Reliability, Measurement Error, Responsiveness, and Minimal Important Change of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale 2.0 for Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess functional limitations. Recently, the PSFS 2.0 was proposed; this instrument includes an inverse numeric rating scale and an additional list of activities that patients can choose. The aim of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the PSFS 2.0 when used by patients with nonspecific neck pain. METHODS: Patients with nonspecific neck pain completed a numeric rating scale, the PSFS 2.0, and the Neck Disability Index at baseline and again after 12 weeks. The Global Perceived Effect (GPE) was also collected at 12 weeks and used as an anchor. Test-retest measurement was assessed by completion of a second PSFS 2.0 after 1 week. Measurement error was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot. The receiver operating characteristic method with the anchor (GPE) functions as the reference standard was used for calculating the minimal important change. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included, with 5 lost at follow-up. No floor and ceiling effects were reported. In the test-retest analysis, the mean difference was 0.15 (4.70 at first test and 4.50 at second test). The ICC (mixed models) was 0.95, indicating high agreement (95% CI = 0.92-0.97). For measurement error, the upper and lower limits of agreement were 0.95 and -1.25 points, respectively, with a smallest detectable change of 1.10. The minimal important change was determined to be 2.67 points. The PSFS 2.0 showed satisfactory responsiveness, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.70-0.93). There were substantial to high correlations between the change scores of the PSFS 2.0 and the Neck Disability Index and GPE (0.60 and 0.52, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The PSFS 2.0 is a reliable and responsive patient-reported outcome measure for use by patients with neck pain.

Effectiveness of thoracic spine manipulation for upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Upper quadrant musculoskeletal disorders (UQMD), comprising of cranial, cervical, shoulder and upper extremity disorders, are among the most frequently reported disorders in clinical practice. Thoracic high velocity low amplitude thrust (Tx-HVLAT) manipulation is a form of conservative management recommended in systematic reviews as an effective treatment option for aspects of UQMD disorders such headache, shoulder pain and lateral elbow pain. However, no recent systematic reviews have assessed the effectiveness across UQMD. Therefore, this systematic review aims to update the current evidence on the effectiveness of Tx-HVLAT for patients with UQMD on (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) performance measures or (3) psychosocial outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature will be searched from inception using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Thesaurus and/or free-text words. Combinations will be made based on localisation, disorder, intervention and design. Following guidelines as advised by the Cochrane Back Review Group, published randomised controlled trials will be included. Two review authors will independently assess the risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane Back Review Group's recommended ROB2 tool and will independently extract the data using a standardised data extraction form. Overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. For continuous data, we will calculate standardised mean differences with 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risks and 95% CIs will be calculated. Where possible we will present a subgroup analysis by disorder. For pooling, a random-effects model will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The study findings will be submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed journal for dissemination and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023429996.

Measurement properties of a computer adaptive device, the Senscoordination 3D Cervical Trainer, to assess cervical range of motion in people with neck pain.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians commonly assess cervical range of motion (ROM) in patients with neck pain. Recently, a new instrument has been developed, the Senscoordination 3D Cervical Trainer (SCT), designed to measure neck ROM in addition to joint position error, static and dynamic balance performance, and performance on a 'neuro muscular control test'. This study aims to assess the interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness of the SCT using the CROM device as a comparator. METHODS: One hundred patients with non-specific neck pain were included and their active cervical ROM was measured in a random order by two raters in succession using both devices simultaneously at baseline and after personalised physiotherapy management, at 12 week follow up. Convergent validity and responsiveness were quantified by a Pearson correlation coefficient. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to calculate the test-retest reliability of the SCT. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated per movement direction and for the total range of motion. RESULTS: The correlation between the measures obtained with the CROM device and the SCT was high (0.97 or 0.98 depending on direction of movement). Interrater reliability was high for all directions (ICC ranging from 0.81 to 0.97). The SDC ranged from 6.9 for left cervical rotation to 12.2 for right cervical rotation. At the follow up, correlation between the change score on the CROM device and the SCT was high (0.86-0.94 depending on the direction of movement). CONCLUSION: The SCT is a valid, reliable and responsive instrument for measuring cervical ROM.

