão linear para crenças e atitudes dos profissionais de saúde. RESULTADOS: Obesidade (7,4%), ficar sentado mais de 2 horas (8,6%), atividade física (9,9%), falta de apoio psicossocial no trabalho (11,1%) e consumo de álcool (37,0%), apresentaram os menores índices de conhecimento sobre fatores de risco da dor lombar pelos profissionais. Itens sobre saúde geral apresentaram o menor conhecimento. Uma orientação biomédica e psicossocial equilibrada de crenças e atitudes sobre o manejo da dor lombar foi observada. CONCLUSÃO: Profissionais de saúde ocupacional brasileiros carecem de conhecimento sobre os fatores de risco não ocupacionais da dor lombar, especialmente o estado geral de saúde. Esses profissionais também possuem conceitos biomédicos e psicossociais equilibrados no manejo da dor lombar.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent and is one of the main causes of disability in Brazil and around the world. LBP presents a multifactorial etiology, being extremely common in workers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to verify the knowledge about the LBP risk factors, beliefs and attitudes about the management of LBP among health professionals (physiotherapists and ergonomists) working in the occupational area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted with 81 Brazilian occupational health professionals. Participants completed an electronic questionnaire comprising professional data, sociodemographics, items about LBP risk factors, and the Brazilian version of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes were analyzed using the chi-square test for LBP risk factors and the linear regression model for health professionals' beliefs and attitudes. RESULTS: Obesity (7.4%), sitting for more than 2 hours (8.6%), physical activity (9.9%), lack of psychosocial support at work (11.1%) and consuming alcohol (37.0%) presented the lowest rate of knowledge about LBP risk factors by professionals. Items about general health showed the lowest knowledge. A balanced biomedical and psychosocial orientation of beliefs and attitudes about managing LBP was observed. CONCLUSION: Brazilian occupational health professionals lack knowledge about non-occupational LBP risk factors, especially general health status. These professionals also have balanced biomedical and psychosocial concepts in managing LBP.

Pain-related interference and pain-related psychosocial factors of three different subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) subgroup identification and management are a research priority. The clarification of subgroup differences could assist clinicians in clinical decisions contributing to a tailored treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare pain-related interference and pain-related psychosocial factors among subgroups of chronic low back pain (localised low back pain, peripheral neuropathic back pain, and widespread pain). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 444 participants with chronic low back pain. Pain-related interference was investigated by the Brief Pain Inventory and Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Pain-related psychosocial factors assessment included psychosocial factors from Brief Screening Questions and maladaptive beliefs from Back Beliefs Questionnaire, self-efficacy, and expectation questions. Participants' characteristics, pain-related interference, and pain-related psychosocial factors were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: A one-way ANCOVA presented statistically significant differences among the groups for current pain intensity [F(2,441) = 6.77, p = 0.001], pain duration [F(2,425) = 9.83, p < 0.001], pain-related interference by Brief Pain Inventory [F(2,441) = 11.97, p < 0.001], and pain-related psychosocial factors regarding symptoms of anxiety [F(2,441) = 3.85, p = 0.022], symptoms of depression [F(2,441) = 6.74, p = 0.001], social isolation [F(2,441) = 6.54, p = 0.002], catastrophising [F(2,441) = 9.72, p < 0.001], perceived stress [F(2,441) = 3.93, p = 0.020], maladaptive beliefs [F(2,441) = 6.89, p = 0.001], and expectation [F(2,441) = 6.66, p = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Participants with widespread pain presented higher pain-related interference and pain-related psychosocial factors compared to the localised low back pain group. Participants with peripheral neuropathic back pain and widespread pain presented with similar characteristics.

