Symptom response to mobilization and outcomes in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were the following: (1) to determine if there was a difference in outcomes between immediate responders to glenohumeral mobilizations at the initial evaluation, 2-week, 4-week, and 6-month follow-up as compared to those that do not respond in participants with subacromial pain syndrome; (2) to see if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes within these groups between these time frames of interest, and (3) to see if symptom response at the initial evaluation was predictive of a favorable recovery. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-group observational design. Clinicians pragmatically identified positive responders as improving at least two points on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and/or a 20° improvement in shoulder active range of motion (AROM) following shoulder mobilization at the initial evaluation. Data were collected for the subjective and objective variables of interest at the initial evaluation, 2-week, 4-week, and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The prevalence of responders at the initial evaluation was 99 (81.8%). There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the variables of interest except for the Global Rating of Change (GRoC; f = 2.79, p = 0.006). The shoulder abduction AROM between-group difference exceeded the minimal detectable change at 4 weeks. The pair-wise comparison showed statistically significant differences for the outcomes of interest at each time point except for the GRoC between 4 weeks and 6 months. There was a statistically significant correlation between responders at the initial evaluation and shoulder abduction AROM at the 4-week follow-up (rpb (112) = 0.27, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Individuals with SAPS may benefit from shoulder mobilization independent of their within-session response to shoulder mobilization at the initial evaluation. Future research should seek to differentiate if these improvements are related to the within-session positive treatment response at the initial evaluation in individuals who are randomized to receive shoulder mobilization or not.

Eagle's syndrome, elongated styloid process and new evidence for pre-manipulative precautions for potential cervical arterial dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Safety with upper cervical interventions is a frequently discussed and updated concern for physical therapists, chiropractors and osteopaths. IFOMPT developed the framework for safety assessment of the cervical spine, and this topic has been discussed in-depth with past masterclasses characterizing carotid artery dissection and cervical arterial dysfunction. Our masterclass will expand on this information with knowledge of specific anatomical anomalies found to produce Eagle's syndrome, and cause carotid artery dissection, stroke and even death. Eagle's syndrome is an underdiagnosed, multi-mechanism symptom assortment produced by provocation of the sensitive carotid space structures by styloid process anomalies. As the styloid traverses between the internal and external carotid arteries, provocation of the vessels and periarterial sympathetic nerve fibers can lead to various neural, vascular and autonomic symptoms. Eagle's syndrome commonly presents as neck, facial and jaw pain, headache and arm paresthesias; problems physical therapists frequently evaluate and treat. PURPOSE: This masterclass aims to outline the safety concerns, assessment and management of patients with Eagle's syndrome and styloid anomalies. By providing evidence of this common anomaly found in almost one-third of the population, hypothesis generation and clinical reasoning with patients presenting with head and neck symptoms can improve. IMPLICATIONS: Including styloid anomalies as potential hypotheses for patients with head and neck complaints can assist therapists in safe practice and expedite referral. The authors recommend updating the IFOMPT framework to incorporate Eagle's syndrome, a comprehensive autonomic assessment, and palpation of the stylohyoid complex to avoid potentially serious complications from conceivably hazardous interventions.

Can experienced physiotherapists identify which patients are likely to succeed with physical therapy treatment?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine if clinician predicted prognosis is associated with patient outcomes. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of data that were collected in 8 physiotherapy outpatient clinics. Nine physiotherapists with post-graduate training in manual therapy (mean 20.3 years of experience) were asked at baseline to project the outcome of the patients evaluated. In total, 112 patients with low back (74 %) or neck (26 %) pain were treated pragmatically with interventions consisting of manual therapy, strengthening, and patient-specific education. Outcomes measures consisted of percent change in disability (Oswestry or Neck Disability Index), self-reported rate of recovery (0-100 %), and percent change in pain (numerical pain rating scale). Hierarchical logistic regression determined potential factors (clinician predicted prognosis score (1-10) at baseline, dichotomised as poor (1-6) and good (7-10); symptom duration categorised as acute, subacute or chronic; same previous injury (yes/no); baseline pain and disability scores; within-session improvement at initial visit (yes/no); and presence of ≥ one psychological factor) associated with meaningful changes in each of the three outcomes at discharge (disability and pain > 50 % improvement, rate of recovery ≥82.5 % improvement). RESULTS: Clinician predicted prognosis (OR 4.15, 95%CI = 1.31, 13.19, p = 0.02) and duration of symptoms (OR subacute 0.24, 95%CI = 0.07, 0.89, p = 0.03; chronic 0.21, 95%CI = 0.05, 0.90, p = 0.04) were associated with rate of recovery, whereas only clinician predicted prognosis was associated with disability improvement (OR 4.28, 95 % CI 1.37, 13.37, p = 0.01). No variables were associated with pain improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician predicted prognosis is potentially valuable for patients, as a good predicted prognosis is associated with improvements in disability and rate of recovery.