Comparison between two patient-reported outcome measures for patients with cervical radiculopathy: A think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: The Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale (CRIS) and Patient Specific Functional Scale 2.0 (PSFS 2.0) are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess activity limitations in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR). This study a) compared the CRIS subscale 3 and the PSFS 2.0 in patients with CR with respect to completeness and patient preference, b) established the correlation between both PROMs in assessing the individual patient's level of functional limitations and c) assessed the frequency of reported functional limitations. METHODS: Participants with CR participated in semi-structured, individual, face-to-face interviews as part of a "think-aloud" process; verbalising their thoughts while completing both PROMs. Sessions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were recruited. The most frequently reported functional limitation on the CRIS was: 'working at a computer' (n = 17) and overhead activities' (n = 10) for the PSFS 2.0. There was significant moderate positive correlation between the scores on the PSFS 2.0 and the CRIS (Spearman's r = 0.55, n = 22 p = .008). Most patients (n = 18; 82%) preferred the ability to present their own individual functional limitations of the PSFS 2.0. Eleven participants (50%) preferred the 11-point scale of the PSFS 2.0 over the 5-point Likert scale scoring option of the CRIS. CONCLUSION: Both easy to complete PROMs capture functional limitations in patients with CR. Most patients prefer the PSFS 2.0 over the CRIS. The wording and layout of both PROMs need refinement to enhance user-friendliness and avoid misinterpretation.

Conservative management for lumbar radiculopathy based on the stage of the disorder: a Delphi study.

PURPOSE: Conservative management of lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is the first treatment option. To date, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines have not considered the most appropriate timing of management. This study aimed to establish consensus on effective conservative treatment modalities across different stages (i.e., acute, sub-acute, or chronic) of LR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through an iterative multistage Delphi process, experts rated agreement with proposed treatment modalities across stages of LR and could suggest additional treatment modalities. The agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to measure agreement (median, interquartile ranges, and percentage of agreement). Consensus criteria were defined a priori for each round. RESULTS: Fourteen panelists produced a consensus list of effective treatment modalities across stages of LR. Acute stage management should focus on providing patients with information about the condition including pain education, individualized physical activity, and directional preference exercises, supported with NSAIDs. In the sub-acute stage, strength training and neurodynamic mobilization could be added and transforaminal/epidural injections considered. In the chronic stage, spinal manipulative therapy, specific exercise, and function-specific physical training should be combined with individualized vocational, ergonomic and postural advice. CONCLUSIONS: Experts agree effectiveness of interventions differs through the evolution of LR.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTo date clinical guideline for conservative management of lumbar radiculopathy do not consider the evolution of the condition.Acute stage management of lumbar radiculopathy should focus on providing information about the condition and support individualized physical activity with pain medication.Sub-acute management should add neurodynamic mobilization to strength training, while transforaminal and/or epidural injections could be considered.Chronic stage management should consider spinal manipulative therapy and focus on restoring personalized functional capacity.

Classification criteria for cervical radiculopathy: An international e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR. DESIGN: A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies. METHODS: Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR. RESULTS: Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation.

Timing of Evidence-Based Nonsurgical Interventions as Part of Multimodal Treatment Guidelines for the Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: Conservative management of cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a first treatment option because the risk-benefit ratio for surgery is less favorable. Systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines reporting on the effectiveness of nonsurgical management have not considered the timing of management. The aim of this study was to establish consensus on effective nonsurgical treatment modalities at different stages (ie, acute, subacute, or chronic) of CR using the Delphi method approach. METHODS: Through an iterative multistage process, experts within the field rated their agreement with a list of proposed treatment modalities according to the stage of CR and could suggest missing treatment modalities. Agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to measure agreement (median, interquartile ranges, and percentage of agreement). Consensus criteria were defined a priori for each round. Consensus for Round 3 was based on ≥2 of the following: a median Likert scale value of ≥4, interquartile range value of ≤1, and/or a percentage of agreement ≥70%. RESULTS: Data analysis produced a consensus list of effective treatment modalities in different stages of recovery. CONCLUSION: According to experts, the focus of multimodal management in the acute stage should consist of patient education and spinal manipulative therapy, specific (foraminal opening) exercises, and sustained pain-relieving positions. In the subacute stage, increasing individualized physical activity including supervised motor control, specific exercises, and/or neurodynamic mobilization could be added. In the chronic stage, focus should shift to include general aerobic exercise as well as focused strength training. Postural education and vocational ergonomic assessment should also be considered. IMPACT: Multimodal conservative management of individuals with CR should take the stage of the condition into consideration. The focus of therapeutic interventions should shift from passive pain-relieving intervention in the acute stage to increasingly more individualized physical activity and self-management in the chronic stage.