Relationship between the Widespread Pain Index and the PainMAP software for pain sites measurement in patients with Widespread Pain / Relação entre o Índice de Dor Espalhada e o software PainMAP para medida de localização da dor em pacientes com dor espalhada

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identifying pain sites is essential to managing patients with Widespread Pain. Several instruments have been developed, including pain drawings, a grid system and computerized methods. However, it is not yet known whether the Widespread Pain Index matches an automated method (painMAP) for quantifying the number of pain areas. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the relationship between the Widespread Pain Index and the painMAP software to measure pain sites in participants with Widespread Pain. METHODS: A pre-planned secondary analysis of data collected from 311 patients with musculoskeletal pain was conducted. The Widespread Pain Index and the painMAP software assessed pain sites. Spearman's correlation coefficient investigated the correlation between the Widespread Pain Index and the painMAP software. RESULTS: A total of 98 participants with Widespread Pain were included in this study. Most participants were female (67; 83.7%), with a mean age of 57,7±11,5 years, mean height of 1.6 (0.1) meters and mean weight of 73.2 (11.8) kilograms. The mean pain intensity was 6.7 (2.0), and the pain duration was 92.3 (96.3) months. The mean number of pain sites in the Widespread Pain Index was 10.1 (3.7), and in the painMAP software, it was 11.7 (8.8). A weak positive correlation (rho = 0.26, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.04, p = 0.022) between the Widespread Pain Index and the painMAP software was found. CONCLUSION: The Widespread Pain Index and the painMAP software showed a weak correlation for assessing pain sites in participants with Widespread Pain.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A identificação dos locais de dor é um aspecto essencial no manejo de pacientes com Dor Espalhada. Vários instrumentos foram desenvolvidos, incluindo desenhos de dor, um sistema de grade e métodos computadorizados. No entanto, ainda não se sabe se o Índice de Dor Espalhada coincide com um método automatizado (painMAP) para quantificar o número de áreas de dor. Portanto, este estudo teve como objetivo identificar a relação entre o Índice de Dor Espalhada e o painMAP para medir as áreas doloridas em participantes com esse quadro de dor. MÉTODOS: Uma análise secundária pré-planejada de dados coletados de 311 pacientes com dor musculoesquelética foi realizada. O Índice de Dor Espalhada e o painMAP avaliaram as áreas de dor. O coeficiente de correlação de Spearman foi utilizado para investigar a correlação entre o Índice de Dor Espalhada e o software painMAP. RESULTADOS: Um total de 98 participantes com Dor Espalhada foram incluídos neste estudo. A maioria dos participantes era do sexo feminino (67;83,7%), com média de idade de 57,7±11,5 anos, média de altura de 1,6 (0,1) metros e média de peso de 73,2 (11,8) quilogramas. A média de intensidade da dor foi de 6,7 (2,0) e da duração da dor de 92,3 (96,3) meses. O número médio de áreas de dor no Índice de Dor Espalhada foi de 10,1(3,7) e no software painMAP foi de 11,7 (8,8). Uma correlação positiva fraca (rho=0,26, IC de 95% 0,45-0,04, p=0,022) entre o Índice de Dor Espalhada e o painMAP foi encontrada. CONCLUSÃO: O Índice de Dor Espalhada e o painMAP mostraram correlação positiva fraca para avaliar as áreas de dor em participantes com dor espalhada.

Health literacy, pain-related interference and pain-related distress of patients with musculoskeletal pain.

The present study aimed to compare pain-related interference and pain-related distress in patients with musculoskeletal pain and differing levels of health literacy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 243 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults classified the level of health literacy. Outcome measures included pain-related interference (pain intensity and functional limitation) and pain-related distress (psychosocial factors). Analysis of variance methods were used. One hundred twenty-three (50.62%) participants were classified as adequate, 24 (9.88%) as marginal and 96 (39.50%) as inadequate health literacy. Patients with inadequate health literacy had higher values of pain severity compared to the other groups, when controlled for age. The group adequate health literacy showed less kinesiophobia compared to their counterparts. Functional limitations and other psychosocial factors were similar among groups. Pain severity and kinesiophobia had disadvantageous findings in participants with inadequate health literacy. Still, the results of pain severity must be approached cautiously because the differences were observed when controlled for age solely.