Physical therapists' clinical knowledge of multidisciplinary low back pain treatment guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Numerous clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to assist clinicians in care options for low back pain (LBP). Knowledge of CPGs has been marginal across health-related professions. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were: (1) to measure US-based physical therapists' knowledge of care recommendations associated with multidisciplinary LBP CPGs and (2) to determine which characteristics were associated with more correct responses. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. METHODS: Consenting participants attending manual therapy education seminars read a clinical vignette describing a patient with LBP and were asked clinical decision-making questions regarding care, education, and potential referral. Descriptive statistics illustrating response accuracy and binary logistic regression determined adjusted associations between predictor variables and appropriate decisions. RESULTS: A total of 1,144 of 3,932 surveys were eligible for analysis. Correct responses were 55.9% for imaging, 54.7% for appropriate medication, 62.0% for advice to stay active, 92.7% for appropriate referral with failed care, and 16.6% for correctly answering all 4 questions. After adjustment, practicing in an outpatient facility was significantly associated with a correct decision on imaging. Female participants were more likely than male participants to correctly select proper medications, refer the patient to another health care professional when appropriate, and answer all 4 questions correctly. Participants reporting caseloads of greater than 50% of patients with LBP were more likely to select proper medications, give advice to stay active, and answer all 4 questions correctly. Participants attending more continuing education were more likely to give advice to stay active and older, and more experienced participants were more likely to appropriately refer after failed care. LIMITATIONS: There was potential selection bias, which limits generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The survey identified varied understanding of CPGs when making decisions that were similar in recommendation to the CPGs. No single predictor for correct responses for LBP CPGs was found.

The addition of cervical unilateral posterior-anterior mobilisation in the treatment of patients with shoulder impingement syndrome: a randomised clinical trial.

Shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) is a complex, multi-factorial problem that is treated with a variety of different conservative options. One conservative option that has shown effectiveness is manual therapy to the thoracic spine. Another option, manual therapy to the cervical spine, has been studied only once with good results, evaluating short-term outcomes, in a small sample size. The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of neck manual therapy for patients with SIS. The study was a randomised, single blinded, clinical trial where both groups received pragmatic, evidence-based treatment to the shoulder and one group received neck manual therapy. Subjects with neck pain were excluded from the study. Comparative pain, disability, rate of recovery and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) measures were analyzed on the 68 subjects seen over an average of 56.1 days (standard deviation (SD)=55.4). Eighty-six percent of the sample reported an acceptable change on the PASS at discharge. There were no between-groups differences in those who did or did not receive neck manual therapy; however, both groups demonstrated significant within-groups improvements. On average both groups improved 59.7% (SD=25.1) for pain and 53.5% (SD=40.2) for the Quick Disabilities of the Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) from baseline. This study found no value when neck manual therapy was added to the treatment of SIS. Reasons may include the lack of therapeutic dosage provided for the manual therapy approach or the lack of benefit to treating the neck in subjects with SIS who do not have concomitant neck problems.

No Differences in Outcomes in People with Low Back Pain Who Met the Clinical Prediction Rule for Lumbar Spine Manipulation When a Pragmatic Non-thrust Manipulation Was Used as the Comparator.

PURPOSE: To investigate differences in pain and disability between patients treated with thrust manipulation (TM) and those treated with non-thrust manipulation (NTM) in a group of patients with mechanical low back pain (LBP) who had a within-session response to an initial assessment and met the clinical prediction rule (CPR). METHODS: Data from 71 patients who met the CPR were extracted from a database of patients in a larger randomized controlled trial comparing TM and NTM. Treatment of the first two visits involved either TM or NTM (depending on allocation) and a standardized home exercise programme. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a two-way ANOVA examining within- and between-groups effects for pain and disability, as well as total visits, total days in care, and rate of recovery. RESULTS: No between-group differences in pain or disability were found for NTM versus TM groups (p=0.55), but within-subjects effects were noted for both groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis suggests that patients who satisfy the CPR benefit as much from NTM as from TM.