Timing of evidence-based non-surgical interventions as part of multimodal treatment guidelines for the management of cervical radiculopathy: a Delphi study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a clinical condition whereby motor, reflex and/or sensory changes such as radicular pain, paraesthaesia or numbness can exist. Conservative management is a preferred first treatment option as the risk-benefit ratio for surgery is less favourable. Systematic reviews and treatment guidelines gather evidence on the effectiveness of non-surgical management of patients with CR from randomised controlled trials, which do not consider the natural course of recovery to modify the management strategy accordingly. The aim of this study is to establish consensus on effective non-surgical treatment modalities for patients in different stages (acute, subacute and chronic) of CR, using the Delphi method approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Through an iterative multistage process, experts within the field will rate their agreement with a list of proposed treatment modalities and suggest any missing treatment modalities during each round. Agreement will be measured using a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics will be used to measure agreement (median, IQR and percentage of agreement). Consensus criteria will be defined a priori for each round. Data analysis at the end of round three will produce a consensus list of effective treatment modalities for the management of patients with CR in different stages of recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted from the University of Birmingham ethics committee under ERN_20-1121. The study findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and to relevant conferences for dissemination of the study results.

Excursion of the median nerve during a contra-lateral cervical lateral glide movement in people with and without cervical radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND: A segmental, contra-lateral cervical lateral glide (CCLG) mobilization technique is effective for patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR). The CCLG technique induces median nerve sliding in healthy individuals, but this has not been assessed in patients with CR. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to 1) assess longitudinal excursion of the median nerve in patients with CR and asymptomatic participants during a CCLG movement, 2) reassess nerve excursions following an intervention at a 3-month follow-up in patients with CR and 3) correlate changes in nerve excursions with changes in clinical signs and symptoms. DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: During a computer-controlled mechanically induced CCLG, executed by the Occiflex™, longitudinal median nerve excursion was assessed at the wrist and elbow with ultrasound imaging (T0) in 20 patients with CR and 20 matched controls. Patients were re-assessed at a 3-month follow-up (T1), following conservative treatment including neurodynamic mobilization. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between patients and controls in the excursion of the median nerve at both the wrist (Mdn = 0.50 mm; IQR = 0.13-1.30; 2.10 mm (IQR = 1.42-2.80, p < 0.05)) and elbow (Mdn = 1.21 mm (IQR = 0.85-1.94); 3.49 mm (IQR = 2.45-4.24, p < 0.05)) respectively at T0. There was also a significant increase in median nerve excursion at both sites between T0 and T1 in those with CR (Mdn = 1.96, 2.63 respectively). Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test indicated median pre-test ranks (Mdn = 0.5, 1.21; Z = - 3.82, p < 0.01; Z = -3.78, p < 0.01 respectively) and median post-test ranks. There was a strong correlation between improvement in median nerve excursion at the elbow at T1 and improvement in pain intensity (r = 0.7, p < 0.001) and functional limitations (r = 0.6, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal median nerve excursion differs significantly between patients with CR and asymptomatic volunteers at baseline, but this difference is no longer present after 3 months of conservative physiotherapy management. Improvement in nerve excursion correlates with improvement in clinical signs and symptoms.

Normative values of cervical range of motion for both children and adults: A systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize studies reporting normative values of active cervical range of motion (ROM) in healthy children and adults. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evaluating active cervical ROM is part of routine assessment of patients with neck pain. Interpretation of outcomes necessitates having normative data per age category. Currently available normative values differ across studies, perhaps due to (the measurement properties of) the devices used. METHODS: A systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Electronic searches included EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases from inception to August 2018. Included studies had to involve healthy subjects in which active cervical ROM was assessed or when determining normative values was the aim of the study. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using an adapted version of the QUADAS. A mean value was re-calculated for the total group in case data were presented per gender per age-category only. When possible, data were pooled. RESULTS: From 2151 unique hits, 217 articles were selected for full text assessment, after which 162 articles were excluded. Data were extracted from 55 articles using 16 different measurement devices. Twenty-five studies were rated as being of "low risk of bias". Only data from studies evaluating the CROM device and Zebris could be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review revealed that although a large number of studies assessed normative data for active cervical ROM, the methodological quality of most studies was low and the heterogeneity between studies was high. Only the normative data for active cervical ROM using the CROM device seems to be useful. Overall, reference values for measuring active cervical ROM is unclear for most measurement devices. Normative values of cervical range of motion for both children and adults: a systematic review.

