Differences in balance control despite self-reported resolution of pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain. A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Motor control patterns are altered when women with pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PGP) experience pain. In low back pain, these adaptations can persist after recovery. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess balance control in postpartum women with and without a history of PGP during pregnancy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHOD: Eighteen postpartum women who reported to be recovered from PGP, and twelve postpartum women without a history of PGP during pregnancy performed two clinical tests: the single leg stance and active straight leg raise test. Primary outcomes were ground reaction forces measured with a force platform. RESULTS: Multiple linear regression analyses showed smaller lateral displacement (ß = -11cm; 95%CI: 19 to -3; p = 0.008) and lower displacement velocity of the Centre of Pressure (COP) (Ratio of Geometric Means (RGM) 0.76; 95%CI: 0.59 to 0.99; p = 0.043) during single leg stance in the participants with a history of PGP compared to participants without a history of PGP. Push-off force (ß = -4.8 N; 95%CI: 22.0 to 12.5; p = 0.57) and asymmetry of push-off force (RGM 1.77; 95%CI: 0.62 to 5.04; p = 0.27) did not differ between groups. During the active straight leg raise test, no differences in lateral displacement (ß = 3 cm; 95%CI: 3 to 8; p = 0.30) and COP displacement velocity (RGM 1.03; 95%CI: 0.70 to 1.52; p = 0.87) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although the women with a history of PGP considered themselves recovered, their balance control during single leg stance was poorer compared to those without a history of PGP. No differences were found during the active straight leg raise test.

Reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature regarding the reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). DESIGN: Systematic review with best evidence synthesis. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Men with LUTS due to bladder outlet obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction. REVIEW METHODS: PubMed, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase databases were searched for studies on the validity and reliability of assessment methods for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in primary care. Methodological quality was assessed with the COSMIN checklist. Studies with poor methodology were excluded from the best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 5644 studies identified, 61 were scored with the COSMIN checklist, 37 studies were included in the best evidence synthesis, 18 evaluated bladder outlet obstruction and 17 benign prostatic obstruction, 2 evaluated both. Overall, reliability was poorly evaluated. Transrectal and transabdominal ultrasound showed moderate to good validity to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction. Measured prostate volume with these ultrasound methods, to identify benign prostatic obstruction, showed moderate to good accuracy, supported by a moderate to high level of evidence. Uroflowmetry for bladder outlet obstruction showed poor to moderate diagnostic accuracy, depending on used cut-off values. Questionnaires were supported by high-quality evidence, although correlations and diagnostic accuracy were poor to moderate compared with criterion tests. Other methods were supported by low level evidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians in primary care can incorporate transabdominal and transrectal ultrasound or uroflowmetry in the evaluation of men with LUTS but should not solely rely on these methods as the diagnostic accuracy is insufficient and reliability remains insufficiently researched. Low-to-moderate levels of evidence for most assessment methods were due to methodological shortcomings and inconsistency in the studies. This highlights the need for better study designs in this domain.

Interexaminer Agreement and Reliability of an Internationally Endorsed Screening Framework for Cervical Vascular Risks Following Manual Therapy and Exercise: The Go4Safe Project.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians are recommended to use the clinical reasoning framework developed by the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) to provide guidance regarding assessment of the cervical spine and potential for cervical artery dysfunction prior to manual therapy and exercise. However, the interexaminer agreement and reliability of this framework is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the interexaminer agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework among physical therapists in primary care. METHODS: Ninety-six patients who consulted a physical therapist for neck pain or headache were included in the study. Each patient was tested independently by 2 physical therapists, from a group of 17 physical therapists (10 pairs) across The Netherlands. Patients and examiners were blinded to the test results. The overall interexaminer agreement, specific agreement per risk category (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk), and interexaminer reliability (weighted κ) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall agreement was 71% (specific agreement in high-risk category = 63%; specific agreement in intermediate-risk category = 38%; specific agreement in low-risk category = 84%). Overall reliability was moderate (weighted κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57) and varied considerably between pairs of physical therapists (κ = 0.14-1.00). CONCLUSION: The IFOMPT framework showed an insufficient interexaminer agreement and fair interexaminer reliability among physical therapists when screening the increased risks for vascular complications following manual therapy and exercise prior to treatment. IMPACT: The IFOMPT framework contributes to the safety of manual therapy and exercise. It is widely adopted in clinical practice and educational programs, but the measurement properties are unknown. This project describes the agreement and reliability of the IFOMPT framework.