Objectif : Étudier les différences au niveau de la douleur et de la capacité entre les patients traités par manipulation avec pression (MP) et ceux qui sont traités par manipulation sans pression (MSP) chez un groupe de patients souffrant de lombalgie mécanique (LM) qui ont réagi au cours d'une séance après une évaluation initiale et satisfaisaient à la règle de prévision clinique (RPC). Méthodes : On a extrait des données sur 71 patients qui satisfaisaient à la RPC d'une base de données sur des patients d'un essai contrôlé randomisé de plus grande envergure comparant la MP et la MSP. Au cours des deux premières visites, le traitement a comporté une MP ou une MSP (selon l'affectation) et un programme normalisé d'exercice domicile. L'analyse des données a inclus des statistiques descriptives et une analyse bidirectionnelle des écarts portant sur les effets à l'intérieur d'un même groupe et entre les groupes en ce qui a trait à la douleur et à l'incapacité, ainsi que le nombre total de visites, le nombre total de jours de soins et la rapidité du rétablissement. Résultats : On n'a constaté aucune différence entre les groupes au niveau de la douleur ou de l'incapacité pour le traitement MSP par rapport au traitement MP (p=0,55), mais on a constaté des effets chez les mêmes sujets pour les deux groupes (p<0,001). Conclusions : Cette analyse secondaire indique que les patients qui satisfont aux critères de la RPC bénéficient autant d'une MSP que d'une MP.

The role of patients' expectation of appropriate initial manual therapy treatment in outcomes for patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with low back pain who had a matched, unmatched, or were indifferent with their pretreatment expectation/preference to the manual therapy thrust or nonthrust intervention. A secondary purpose was to explore baseline patient characteristics affiliated with a preference of manual therapy treatment type (thrust or nonthrust manipulation). METHODS: The study is a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial that enrolled 149 patients with low back pain, from 16 distinct outpatient physical therapy practices within the United States. Patient's pretreatment expectations were identified before randomization. The intervention included manual therapy (thrust or nonthrust manipulation) with a standardized exercise program, which was carried out for 2 treatment sessions. Six outcomes captured the constructs of (a) disability, (b) pain perception, (c) care intensity, (d) fear avoidance behaviors, and (e) perception of extent of recovery. Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (and Tukey, a post hoc test), Fisher exact test, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis were used for analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in any of the 6 dedicated outcomes measures between the matched, unmatched, and no preference groups. Therapist-determined patient "irritability" was associated with patient preference of nonthrust treatment, and higher body mass index was associated with patient preference of thrust treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients demonstrated no statistical difference in disability or pain outcome measures when matched, unmatched, or indifferent to the intervention.

Thrust and nonthrust manipulation for older adults with low back pain: an evaluation of pain and disability.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of thrust manipulation (TM) and non-TM (NTM) on a sample of older subjects with low back pain. METHODS: This is a secondary data analysis of a randomized control trial. Forty-nine subjects aged 55 to 88 years participated in the trial, who received either a TM or NTM on at least 2 occasions during the course of care, and were extracted from the larger data set. The treatment program included a standardized home exercise program for the first 2 sessions, which could be modified by the therapist after those 2 sessions. Numeric pain rating scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were the outcomes for this study. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed no significant between-group differences for treatment group (P=.99) without group×time interaction (P=.90). Significant within-group changes were observed for both groups for ODI and numeric pain rating scale (P<.001); the average self-report of recovery was 78.0% (SD, 19.8%). Age stratification of the older subset revealed between-group differences in ODI change scores for the oldest subjects (>70 years) compared with 60 to 69 years (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that outcomes for both TM and NTM improved in older adults with low back pain.

Which prognostic factors for low back pain are generic predictors of outcome across a range of recovery domains?

BACKGROUND: Recovery from low back pain (LBP) is multidimensional and requires the use of multiple-response (outcome) measures to fully reflect these many dimensions. Predictive prognostic variables that are present or stable in all or most predictive models that use different outcome measures could be considered "universal" prognostic variables. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential of universal prognostic variables in predictive models for 4 different outcome measures in patients with mechanical LBP. DESIGN: Predictive modeling was performed using data extracted from a randomized controlled trial. Four prognostic models were created using backward stepwise deletion logistic, Poisson, and linear regression. METHODS: Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy facilities in 10 states. All 149 patients with LBP were treated with manual therapy and spine strengthening exercises until discharge. Four different measures of response were used: Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale change scores, total visits, and report of rate of recovery. RESULTS: The set of statistically significant predictors was dependent on the definition of response. All regression models were significant. Within both forms of the 4 models, meeting the clinical prediction rule for manipulation at baseline was present in all 4 models, whereas no irritability at baseline and diagnosis of sprains and strains were present in 2 of 4 of the predictive models. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation is that this study evaluated only 4 of the multiple outcome measures that are pertinent for patients with LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Meeting the clinical prediction rule was prognostic for all outcome measures and should be considered a universal prognostic predictor. Other predictive variables were dependent on the outcomes measure used in the predictive model.

