Initial Validation of a Sacroiliac Joint-Specific Disability Questionnaire.

Low back pain is a multidimensional disorder that can originate from a variety of pain generators, including the sacroiliac (SI) joint. Although the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is often used in SI joint treatment studies, the effects of the SI joint on functional disability are likely different from those of other low back pain generators. Thus, we developed the Denver SI Joint Questionnaire (DSIJQ) and performed validation testing in patients (n=24) with SI joint-specific pain at baseline, +2 weeks, and +6 months. Psychometric analyses included test-retest reliability, internal consistency, content validity, convergent criterion validity, divergent criterion validity, and responsiveness. The DSIJQ showed good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.87), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.842), content validity (<30% floor/ceiling effects), convergent criterion validity (r=0.89; P<.001), and divergent criterion validity (r=-0.33; P=.12). The DSIJQ was correlated with performance on two physical function tests: Timed Upand-Go (r=0.53; P=.008) and 5 Minute Walk (r=-0.52; P=.009). The DSIJQ showed better responsiveness than the ODI (standardized response mean and effect size, 1.14 and 1.45 for DSIJQ and 0.75 and 0.81 for ODI). Overall, the DSIJQ performed well on all psychometrics. Importantly, we validated the DSIJQ with patients' ability to complete two tests of physical functioning. Moreover, the DSIJQ was more sensitive to changes in SI joint disability than the ODI. These psychometrics suggest the DSIJQ is appropriate for evaluating SI joint disability and detecting changes in disability after targeted SI joint treatment. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(6):345-351.].

Trajectory of patient-rated outcomes and association with patient acceptable symptom state in patients with musculoskeletal shoulder pain.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize trajectory and predictors of patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) defined recovery at 6 months. METHODS: Individuals with musculoskeletal shoulder pain (n = 140) completed patient-reported disability and PASS at baseline, 1 and 6 months. The PASS was categorized into 3 trajectory groups; 1.) Early Recovery (answered yes to PASS at 1 and 6-months), 2.) Delayed Recovery (PASS-yes only at 6-months), and 3.) Unrecovered. Mixed models characterized the trajectory between PASS-groups using SPADI and QDASH disability change scores. Logistic regression identified predictors of Early Recovery versus Delayed+Unrecovered groups. RESULTS: PASS-defined recovery rates by group were Early Recovery (58%), Delayed Recovery (22%), and Unrecovered (20%). A group main effect indicated lower disability over time in the Early Recovery versus Unrecovered (QDASH mean difference = 11(2.4); p = 0.001; SPADI mean difference = 12(3); p < 0.001). The odds of an Early Recovery slightly increased with greater change scores on the SPADI (odds ratio = 1.06, 95%CI:1.02,1.11; p = 0.004) and QDASH (odds ratio = 1.08, 95%CI:1.03,1.13; p = 0.003) over the first month of treatment. CONCLUSION: Recovery trajectories of patients indicate differing responses to treatment despite overall improvements over the first month of treatment. Incorporating both patient-reported disability (SPADI, QDASH) and acceptable satisfaction (PASS) may aid in determining recovery trajectory, but more evidence is needed to be clinically useful.

Thoracic spine thrust manipulation for individuals with cervicogenic headache: a crossover randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if thoracic spine manipulation (TSM) improves pain and disability in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CeH). METHODS: A randomized controlled crossover trial was conducted on 48 participants (mean age: 34.4 years) with CeH symptoms. Participants were randomized to 6 sessions of TSM or no treatment (Hold) and after 4-weeks, groups crossed over. Outcomes were collected at 4, 8 and 12 weeks and included: headache disability inventory (HDI), neck disability index (NDI), and the global rating of change (GRC). Outcomes were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with Bonferroni correction. Odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the GRC of +4 or greater were also calculated. Scores at 4 weeks represent the only timepoint where 1 group is fully treated and other group has not received any treatment. RESULTS: Comparing hold to active treatment, HDI were not significantly different between groups (mean difference = 7.39, 95 CI: -4.39 to 19.18; P = 0.214) at any timepoint; the NDI was significant (mean difference = 6.90, 95 CI: 0.05 to 13.75; P = 0.048) at 4 weeks. Odds of achieving the +4 MCID on the GRC (OR = 38.0, 95 CI: 6.6 to 220.0; p < 0.001) favored TSM at 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: TSM had no effect on headache-related disability but resulted in significant improvements in neck-related disability and participant reported perceived improvement. Future studies are needed to examine the long-term impact of TSM in this population.