Patients with fibromyalgia present different pain phenotypes compared to patients with generalized pain / Pacientes com fibromialgia apresentam fenótipos de dor diferentes em comparação com pacientes com dor generalizada

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Fibromyalgia and generalized pain represent a global health problem and are distinct musculoskeletal disorders, but there is an overlap in the clinical presentation between these conditions. However, no study has compared pain characteristics between patients with fibromyalgia and patients with generalized pain. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare pain characteristics and functional limitation of patients with fibromyalgia and patients with generalized pain. METHODS A pre-planned secondary analysis of data collected from 311 patients with musculoskeletal pain was performed. Pain characteristics included pain intensity, pain duration, pain area, symptoms of central sensitization, presence of neuropathic-like symptoms, and the conditioned pain modulation. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale assessed functional limitation. RESULTS 98 patients with generalized pain were identified, being 58 (59.18%) classified in the fibromyalgia group and 40 (40.82%) classified in the generalized pain group. Significant differences were found between groups for Widespread Pain Index, Symptom Severity Scale, and Polysymptomatic Distress Scale. Participants with fibromyalgia presented higher values of pain intensity (fibromyalgia = 7.29±2.07, generalized pain = 6.05±2.47; p=0.008), neuropathic-like symptoms (fibromyalgia = 17.74±7.62, generalized pain = 12.17±6.41; p=0.005), and symptoms of central sensitization (fibromyalgia = 51.32±14.26, generalized pain = 33.97±14.65; p<0.001), when compared with generalized pain. There was no significant difference in conditioned pain modulation and functional limitation between groups. CONCLUSION Patients with fibromyalgia exhibited unfavorable pain characteristics, including pain intensity, neuropathic-like symptoms, and symptoms of central sensitization compared to patients with generalized pain. However, pain duration, functional limitation, and conditioned pain modulation did not present meaningful differences between groups.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS Fibromialgia e dor generalizada representam um problema de saúde global e são distúrbios musculoesqueléticos distintos, mas há uma sobreposição na apresentação clínica entre essas condições. Entretanto, nenhum estudo comparou as características da dor entre os pacientes com estas condições. Portanto, o presente estudo teve como objetivo comparar as características da dor e a limitação funcional de pacientes com fibromialgia e dor generalizada. MÉTODOS Realizou-se uma análise secundária pré-planejada de dados coletados de 311 pacientes com dor musculoesquelética. As características da dor incluíram: intensidade da dor, duração da dor, área da dor, sintomas de sensibilização central, presença de sintomas neuropáticos e a modulação condicionada da dor. A escala de funcionalidade específica do paciente avaliou a limitação funcional. RESULTADOS Identificou-se 98 pacientes com dor generalizada, sendo 58 (59,18%) classificados no grupo de fibromialgia e 40 (40,82%) no grupo de dor generalizada. Diferenças significativas foram encontradas entre os grupos para o índice de dor generalizada, escala de severidade de sintomas e escala polissintomática de sofrimento. Os participantes com fibromialgia apresentaram maiores valores de intensidade da dor (fibromialgia = 7,29±2,07, dor generalizada = 6,05 ± 2,47; p=0,008), sintomas neuropáticos (fibromialgia = 17,74±7,62, dor generalizada = 12,17 ± 6,41; p=0,005) e sintomas de sensibilização central (fibromialgia = 51,32±14,26, dor generalizada = 33,97±14,65; p<0,001), quando comparados à dor generalizada. Não houve diferença significativa na modulação condicionada da dor e na limitação funcional entre os grupos. CONCLUSÃO Pacientes com fibromialgia exibiram características de dor desfavoráveis, incluindo intensidade de dor, sintomas neuropáticos e sintomas de sensibilização central, quando comparados a pacientes com dor generalizada. Entretanto, a duração da dor, a limitação funcional e a modulação condicionada da dor não apresentaram diferença significativa entre os grupos.