Validity of Clinical Measurement Instruments Assessing Scapular Function: Insufficient Evidence to Recommend Any Instrument for Assessing Scapular Posture, Movement, and Dysfunction-A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of measurement instruments evaluating scapular function. DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties. LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2019. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies published in Dutch, English, or German were included when they evaluated at least 1 of the measurement properties of interest. No restrictions were made regarding participants' health status. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality using the COSMIN checklist and extracted and analyzed data. Quality of evidence was graded by measurement property for each distinctive type of measurement. RESULTS: Thirty-one measurement instruments in 14 studies were categorized into instruments to measure scapular posture and movement, and to assess scapular dyskinesis. Quality of evidence was at most moderate for 4 instruments with respect to criterion validity. Of these, criterion validity for instruments measuring scapular protraction/retraction posture and rotation angles up to 120° of thoracohumeral elevation was sufficient. Criterion validity for instruments measuring asymmetrical scapular posture, range of motion, and the lateral scapular slide test was insufficient. Quality of evidence for measurement properties of all other instruments was graded lower. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for the clinical examination of scapular function. Measurement instruments to assess scapular dyskinesis are prone to misinterpretation and should therefore not be used as such. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):632-641. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9265.

Reliability of Performance-Based Clinical Measurements to Assess Shoulder Girdle Kinematics and Positioning: Systematic Review.

Background: Deviant shoulder girdle movement is suggested as an eminent factor in the etiology of shoulder pain. Reliable measurements of shoulder girdle kinematics are a prerequisite for optimizing clinical management strategies. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, measurement error, and internal consistency of measurements with performance-based clinical tests for shoulder girdle kinematics and positioning in patients with shoulder pain. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2015. Study Selection: Articles published in Dutch, English, or German were included if they involved the evaluation of at least one of the measurement properties of interest. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality per studied measurement property with the 4-point-rating scale of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) checklist, extracted data, and assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties. Data Synthesis: Forty studies comprising more than 30 clinical tests were included. Actual reported measurements of the tests were categorized into: (1) positional measurement methods, (2) measurement methods to determine dynamic characteristics, and (3) tests to diagnose impairments of shoulder girdle function. Best evidence synthesis of the tests was performed per measurement for each measurement property. Limitations: All studies had significant limitations, including incongruence between test description and actual reported measurements and a lack of reporting on minimal important change. In general, the methodological quality of the selected studies was fair to poor. Conclusions: High-quality evidence indicates that measurements obtained with the Modified Scapular Assistance Test are not reliable for clinical use. Sound recommendations for the use of other tests could not be made due to inadequate evidence. Across studies, diversity in description, performance, and interpretation of similar tests was present, and different criteria were used to establish similar diagnoses, mostly without taking into account a clinically meaningful context. Consequently, these tests lack face validity, which hampers their clinical use. Further research on validity and how to integrate a clinically meaningful context of movement into clinical tests is warranted.

The burden of neck pain: its meaning for persons with neck pain and healthcare providers, explored by concept mapping.

PURPOSE: To empirically define the concept of burden of neck pain. The lack of a clear understanding of this construct from the perspective of persons with neck pain and care providers hampers adequate measurement of this burden. An additional aim was to compare the conceptual model obtained with the frequently used Neck Disability Index (NDI). METHODS: Concept mapping, combining qualitative (nominal group technique and group consensus) and quantitative research methods (cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling), was applied to groups of persons with neck pain (n = 3) and professionals treating persons with neck pain (n = 2). Group members generated statements, which were organized into concept maps. Group members achieved consensus about the number and description of domains and the researchers then generated an overall mind map covering the full breadth of the burden of neck pain. RESULTS: Concept mapping revealed 12 domains of burden of neck pain: impaired mobility neck, neck pain, fatigue/concentration, physical complaints, psychological aspects/consequences, activities of daily living, social participation, financial consequences, difficult to treat/difficult to diagnose, difference of opinion with care providers, incomprehension by social environment, and how person with neck pain deal with complaints. All ten items of the NDI could be linked to the mind map, but the NDI measures only part of the burden of neck pain. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the relevant domains for the burden of neck pain from the viewpoints of persons with neck pain and their care providers. These results can guide the identification of existing measurements instruments for each domain or the development of new ones to measure the burden of neck pain.