Treatment of individuals with chronic bicipital tendinopathy using dry needling, eccentric-concentric exercise and stretching; a case series.

Objectives: To describe the outcomes of 10 patients with chronic biceps tendinopathy treated by physical therapy with the novel approach of dry needling (DN), eccentric-concentric exercise (ECE), and stretching of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). Methods: Ten individuals reporting chronic anterior shoulder symptoms (> 3 months), pain with palpation of the LHBT, and positive results on a combination of tests including active shoulder flexion, Speed's, Hawkins Kennedy, Neer, and Yergason's tests participated in this case series. Validated self-reported outcome measures including the mean numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) were taken at baseline. Participants were treated with two to eight sessions of DN to the LHBT and an ECE program and stretching of the biceps muscle. At discharge, patients completed the global rating of change (GROC), QuickDASH and NPRS. Results: Patients had an improved mean NPRS of 3.9 (SD, 1.3; p < 0.001), QuickDASH of 19.01% (SD, 10.8; p < 0.02) and GROC +5.4 (SD, 1.3). Conclusion: Findings from this case series suggest that DN and ECE may be beneficial for the management of patients with chronic LHBT tendinopathy. Further research on the efficacy of this novel treatment approach is warranted.

Manual Therapy Cures Death: I Think I Read That Somewhere.

Predatory journals are compromising the scientific credibility of "published" research. Past concerns with predatory journals have included the lack of a peer-review process, lack of an editorial board, and little to no description of the publication's ethical standards. In this editorial, we describe the ease with which bogus information can be published in predatory journals, and outline 3 risks to credible science associated with published information and downstream referencing, which may occur through source amnesia bias. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):830-832. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0107.

Impact of expectations on functional recovery in individuals with chronic shoulder pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: To examine general expectations for treatment by physical therapists and specific expectations for common interventions in patients with shoulder pain. A secondary objective was to assess the extent to which patients' general and specific expectations for treatment affect clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial of interventions for shoulder pain. Prior to beginning treatment for shoulder pain, 140 patients were asked their general expectations of benefit and their specific expectations for individual interventions. Next we examined how these expectations related to the patients' ratings of the success of treatment at one and six months after treatment. RESULTS: Patients had positive general expectations for treatment by a physical therapist. Specific manual therapy interventions of range of motion and strengthening had the highest proportion of patients who expected these interventions to significantly improve shoulder pain. Seventy-two patients (58%) reported themselves to be improved using the global rating of change (GROC) at one month and six months. In the full model predicting one-month GROC, only the expectation of moderate relief (p = 0.012) and body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.013) had significant effects. Overall, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) significantly decreased over time (p = 0.004); however, a significant interaction did occur between time and BMI (p = 0.021). DISCUSSION: Patients expect common interventions used by physical therapists to be effective to manage shoulder pain. In conclusion, patients with shoulder pain had high general expectations for physical therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2b.

Physical Therapists' Role in Solving the Opioid Epidemic.

An estimated 116 million Americans suffer from chronic pain, at a cost of over $600 billion per year, or roughly $2000 per person per year. In this Viewpoint, the authors highlight the challenges of the current opioid epidemic and outline strategies that the physical therapy profession may adopt to be part of the solution. These strategies include facilitating and providing patient education, early access to physical therapy services, and the promotion of health, wellness, and prevention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(5):349-353. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0606.

Use of Pain Neuroscience Education, Tactile Discrimination, and Graded Motor Imagery in an Individual With Frozen Shoulder.

Study Design Case report. Background Aggressive physical therapy in the freezing stage of frozen shoulder may prolong the course of recovery. Central sensitization may play a role in the early stages of frozen shoulder. Pain neuroscience education, tactile discrimination, and graded motor imagery have been used in a number of conditions with central sensitization. The purpose of this case report was to describe the examination and treatment of a patient in the freezing stage of frozen shoulder using pain neuroscience education, tactile discrimination, and graded motor imagery. Case Description A 54-year-old woman with a diagnosis of frozen shoulder was referred by an orthopaedic surgeon following lack of progress after 4 weeks of intensive daily physical therapy. Pain at rest was 7/10, and her Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score was 64%. She had painful and limited active range of motion and elevated fear-avoidance beliefs. Tactile discrimination and limb laterality were impaired, with signs of central sensitization. A "top-down" approach using pain neuroscience education, tactile discrimination, and graded motor imagery was used for the first 6 weeks, followed by a "bottom-up" impairment-based approach. Outcomes The patient was seen for 20 sessions over 12 weeks. At discharge, her Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score was 22%, resting pain was 0/10, and fear-avoidance beliefs improved. Improvements in active range of motion, laterality, and tactile discrimination were also noted. Discussion Intensive physical therapy in the freezing stage of frozen shoulder may be detrimental to long-term outcomes. This case report suggests that a top-down approach may allow a quicker transition through the freezing stage of frozen shoulder. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 5. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):174-184. Epub 19 Dec 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7716.