Which psychosocial factors are related to severe pain and functional limitation in patients with low back pain?: Psychosocial factors related to severe low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a global public health issue. Psychosocial factors are linked to LBP. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the relation of psychosocial factors to clinical outcomes of patients with severe LBP. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between specific psychosocial factors with severe pain and functional limitation of patients with LBP. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 472 participants with LBP was conducted. Participants completed self-reported questionnaires, including psychosocial factors, characteristics of pain, and functional limitations. Two multivariable logistic regression models were performed with severe pain intensity (≥ 7 out of 10) and functional limitation (≥ 7 out of 10) (dependent variables) and 15 psychosocial factors (independent variables). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five (26.5%) participants had severe LBP. Patients with catastrophising symptoms were 2.21 [95%Confidence Interval (CI): 1.30, 3.77] times more likely to have severe pain and 2.72 (95%CI: 1.75, 4.23) times more likely to have severe functional limitation than patients without catastrophising symptoms. Patients with maladaptive beliefs about rest were 2.75 (95%CI: 1.37, 5.52) times more likely to present with severe pain and 1.72 (95%CI: 1.04, 2.83) times more likely to have severe functional limitation. Patients with kinesiophobia were 3.34 (95%CI: 1.36, 8.24) times more likely to present with severe pain, and patients with social isolation were 1.98 (95%CI: 1.25, 3.14) times more likely to have severe functional limitation. CONCLUSION: Catastrophising, kinesiophobia, maladaptive beliefs about rest, and social isolation are related to unfavourable clinical outcomes of patients with LBP.

Immediate effects of spinal manipulation on painful sensitivity and postural stability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: study protocol for a controlled randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the main public health concerns. Chronic low back pain (cLBP) reduces functional capacity and affects postural stability. Although health professionals widely use spinal manipulation, its immediate effect on painful sensitivity and postural stability is lacking. This study aims to verify the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold and postural stability in individuals with cLBP. METHODS: A two-arm, placebo-controlled clinical trial with parallel groups and examiner-blinded will be conducted with 80 participants with cLBP from an outpatient physical therapy department, randomly allocated at a 1:1 distribution. The experimental group will receive a lumbar spinal manipulation technique, and the placebo group will receive a simulated lumbar spinal manipulation. Both groups will receive one session of treatment and will be evaluated before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcomes will be the pressure pain threshold and postural stability. Pain intensity and patient's expectation will be assessed as a secondary outcome. The pressure pain threshold will be assessed using a pressure algometer in 6 different anatomical regions. The evaluation of postural stability will be performed in a baropodometry exam by displacing the centre of pressure. The pain intensity will be measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A Likert scale will be used for the patient's expectation about the treatment. A two-way analysis of variance will compare the effect of the interventions between groups. DISCUSSION: This study will provide insights regarding the immediate effects of spinal manipulation in patients with cLBP against a simulated spinal manipulation using objective outcomes and considering patients' expectations regarding the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials RBR-3ksq2c . Registered on 13 July 2020.

Are craniocervical flexion test and the pectoralis minor index useful tests for patients with subacromial pain syndrome? / Are craniocervical flexion test and the pectoralis minor index useful tests for patients with subacromial pain syndrome?