Is behavioral graded activity cost-effective in comparison with manual therapy for patients with subacute neck pain? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing behavioral graded activity (BGA) with manual therapy (MT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BGA in comparison with MT for patients with subacute neck pain from a societal perspective. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain is common and poses an important socioeconomic burden to society. Data on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neck pain are scarce. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, involving 146 patients with subacute nonspecific neck pain. The BGA program can be described as a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline toward predetermined goals. MT consists of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. Clinical outcomes included recovery, pain, disability, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective using cost diaries. The follow-up period was 52 weeks. Multiple imputation was used for missing cost and effect data. Uncertainty surrounding cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was estimated using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability (CEA) curves were estimated. RESULTS: BGA had no significant effect on recovery or QALYs gained in comparison with MT but pain and disability did improve significantly in the BGA group in comparison with the MT group. Total societal costs in the BGA group were nonsignificantly higher than in the MT group. Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that BGA is not cost-effective in comparison with MT for recovery and QALYs gained. Substantial investments are needed to reach a 0.95 probability that BGA is cost-effective in comparison with MT for pain and disability. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the data presented, we consider BGA not cost-effective in comparison with MT.

Is a behavioral graded activity program more effective than manual therapy in patients with subacute neck pain? Results of a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a behavioral graded activity program with manual therapy in patients with subacute (4-12 weeks) nonspecific neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain is a common complaint, for which many conservative therapies are available in primary care. There is strong evidence for manual therapy in combination with exercises. Psychosocial factors are also believed to play a role in chronic pain. The evidence of the effectiveness of a program focused on these factors is still unknown. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, involving 146 patients with subacute nonspecific neck pain. The BGA program can be described as a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline toward predetermined goals. Manual therapy consists of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. Primary outcomes were global perceived effect, the Numerical Rating Scale for pain and the Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the 4 Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire, and the Pain Coping and Cognition List. Measurements were carried out at baseline and 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. Data are analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using multilevel analysis. RESULTS: The success rates at 52 weeks, based on the GPE were 89.4% for the BGA program and 86.5% for MT. This difference was not statistically significant. For pain and disability, a difference was found in favor of the BGA program; mean difference for pain = 0.99 (95% CI 0.15-1.83) and mean difference for NDI = 2.42 (95% CI 0.52-4.32). All other differences between the interventions in the primary and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Based on this trial it can be concluded that there are only marginal, but not clinically relevant, differences between a BGA program and MT.

Are psychological factors prognostic indicators of outcome in patients with sub-acute neck pain?

The aim was to determine if psychological factors favourably influence the short and long-term outcome of patients with sub-acute neck pain in terms of global perceived recovery, pain, using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and functional disability, using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). This study was conducted within the framework of a randomised clinical trial comparing two types of conservative therapy in 146 patients with sub-acute neck pain. Multilevel techniques were used for data-analysis. The short and long term results for the three outcomes were very diverse. The sub-scales of the used questionnaires, i.e. the Pain Coping and Cognition List (PCCL), and the 4 Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), did not contribute significantly to all of the multilevel models. Only the factor 'fear of movement' was consistently and significantly present in the univariable analysis for all outcomes at both follow-up measurements. The explained variance in the short term ranged from 16% to 30%, and from 6% to 34% in the long term. This can be considered to be low. We conclude that all psychological factors showed a considerable variation on the specific measurement and time point used. Only 'fear of movement' consistently impedes short term and long term recovery. Further prognostic research is needed to achieve more consistent results.

Added value of qualitative studies in the development of health related patient reported outcomes such as the Pain Coping and Cognition List in patients with sub-acute neck pain.