Immediate Effects of Mirror Therapy in Patients With Shoulder Pain and Decreased Range of Motion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a brief single component of the graded motor imagery (GMI) sequence (mirror therapy) on active range of motion (AROM), pain, fear avoidance, and pain catastrophization in patients with shoulder pain. DESIGN: Single-blind case series. SETTING: Three outpatient physical therapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with shoulder pain and limited AROM (N=69). INTERVENTION: Patients moved their unaffected shoulder through comfortable AROM in front of a mirror so that it appeared that they were moving their affected shoulder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured pain, pain catastrophization, fear avoidance, and AROM in 69 consecutive patients with shoulder pain and limited AROM before and immediately after mirror therapy. RESULTS: There were significant differences in self-reported pain (P=.014), pain catastrophization (P<.001), and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (P=.012) immediately after mirror therapy; however, the means did not meet or exceed the minimal detectable change (MDC) for each outcome measure. There was a significant increase (mean, 14.5°) in affected shoulder flexion AROM immediately postmirror therapy (P<.001), which exceeded the MDC of 8°. CONCLUSIONS: A brief mirror therapy intervention can result in statistically significant improvements in pain, pain catastrophization, fear avoidance, and shoulder flexion AROM in patients presenting with shoulder pain with limited AROM. The immediate changes may allow a quicker transition to multimodal treatment, including manual therapy and exercise in these patients. Further studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to investigate these findings and determine longer-term effects.

Examination of the Validity of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients With Shoulder Pain Likely to Benefit From Cervicothoracic Manipulation.

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Background Prognostic variables identifying patients with shoulder pain who are likely to respond to cervicothoracic manipulation have been reported; however, they have yet to be validated. Objective To examine the validity of previously reported prognostic variables in predicting which patients with shoulder pain will respond to cervicothoracic manipulation. Methods Participants (n = 140) with a report of shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive either 2 sessions of range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercises (exercise group), or 2 sessions of cervicothoracic manipulation and range-of-motion exercises followed by 6 sessions of stretching and strengthening exercise (manipulative-therapy-plus-exercise group). Outcomes of disability (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) and pain (numeric pain-rating scale) were collected at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Time, treatment group, status of predictor variables, and 2-way and 3-way interactions were analyzed using linear mixed models with repeated measures. Results There were no significant 3-way interactions for either disability (P = .27) or pain scores (P = .70) for time, group, and predictor status for any of the predictor variables. Conclusion The results of the current study did not validate the previously identified prognostic variables; therefore, we cannot support using these in clinical practice. Further updating of the existing prediction rule may be warranted and could potentially result in new prognostic variables and improved generalizability. Limitations of the study were a mean duration of symptoms of greater than 2 years and a loss to follow-up of 19% at 6 months. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. Trial prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):252-260. Epub 3 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7100.

Risk stratification of patients with shoulder pain seen in physical therapy practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal shoulder pain is commonly treated in physical therapy. There is inconsistency in the literature regarding patient characteristics related to prognosis. Having prognostic information could be useful for improving clinical efficiency and decreasing the cost of associated care. The objective of this study was to identify predictive characteristics related to patients with shoulder pain who have a high-risk of a bad prognosis (lowest functional recovery compared with visit utilization) as well as those who are at low-risk of a bad prognosis (highest functional recovery compared with visit utilization). METHODS: We completed a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort using data obtained from an existing commercial outcomes database. Data from 5214 patients with shoulder pain were analysed to determine predictive characteristics that identify patients who either have a low-risk or a high-risk of a bad prognosis to physical therapy care. Multinomial regression was used to identify significant patient characteristics predictive of treatment response. RESULTS: Statistically significant predictors of high-risk categorization included older age, no surgical history, insurance designated as worker's compensation, litigation or automotive and three or more co-morbidities. Predictors of low risk categorization were younger age, shorter duration of symptoms, no surgical history and payer type. CONCLUSION: Selected variables were associated with both poor and good recovery. Further research on prognosis, efficacy of physical therapy care and cost appear warranted for patients with shoulder pain.

