Does the outcome of diagnostic ultrasound influence the treatment modalities and recovery in patients with shoulder pain in physiotherapy practice? Results from a prospective cohort study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study including patients with shoulder pain in primary care physiotherapy. BACKGROUND: There is an increased tendency to use diagnostic ultrasound to aid the diagnostic strategy and target treatment. It is a relatively cheap and accessible imaging technique but the implications for practice and patients are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To study the influence of diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) on diagnostic work-up, treatment modalities and recovery. METHODS: Participants (n = 389) with a new episode of shoulder pain were assessed at baseline and followed for 6, 12 and 26 weeks. Diagnostic work-up, including the use of DUS, and treatment strategies were reported by the therapists at 3, 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Most patients (41%) were diagnosed with subacromial impingement/pain syndrome after physical examination or DUS. DUS was used in 31% of the participants. Tendinopathy was the most found abnormality in this sub-population. Patients who underwent DUS were more frequently treated using exercise therapy. Patients that not had DUS were more likely to receive massage therapy, trigger point therapy or mobilisation techniques. Logistic regression analyses did not show a significant association between DUS and recovery after 26 weeks (0.88, 95%CI:0.50-1.57). Correcting for the therapist as a confounder using a multilevel binary logistic regression did not show a significant cluster effect. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic US as a work-up component does not seem to influence diagnosis or recovery but does influence the choice of treatment modality. Conclusions are limited to observational data. High quality randomized trials should study the effect of DUS on recovery.

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012. RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group. CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.