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predictors regardless of the MCID used for a particular outcome measure. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between predictive models and the MCID cutpoint on the ODI. SETTING: Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy clinics in 10 states. DESIGN: Secondary database analysis using backward stepwise deletion logistic regression of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to create prognostic clinical prediction rules (CPR). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: One hundred and forty-nine patients with low back pain (LBP) were enrolled in the RCT. All were treated with manual therapy, with a majority also receiving spine-strengthening exercises. RESULTS: The resultant predictive models were dependent upon the MCID used and baseline sample characteristics. All CPR were statistically significant (P < 001). All six MCID cutpoints used resulted in completely different significant predictor variables with no predictor significant across all models. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitations include sub-optimal sample size and study design. CONCLUSIONS: There is extreme variability among predictive models created using different MCIDs on the ODI within the same patient population. Our findings highlight the instability of predictive modeling, as these models are significantly affected by population baseline characteristics along with the MCID used. Clinicians must be aware of the fragility of CPR prior to applying each in clinical practice.

Does the use of a prescriptive clinical prediction rule increase the likelihood of applying inappropriate treatments? A survey using clinical vignettes.

Clinical prediction rules (CPR) have been promoted as a natural progression in treatment decision-making. Methodological limitations of derivation and validation studies have resulted in some researchers questioning the indiscriminate use of CPRs. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of the lumbar spine manipulation CPR (LCPR) use on clinical decision making through a survey of practicing clinicians. A sample of 535 physiotherapists from the United States, who routinely use thrust manipulation (TM), agreed to participate in this study. Those who use and those who do not use the LCPR determined group designation. A 9-step clinical vignette progressed a fictitious patient meeting the LCPR from no medical concern to significant concern for general health. A 2 × 9 chi-square was used to analyze the progression of decision-making. APTA board certification (P = 0.04), gender (P < 0.01), and manual therapy course attendance (P = 0.04) may increase and following the McKenzie philosophy (P < 0.01) may decrease the use of the LCPR. Subjects using the LCPR were more likely to choose to manipulate the patient (P < 0.01 and P = 0.02) during the first 2 scenarios of the vignette but both groups avoided TM equally as the medical concerns progressed. The results would suggest that subjects who routinely use TM would modify their decision-making to accommodate medical complications that preclude the indication for TM, and hence a potentially harmful intervention. This propensity to modify behaviour, was seen in both groups, regardless of their initial tendency to use the LCPR.

Coupling behavior of the cervical spine: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate evidence of consistency of reported directional coupling patterns among selected studies and to determine its use in manual medical treatment. METHODS: The study was a systematic literature review of English-only journals using PubMed and CINAHL. The keywords included "cervical vertebrae," "biomechanics," "coupling," and "three-dimensional movement" and required coupling directional assessment of individual spine segments. RESULTS: Four 2-dimensional and 8 3-dimensional studies met inclusion criteria. This study found 100% agreement in coupling direction (side flexion and rotation to the same side) in lower cervical vertebral segments (C2-3 and lower) and variation in coupling patterns in the upper cervical segments of occiput-C1 (during side flexion initiation) and C1-2. Dissimilarities may be explained by differences in measurement devices, movement initiation, in vivo vs in vitro specimens, and anatomical variations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that use of 3-dimensional analyzed cervical coupling patterns for the lower cervical vertebral during apposition and treatment application may show clinical use for manual clinicians. The use of directional coupling based on 2-dimensional cervical coupling patterns or upper cervical spine coupling that addresses C1-2 should be questioned.

A survey on the importance of lumbar coupling biomechanics in physiotherapy practice.

Knowledge of lumbar coupling biomechanics is foundational in many manual therapy disciplines. 3-D studies of lumbar coupling indicate that coupling direction may not be predictable. The purpose of this study was to investigate physiotherapists' perception of importance of lumbar coupling for validation of manual therapy, necessity in treatment, and perceived direction of lumbar coupling biomechanics. A sample of 369 physiotherapists within the United States volunteered to participate in this study. An ologit regression analysis investigated factors associated with perception of lumbar coupling. A Fleiss Kappa determined the agreement of coupling direction among physiotherapists. The majority of physiotherapists indicated that lumbar coupling biomechanics were important or very important, frequently used during treatment, and necessary for validation of manual therapy. The ologit regressions identified that the importance placed upon lumbar coupling biomechanics is highly related toward therapists' pre-concept of coupling. Kappa values for the five spinal segments were negative indicating worse than chance agreement: L1-2 = -0.10; L2-3 = -0.11; L3-4 = -0.09; L4-5 = -0.10; and L5-S1 = -0.09. The poor Kappa values, strong pre-conceptual perceptions of coupling necessity, and the importance placed upon lumbar coupling for treatment could lead to disparities among physiotherapists in lumbar manual therapy assessment and treatment.