Cervicothoracic Manual Therapy Plus Exercise Therapy Versus Exercise Therapy Alone in the Management of Individuals With Shoulder Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Study Design Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Background Cervicothoracic manual therapy has been shown to improve pain and disability in individuals with shoulder pain, but the incremental effects of manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy have not been investigated in a randomized controlled trial. Objectives To compare the effects of cervicothoracic manual therapy and exercise therapy to those of exercise therapy alone in individuals with shoulder pain. Methods Individuals (n = 140) with shoulder pain were randomly assigned to receive 2 sessions of cervicothoracic range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy, or 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy and range-of-motion exercises plus 6 sessions of exercise therapy (manual therapy plus exercise). Pain and disability were assessed at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (treatment group by time) was examined using linear mixed-model analyses and the repeated measure of time for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the numeric pain-rating scale, and the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Patient-perceived success was assessed and analyzed using the global rating of change (GROC) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), using chi-square tests of independence. Results There were no significant 2-way interactions of group by time or main effects by group for pain or disability. Both groups improved significantly on the SPADI, numeric pain-rating scale, and QuickDASH. Secondary outcomes of success on the GROC and PASS significantly favored the manual therapy-plus-exercise group at 4 weeks (P = .03 and P<.01, respectively) and on the GROC at 6 months (P = .04). Conclusion Adding 2 sessions of high-dose cervicothoracic manual therapy to an exercise program did not improve pain or disability in patients with shoulder pain, but did improve patient-perceived success at 4 weeks and 6 months and acceptability of symptoms at 4 weeks. More research is needed on the use of cervicothoracic manual therapy for treating shoulder pain. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. Prospectively registered March 30, 2012 at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01571674). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(8):617-628. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6319.

Interrater reliability of the cervicothoracic and shoulder physical examination in patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the interrater reliability of cervicothoracic and shoulder physical examination in patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain. DESIGN: Single-group repeated-measures design for interrater reliability. SETTING: Orthopaedic physical therapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one patients with a primary complaint of shoulder pain underwent a standardized examination by a physical therapist (PT). A PT conducted the first examination and one of two additional PTs conducted the 2nd examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Cohen κ and weighted κ were used to calculate the interrater reliability of ordinal level data. Intraclass correlation coefficients model 2,1 (ICC2,1) and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine the interrater reliability. RESULTS: The kappa coefficients ranged from -.24 to .83 for the mobility assessment of the glenohumeral, acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joints. The kappa coefficients ranged from -.20 to .58 for joint mobility assessment of the cervical and thoracic spine. The kappa coefficients ranged from .23 to 1.0 for special tests of the shoulder and cervical spine. CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported the reliability of a comprehensive upper quarter physical examination for a group of patients with a primary report of shoulder pain. The reliability varied considerably for the cervical and shoulder examination and was significantly higher for the examination of muscle length and cervical range of motion.

Direct Access to Physical Therapy Services Is Safe in a University Student Health Center Setting.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective descriptive study was to determine if direct access to physical therapy (PT) in a university health center placed patients at risk for adverse events. BACKGROUND: Direct access to PT is underutilized, even though it has been reported to reduce medical costs; however, there is a paucity of evidence on the clinical risks related to this practice. METHODS: The University of Colorado at Boulder instituted a direct access musculoskeletal injury clinic in 2000. A retrospective analysis was performed on patient visits to Wardenburg Student Health Center from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2011. Descriptive statistics were analyzed for the number of new patients examined with and without a referral, documented patient adverse events, and any disciplinary or legal action against a physical therapist. RESULTS: During the 10-year data collection period, 12,976 patients accessed PT without a referral. There were no reported unidentified cases of serious medical pathology or adverse events and none of the PTs had their credentials or licenses modified or revoked for disciplinary action. CONCLUSIONS: Patients managed through direct access are at minimal to no risk for negligent care when evaluated and treated by PTs in a university student health center setting.

Manual physical therapy and exercise versus supervised home exercise in the management of patients with inversion ankle sprain: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise (MTEX) to a home exercise program (HEP) in the management of individuals with an inversion ankle sprain. BACKGROUND: An in-clinic exercise program has been found to yield similar outcomes as an HEP for individuals with an inversion ankle sprain. However, no studies have compared an MTEX approach to an HEP. METHODS: Patients with an inversion ankle sprain completed the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living subscale, the FAAM sports subscale, the Lower Extremity Functional Scale, and the numeric pain rating scale. Patients were randomly assigned to either an MTEX or an HEP treatment group. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 months. The primary aim (effects of treatment on pain and disability) was examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance. The hypothesis of interest was the 2-way interaction (group by time). RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (mean ± SD age, 35.1 ± 11.0 years; 48.6% female) were randomized into the MTEX group (n = 37) or the HEP group (n = 37). The overall group-by-time interaction for the mixed-model analysis of variance was statistically significant for the FAAM activities of daily living subscale (P<.001), FAAM sports subscale (P<.001), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (P<.001), and pain (P ≤.001). Improvements in all functional outcome measures and pain were significantly greater at both the 4-week and 6-month follow-up periods in favor of the MTEX group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that an MTEX approach is superior to an HEP in the treatment of inversion ankle sprains. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00797368). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1b-.