Cervical disorders and the shortening of the pectoralis minor are advocated to play an important role in patients with subacromial pain syndrome, despite the absence of evidence. This study aimed to compare the deep cervical flexor muscle function and the shortening of the pectoralis minor between patients with subacromial pain syndrome and controls. Secondarily, this study aimed to analyze the relationship of clinical tests with pain and disability among patients. This is a case-control study with 32 patients with subacromial pain syndrome [mean age: 33 ± 6.9 years; sex: 22 (65.6%) men; right dominance: 31 (96.9%)] and 32 controls matched for age, sex, handedness, and affected side. Participants filled the Numerical Pain Rating Scale, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and performed the clinical tests which were compared between patients and controls. Pectoralis minor length of the patient's group (median = 9.0) was similar to the controls (median = 9.7) (U = 421.5; p = 0.22). The deep neck muscle function presented no statistical difference between patients and controls (χ2 = 4.319; p = 0.504). There was no statistically significant correlation between clinical tests and patient self-reported measures. Therefore, deep cervical flexor muscle and the pectoralis minor muscle were not impaired in patients with subacromial pain syndrome and did not show a relationship with self-reported measures.

Distúrbios cervicais e o encurtamento do músculo peitoral menor são apontados como tendo um papel importante em pacientes com síndrome da dor subacromial, apesar da ausência de evidências. Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar a função dos músculos flexores cervicais profundos e o encurtamento do músculo peitoral menor entre pacientes com síndrome da dor subacromial e controles. Secundariamente, este estudo objetivou analisar a relação dos testes clínicos com a dor e incapacidade entre os pacientes com síndrome da dor subacromial. Trata-se de um estudo caso-controle com 32 pacientes com síndrome da dor subacromial [idade: 33 ± 6,9 anos; sexo: 22 (65,6%) homens; dominância direita: 31 (96,9%)] e 32 controles pareados por idade, sexo, lateralidade e lado afetado. Os participantes preencheram a Numerical Pain Rating Scale, o Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, realizaram os testes clínicos e os resultados dos pacientes e controles foram comparados. O comprimento do músculo peitoral menor no grupo de pacientes (mediana = 9,0) foi semelhante ao grupo controle (mediana = 9,7) (U = 421,5; p = 0,22). A função do músculo flexor cervical profundo não apresentou diferença estatística entre pacientes e controles (χ2 = 4,319; p = 0,504). Não houve correlação estatisticamente significativa entre os testes clínicos e as medidas relatadas pelos pacientes. Portanto, o músculo flexor cervical profundo e o músculo peitoral menor não foram prejudicados em pacientes com síndrome da dor subacromial e não mostraram relação com medidas autorreferidas.

Neural management plus advice to stay active on clinical measures and sciatic neurodynamic for patients with chronic sciatica: Study protocol for a controlled randomised clinical trial.

Advice to stay active is the primary management strategy for sciatica. Other conservative treatments such as neural management techniques may also contribute to sciatica recovery, but currently, the effects have not been robustly assessed. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the effects of adding neural management to advice to stay active versus advice to stay active alone in improving pain intensity and functional limitation. Secondarily, to compare the effects of the experimental intervention in the sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. A parallel-group, controlled, examiner-blinded superiority clinical trial randomised at a 1:1 allocation will be conducted in 210 participants with chronic sciatica. Patients will be recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics and community advertisements. The experimental group will receive neural mobilisation techniques and soft tissue mobilisation techniques for 30 minutes per session, 10 weekly sessions, plus advice to stay active on their activities of daily living, information on physical activity, imaging tests, and sciatica for 5 biweekly sessions lasting 25-30 minutes. The control group will receive advice to stay active only. The re-evaluation will be performed out after 5 weeks, 10 weeks, and 26 weeks after randomisation and primary endpoints will be pain intensity and functional limitation at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include neuropathic symptoms, sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. Adverse events and patient satisfaction will be assessed. Ethical approval has been granted from an Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee. Trial registration: Trial was prospectively registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (number: RBR-3db643c).