Psychometric analyses, such as factor analysis, internal consistency and construct validity analysis, are well known and frequently applied methods in the development of health related patient reported outcomes. These statistical indexes shed very little light on how respondents interpret individual items, or on the meaning of their responses. In this study, the Pain Coping and Cognition List (PCCL), a quantitatively validated psychological questionnaire developed to assess chronic pain, has been subjected to a qualitative research method: the Three Step Test Interview (TSTI), an observational technique that aims to identify problems with self reported questionnaires. It consists of three phases: 1) concurrent thinking aloud; 2) a retrospective interview; 3) a semi-structured interview. Participants with sub-acute neck pain distinguished six different types of problems: long complicated formulations, composite questions, irrelevant questions, lacking frame of reference, problematic words, and wrongly interpreted questions. This study illustrates that qualitative methods have an added value when developing self-report questionnaires because some of the problems that were highlighted that cannot be identified using quantitative methods only. Therefore, we recommend that a full qualitative study should be an integral part of the development of questionnaires. The TSTI method is very useful for this purpose.

Physiotherapists' treatment approach towards neck pain and the influence of a behavioural graded activity training: an exploratory study.

Physiotherapists' treatment approach might influence their behaviour during practice and, consequently, patients' treatment outcome; however, an explicit description of the treatment approach is often missing in trials. The purpose of this prospective exploratory study was to evaluate whether the treatment approach differs between therapists who favour a behavioural graded activity (BGA) program, conservative exercise (CE) or manual therapy, and whether BGA training has influence on the treatment approach. Forty-two therapists participated. BGA therapists received a 2-day training. Treatment approach was measured at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, using the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PTs). By this method data on the adoption of biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches were generated. Differences were examined with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent Student's t-test. Influence of the BGA training was examined with linear regression. At baseline, there were no significant differences between BGA, CE or manual therapists use of biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches, but there was a trend for BGA therapists to score higher on the biopsychosocial approach. At follow-up, their biopsychosocial score remained higher and their biomedical score was lower compared to CE therapists. Corrected regression analysis showed a 4.4 points (95%CI -7.9; -0.8) higher decrease for therapists who followed the BGA training compared to therapists who did not. Our results indicate no significant differences in treatment approach at baseline, and that BGA training might influence therapists' treatment approach since the scores on the biomedical approach decreased.

Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain in patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both measurement instruments are frequently used in research and clinical practice, but which changes are clinically relevant is still unknown. METHODS: The MCIC was estimated with 2 different methods, both integrating an anchor-based and distribution-based approach: the minimal detectable change (MDC) and the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve. The study population consisted of 183 patients with nonspecific neck pain. RESULTS: The results show an MDC of 10.5 points for the NDI (scale range, 0-50) and 4.3 points for the NRS (scale range, 0-10), and optimal cutoff points of the ROC curve of 3.5 for the NDI and 2.5 for the NRS. CONCLUSION: The estimated MCIC should be used as an indication for relevant changes in clinical practice. Using the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve, false positives and false negatives are equally weighted; and if there are no objections doing so, the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve may be a good choice.

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of provocative tests of the neck for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy.

Clinical provocative tests of the neck, which position the neck and arm inorder to aggravate or relieve arm symptoms, are commonly used in clinical practice in patients with a suspected cervical radiculopathy. Their diagnostic accuracy, however, has never been examined in a systematic review. A comprehensive search was conducted in order to identify all possible studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. A study was included if: (1) any provocative test of the neck for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy was identified; (2) any reference standard was used; (3) sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be (re-)calculated; and, (4) the publication was a full report. Two reviewers independently selected studies, and assessed methodological quality. Only six studies met the inclusion criteria, which evaluated five provocative tests. In general, Spurling's test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and high specificity, as did traction/neck distraction, and Valsalva's maneuver. The upper limb tension test (ULTT) demonstrated high sensitivity and low specificity, while the shoulder abduction test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and moderate to high specificity. Common methodological flaws included lack of an optimal reference standard, disease progression bias, spectrum bias, and review bias. Limitations include few primary studies, substantial heterogeneity, and numerous methodological flaws among the studies; therefore, a meta-analysis was not conducted. This review suggests that, when consistent with the history and other physical findings, a positive Spurling's, traction/neck distraction, and Valsalva's might be indicative of a cervical radiculopathy, while a negative ULTT might be used to rule it out. However, the lack of evidence precludes any firm conclusions regarding their diagnostic value, especially when used in primary care. More high quality studies are necessary in order to resolve this issue.

Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by the general practitioner for patients with neck pain: long-term results from a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors' goals were to compare the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT; mainly spinal mobilization), physical therapy (PT; mainly exercise therapy), and continued care by the general practitioner (GP; analgesics, counseling and education) over a period of 1 year. METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients suffering for at least 2 weeks from nonspecific neck pain were randomized to receive a 6-week treatment strategy of MT once a week, PT twice a week, or GP care once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome measures were perceived recovery, severity of physical dysfunctioning, pain intensity, and functional disability. RESULTS: The differences between groups considered over 1 year were statistically significant (repeated measurements analyses P<0.001 to P=0.02) for all outcomes but borderline for the Neck Disability Index (P=0.06). Higher improvement scores were observed for MT for all outcomes, followed by PT and GP care. The success rate, based on perceived recovery after 13 weeks, was 72% for MT, which was significantly higher than the success rate for continued GP care (42%, P=0.001) but not significantly higher compared with PT treatment (59%, P=0.16). The difference between PT and GP approached statistical significance (P=0.06). After 1 year the success rates were 75%, 63%, and 56%, respectively, and no longer significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results (at 7 weeks) have shown that MT speeded recovery compared with GP care and, to a lesser extent, also compared with PT. In the long-term, GP treatment and PT caught up with MT, and differences between the three treatment groups decreased and lost statistical significance at the 13-week and 52-week follow-up.

Comparison of the effectiveness of a behavioural graded activity program and manual therapy in patients with sub-acute neck pain: design of a randomized clinical trial.

The objective is to present the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a behavioural graded activity programme compared with manual therapy in patients with sub-acute neck pain. Sub-acute is defined as pain existing for 4-12 weeks. The behavioural graded activity programme is a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline towards pre-determined goals. Manual therapy consists mainly of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. The primary outcomes are global perceived effect and functional status. Secondary outcomes are kinesiophobia, distress, coping, depression and somatization. The intensity and persistence of the pain and its interference with activities are also assessed. Direct and indirect costs are measured by means of cost diaries. Measurements take place at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks after randomization. To assess the long-term effect, measurements will also take place after 6 and 12 months. Finally some challenges are discussed concerning the use of a behavioural graded activity programme, manual therapy and outcomes.

Reproducibility of cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Reproducibility measurements of the range of motion are an important prerequisite for the interpretation of study results. The aim of the study is to assess the intra-rater and inter-rater reproducibility of the measurement of active Range of Motion (ROM) in patients with neck pain using the Cybex Electronic Digital Inclinometer-320 (EDI-320). METHODS: In an outpatient clinic in a primary care setting 32 patients with at least 2 weeks of pain and/or stiffness in the neck were randomly assessed, in a test- retest design with blinded raters using a standardized measurement protocol. Cervical flexion-extension, lateral flexion and rotation were assessed. RESULTS: Reliability expressed by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was 0.93 (lateral flexion) or higher for intra-rater reliability and 0.89 (lateral flexion) or higher for inter-rater reliability. The 95% limits of agreement for intra-rater agreement, expressing the range of the differences between two ratings were -2.5 +/- 11.1 degrees for flexion-extension, -0.1 +/- 10.4 degrees for lateral flexion and -5.9 +/- 13.5 degrees for rotation. For inter-rater agreement the limits of agreement were 3.3 +/- 17.0 degrees for flexion-extension, 0.5 +/- 17.0 degrees for lateral flexion and -1.3 +/- 24.6 degrees for rotation. CONCLUSION: In general, the intra-rater reproducibility and the inter-rater reproducibility were good. We recommend to compare the reproducibility and clinical applicability of the EDI-320 inclinometer with other cervical ROM measures in symptomatic patients.

Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify differences in the diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific low back pain among 3 professional groups in the Netherlands: orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors. METHODS: Information was obtained from training materials from professional groups, literature searches, and observation of selected practitioners at work. RESULTS: In The Netherlands, there are differences in education between the 3 professional groups. The focus of orthomanual medicine is on abnormal positions of components of the skeleton and symmetry in the spine. Manual therapy focuses on functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Chiropractic focuses on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems in relation to patients' health in general. Orthomanual medicine considers inspection and palpation the most important diagnostic tools. Manual therapists and chiropractors additionally perform tests to determine functional disorders and manual therapists evaluate psychosocial influences. Chiropractors take radiographs if necessary. Orthomanual physicians apply mobilization techniques using fixed protocols. Manual therapists and chiropractors use various manipulation and mobilization techniques and their manipulation techniques differ in amplitude and velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic techniques and treatment methods of the 3 professional groups differ considerably. For more accurate reporting of the efficacy of manipulative and mobilizing therapies, the characteristics of treatments should be described in more detail when reported in studies such as randomized clinical trials.

Relations between pregnancy-related low back pain, pelvic floor activity and pelvic floor dysfunction.

To assess the occurrence of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in pregnancy- related low back and pelvic pain (PLBP) patients, a cross-sectional study was performed, comprising 77 subjects. Each subject underwent physical assessment, and filled in the Urogenital Distress Inventory completed with gynaecological questions. Differences in the presence of PFD between PLBP patients and healthy controls as well as differences in pelvic floor muscle activity were tested for significance. Interaction by age and vaginal delivery were tested. PFD occurred in 52% of all PLBP patients, significantly more than in the healthy control group. In PLBP patients a significantly increased activity of the pelvic floor muscles could be demonstrated with respect to healthy controls. The occurrence of PFD and PLBP was influenced by a confounding effect of age. Clinicians should be aware of the relation between PLBP and PFD and hence address both problems at the same time.

Manipulative therapy in addition to usual medical care for patients with shoulder dysfunction and pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysfunction of the cervicothoracic spine and the adjacent ribs (also called the shoulder girdle) is considered to predict occurrence and poor outcome of shoulder symptoms. It can be treated with manipulative therapy, but scientific evidence for the effectiveness of such therapy is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of manipulative therapy for the shoulder girdle in addition to usual medical care for relief of shoulder pain and dysfunction. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in Groningen, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: 150 patients with shoulder symptoms and dysfunction of the shoulder girdle. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received usual medical care from their general practitioners. Only the intervention group received additional manipulative therapy, up to 6 treatment sessions in a 12-week period. MEASUREMENTS: Patient-perceived recovery, severity of the main complaint, shoulder pain, shoulder disability, and general health. Data were collected during and at the end of the treatment period (at 6 and 12 weeks) and during the follow-up period (at 26 and 52 weeks). RESULTS: During treatment (6 weeks), no significant differences were found between study groups. After completion of treatment (12 weeks), 43% of the intervention group and 21% of the control group reported full recovery. After 52 weeks, approximately the same difference in recovery rate (17 percentage points) was seen between groups. During the intervention and follow-up periods, a consistent between-group difference in severity of the main complaint, shoulder pain and disability, and general health favored additional manipulative therapy. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was small, and assessment of end points was subjective. CONCLUSION: Manipulative therapy for the shoulder girdle in addition to usual medical care accelerates recovery of shoulder symptoms.

Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for patients with neck pain. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a common problem, but the effectiveness of frequently applied conservative therapies has never been directly compared. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of manual therapy, physical therapy, and continued care by a general practitioner. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient care setting in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: 183 patients, 18 to 70 years of age, who had had nonspecific neck pain for at least 2 weeks. INTERVENTION: 6 weeks of manual therapy (specific mobilization techniques) once per week, physical therapy (exercise therapy) twice per week, or continued care by a general practitioner (analgesics, counseling, and education). MEASUREMENTS: Treatment was considered successful if the patient reported being "completely recovered" or "much improved" on an ordinal six-point scale. Physical dysfunction, pain intensity, and disability were also measured. RESULTS: At 7 weeks, the success rates were 68.3% for manual therapy, 50.8% for physical therapy, and 35.9% for continued care. Statistically significant differences in pain intensity with manual therapy compared with continued care or physical therapy ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 on a scale of 0 to 10. Disability scores also favored manual therapy, but the differences among groups were small. Manual therapy scored consistently better than the other two interventions on most outcome measures. Physical therapy scored better than continued care on some outcome measures, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In daily practice, manual therapy is a favorable treatment option for patients with neck pain compared with physical therapy or continued care by a general practitioner.