Patient expectations of benefit from interventions for neck pain and resulting influence on outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (1) to examine patients' general expectations for treatment by physical therapists and specific expectations for common interventions in patients with neck pain, and (2) to assess the extent to which the patients' general and specific expectations for treatment, particularly spinal manipulation, affect clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND: Patient expectations can have a profound influence on the magnitude of treatment outcome across a broad variety of patient conditions. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial of interventions for neck pain. Prior to beginning treatment for neck pain, 140 patients were asked about their general expectations of benefit as well as their specific expectations for individual interventions. Next, we examined how these expectations related to the patients' ratings of the success of treatment at 1 and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: Patients had positive expectations for treatment by a physical therapist, with more than 80% of patients expecting moderate relief of symptoms, prevention of disability, the ability to do more activity, and to sleep better. The manual therapy interventions of massage (87%) and manipulation (75%) had the highest proportion of patients who expected these interventions to significantly improve neck pain. These were followed by strengthening (70%) and range-of-motion (54%) exercises. Very few patients thought surgery would improve their neck pain (less than 1%). At 1 month, patients who were unsure of experiencing complete pain relief had lower odds of reporting a successful outcome than patients expecting complete relief (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11, 0.99). Believing that manipulation would help and not receiving manipulation lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.72) compared to believing manipulation would help and receiving manipulation. Six months after treatment, having unsure expectations for complete pain relief lowered the odds of success (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.7), whereas definitely expecting to do more exercise increased the odds of success (OR = 11.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 74.7). Regarding self-reported disability assessed with the Neck Disability Index, patients who believed manipulation would help and received manipulation reported less disability than those who did not believe manipulation would help and both received manipulation (mean difference, -3.8; 95% CI: -5.9, -1.5; P = .006) and did not receive manipulation (mean difference, -5.7; 95% CI: -9.3, -2.1; P = .014). There was also an interaction between time and the expectation for complete relief. CONCLUSION: General expectations of benefit have a strong influence on clinical outcomes for patients with neck pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2b-.

Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from thrust joint manipulation to the cervical spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort/predictive validity study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity of selected clinical examination items and to develop a clinical prediction rule to determine which patients with neck pain may benefit from cervical thrust joint manipulation (TJM) and exercise. BACKGROUND: TJM to the cervical spine has been shown to be effective in patients presenting with a primary report of neck pain. It would be useful for clinicians to have a decision-making tool, such as a clinical prediction rule, that could accurately identify which subgroup of patients would respond positively to cervical TJM. METHODS: Consecutive patients who presented to physical therapy with a primary complaint of neck pain completed a series of self-report measures, then received a detailed standardized history and physical examination. After the clinical examination, all patients received a standardized treatment regimen consisting of cervical TJM and range-of-motion exercise. Depending on response to treatment, patients were treated for 1 or 2 sessions over approximately 1 week. At the end of their participation in the study, patients were classified as having experienced a successful outcome based on a score of +5 ("quite a bit better") or higher on the global rating of change scale. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for all potential predictor variables. Univariate techniques and stepwise logistic regression were used to determine the most parsimonious set of variables for prediction of treatment success. Variables retained in the regression model were used to develop a multivariate clinical prediction rule. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were included in data analysis, of whom 32 (39%) achieved a successful outcome. A clinical prediction rule with 4 attributes (symptom duration less than 38 days, positive expectation that manipulation will help, side-to-side difference in cervical rotation range of motion of 10° or greater, and pain with posteroanterior spring testing of the middle cervical spine) was identified. If 3 or more of the 4 attributes (positive likelihood ratio of 13.5) were present, the probability of experiencing a successful outcome improved from 39% to 90%. CONCLUSION: The clinical prediction rule may improve decision making by providing the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain who are likely to benefit from cervical TJM and range-of-motion exercise. However, this is only the first step in the process of developing and testing a clinical prediction rule, as future studies are necessary to validate the results and should include long-term follow-up and a comparison group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2b.