The relationship between low back pain and the basic lumbar posture at work: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the relationship between work-related lumbar posture (sitting, standing, walking, alternating posture) and LBP in workers. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comprising 529 records of adult workers from a database of a private company. Predominant work-related lumbar posture was classified based on time spent in each posture. A total of 22 personal, occupational, clinical, and psychosocial covariates were evaluated. LBP symptoms in the last 12 months and during the last 7 days were the outcomes of the study. The multivariate analysis model evaluated the independent relationship between the work-related lumbar posture classification and other potential exposure factors with LBP. RESULTS: The adjusted logistic regression model indicated that predominant walking reduced the likelihood to report LBP during the last 12 months when compared to standing (OR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.30, 0.99; p = 0.048), but there is no association between work-related postures and recent LBP. The adjusted analyses also revealed an association between LBP during the last 12 months and female sex, blue-collar task, frequently feeling tiredness, pain at any other body region previous 12 months, previous LBP, and monotonous work. Recent LBP was associated with female sex, pain at any other body region last 7 days, and previous LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Standing posture increases the likelihood to report LBP during the last 12 months when compared to walking. LBP over previous year and during the previous 7 days was associated with personal and clinical factors.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the painDETECT questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neuropathic pain is common in the general population worldwide and Brazil. The painDETECT questionnaire is a notable instrument for screening on neuropathic pain. A Brazilian version of the painDETECT is necessary to broaden the possibilities of identification of neuropathic pain in the Brazilian population for the proper diagnosis and treatment. The current study aimed to perform the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the painDETECT into the Portuguese language of Brazil. METHODS: A cross-cultural adaptation study was conducted in 11 stages according to standard procedures. Descriptive statistics were performed. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha test (α). RESULTS: Four translators, 10 experts, and 30 patients participated in the study. The expert committee adapted five out of nine items (item 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10) to the Brazilian context. The pretesting phase showed good internal consistency (α = 0.74) for the nine items, including the pain pattern and the body chart domains. The Cronbach's α of the instrument with seven descriptor items of pain was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: The painDETECT was cross-culturally adapted into a Brazilian context and can be used to identify neuropathic components in pain of Brazilian patients. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: PainDETECT is available for Brazilians to identify neuropathic components in pain.

Knee proprioceptive function and physical performance of patients with patellofemoral pain: A matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) present pain, functional limitation, and alteration in knee proprioception. PURPOSE: To compare the knee joint position sense and lower extremity functionality between patients with PFP and controls. Secondarily, investigate the relationship between proprioceptive acuity and physical performance. METHODS: This is a matched case-control study including 48 patients with PFP and 48 healthy individuals matched by age, sex, weight, height, and limb dominance. The proprioceptive evaluation was performed using the joint position sense test (absolute error and relative error) and functionality was assessed using the Single-Leg Triple-Hop test and the Y-Balance Test. The groups were compared using the independent student's T-test. Proprioceptive acuity and physical performance correlations were determined by Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Participants were on average 31 years old and 62.5% were men. There was no statistically difference for absolute and relative angular error between groups. Patients presented lower relative reached distance on the anterior direction of the Y-Balance Test than controls [patients=58.6 (6.6) % versus controls=61.7 (5.9) %, p=.020]. No differences between groups were found for other functional measures. Significant correlation was found between absolute angular error and anterior component at 60° (r=0.225, p=.028) and relative angular error at 60° with the posterolateral component of the Y- Balance Test (r=0.231, p=.024). CONCLUSION: Proprioceptive acuity of patients with PFP was not reduced. The anterior direction of the Y-Balance Test was impaired compared to matched controls. Proprioceptive sense is related to dynamic balance but not to jump ability.

'Your spine is so worn out' - the influence of clinical diagnosis on beliefs in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain - a qualitative study'.

BACKGROUND: Patients' beliefs have an important influence on the clinical management of low back pain and healthcare professionals should be prepared to address these beliefs. There is still a gap in the literature about the influence of patients' perceptions of their clinical diagnosis on the severity of their pain experience and disability. OBJECTIVES: To identify the perceptions of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain regarding the influence of their clinical diagnosis on pain, beliefs, and daily life activities. METHODS: Qualitative study of 70 individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain. A semi structured interview was conducted about patients' beliefs and perceptions regarding the influence of clinical diagnosis on their daily activities and pain intensity. RESULTS: Most participants believed that higher number of different clinical diagnoses for the same individual may be associated with high pain intensity and disability for daily activities and that pain and injury are directly related. Patients beliefs were grouped into four main themes: (1) pain has multifactorial explanation in physical dimension; (2) improvement expectation is extremely low in patients with chronic pain; (3) clinical diagnosis influences pain and disability levels; (4) clinical diagnosis is extremely valued by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients believe that there is a strong relationship between structural changes in the lower back, pain, and daily life activities; thus, providing evidence of a strong influence of the biomedical model on their beliefs.

One Session of Spinal Manipulation Improves the Cardiac Autonomic Control in Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled, assessor-blinded trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effect of manual therapy at the upper thoracic spine on the cardiovascular autonomic control of patients with musculoskeletal pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Musculoskeletal pain increases the risk of cardiovascular events. Thus, manual therapy applied to the upper thoracic region is likely efficient to improve the cardiac autonomic control. METHODS: The study included 59 patients with musculoskeletal pain enrolled at an outpatient clinic. Participants were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n = 19), myofascial manipulation (n = 20), or placebo (n = 20) administered to the upper thoracic region. Resting heart rate variability provided indexes of the cardiac autonomic control, and the blood pressure response to the cold pressor test as a proxy of the sympathetic responsiveness to a stressor stimulus. RESULTS: Groups were similar for baseline variables except for blood pressure. Two-way repeated-measures one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that only spinal manipulation induced immediate increase of the square root of the mean squared differences of successive RR intervals (RMSSD), absolute (ms2), and normalized units (n.u.) of the high-frequency power (HF) as compared with pre-intervention evaluation, indicating an improvement in the parasympathetic activity to the heart. Normalized units of low-frequency power (LF) and the LF/HF ratio reduced after the spinal manipulation solely, suggesting a reduction of the sympathetic activity to the heart. There were no significant differences in the blood pressure responsiveness among the three treatments. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: In patients with musculoskeletal pain, spinal manipulation on the upper thoracic spine led to an immediate improvement in the resting cardiac autonomic control without an effect on the blood pressure responsiveness to a sympathoexcitatory stimulus. Myofascial manipulation or placebo did not change cardiovascular autonomic control.Level of Evidence: 2.

Diagnostic accuracy of the clinical indicators to identify central sensitization pain in patients with musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND: The identification of central sensitization (CS) is an important aspect in the management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Several methods have been developed, including clinical indicators and psychophysical measures. However, whether clinical indicators coincide with the psychophysical test of CS-related sign and symptoms is still unknown. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical indicators in identifying CS-related sign and symptoms in patients with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: One-hundred consecutive patients with musculoskeletal pain were included. Clinical indicators (index method) based on a combination of patient self-report pain characteristics and physical examination were used to identify the phenotype of patients with musculoskeletal pain and the predominance of the CS-related sign and symptoms. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) was assessed by the Cold Pressor Test (reference standard), which is a psychophysical test used to detect impairment of CPM. Measurements of the diagnostic accuracy were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients presented predominance of CS-related sign and symptoms in the assessment of the clinical indicators, and 20 had impairment of CPM. Clinical indicators showed high accuracy (75.0%; 95% confidence interval = 65.3 to 83.1), high specificity (80.0%; 95% confidence interval = 69.6 to 88.1), high negative predictive value (87.7%; 95% confidence interval = 81.2 to 92.1), and a relevant positive likelihood ratio (2.8, 95% confidence interval = 1.5 to 5.0) when compared to the Cold Pressor Test. CONCLUSION: Clinical indicators demonstrated a valuable tool for detecting the impaired CPM, which is a remarkable feature of the CS-related sign and symptoms. Clinicians are encouraged to use the clinical indicators in the management of patients with musculoskeletal pain.