Does the patient and clinician perception of restricted range of cervical movement agree with the objective quantification of movement in people with neck pain? And do clinicians agree in their interpretation?

BACKGROUND: Measurement of cervical range of motion (ROM) is recommended when physically examining people with neck pain. However, little is known about the clinician's perception of "normal" versus restricted movement. Additionally, it is unknown if an objective measure of restricted movement correlates with the patient's perception of movement restriction. METHODS: One hundred patients with neck pain were asked to rate their total amount of restriction, using a movement restriction scale. Two physical therapists (PTs) measured cervical ROM using a CROM device. Assessors independently rated whether the patient was restricted in their cervical ROM for each movement direction ("yes" or "no"). Cohen's kappa was used to assess reliability between both assessor's interpretation for all movement directions. Correlations between the perception of 'normal' versus 'restricted' movement according to both the assessor and patient was compared with an objective classification of movement restriction using normative data. RESULTS: The agreement between PTs was high, ranging from substantial (K: 0.74) to almost perfect (K: 0.94). The correlation between the self-reported restriction scale and objective restriction was 0.44, indicating moderate correlation. The correlation between the PT's interpretation and objective restriction ranged from 0.55 to 0.66 depending on the direction of movement. CONCLUSION: A large proportion (85%) of the patients with neck pain exhibited restricted cervical ROM, relative to normative data. The agreement between PTs was high in judging whether a patient had restricted cervical ROM. However, the judgement of both the patient and the PT was not always in accordance with the objective measure of movement.

Value of physical tests in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In clinical practice, the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy is based on information from the patient's history, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging. Various physical tests may be performed, but their diagnostic accuracy is unknown. PURPOSE: This study aimed to summarize and update the evidence on diagnostic performance of tests carried out during a physical examination for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN: A review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests was carried out. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample comprised diagnostic studies comparing results of tests performed during a physical examination in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy with a reference standard of imaging or surgical findings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios are presented, together with pooled results for sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: A literature search up to March 2016 was performed in CENTRAL, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Five diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. Only Spurling's test was evaluated in more than one study, showing high specificity ranging from 0.89 to 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.00); sensitivity varied from 0.38 to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.21-0.99). No studies were found that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of widely used neurological tests such as key muscle strength, tendon reflexes, and sensory impairments. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence for accuracy of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. When consistent with patient history, clinicians may use a combination of Spurling's, axial traction, and an Arm Squeeze test to increase the likelihood of a cervical radiculopathy, whereas a combined results of four negative neurodynamics tests and an Arm Squeeze test could be used to rule out the disorder.

A novel way of functional retraining of cervical motor control in a water polo player with combined cervicogenic and tension type headaches.

This case report introduces an innovative and novel way of functionally retraining the sport specific cervical function in a 13-year-old elite water polo player with a combined tension type headache and cervicogenic headache. After an evidence based assessment and manipulative physical therapy management regime, consisting of manual mobilization and exercise focused on retraining the deep cervical flexors and sub-occipital extensors, the patient was left with persistent residual complaints inhibiting competitive level sport participation. Re-assessment and subsequent retraining of a specific provocative functional task was facilitated by using the Cervical Trainer(™). Using a wireless sensor worn on the head, this device registers three-dimensional movement and displays this on a computer screen, providing direct feedback on movement performance. After a 6-week period of training sessions, the residual complaints subsided and her score on the Headache Impact Test-6 questionnaire improved from 51 to 36 signifying no impact of her headache on daily life activities.

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.

The effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of conservative treatments for patients with cervical radiculopathy, a term used to describe neck pain associated with pain radiating into the arm. Little is known about the effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized clinical trials. Conservative therapies consisted of physiotherapy, collar, traction etc. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted the data. If studies were clinically homogenous, a meta-analysis was performed. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE method. RESULTS: Fifteen articles were included that corresponded to 11 studies. Two studies scored low risk of bias. There is low-level evidence that a collar is no more effective than physiotherapy at short-term follow-up and very low-level evidence that a collar is no more effective than traction. There is low-level evidence that traction is no more effective than placebo traction and very low level-evidence that intermittent traction is no more effective than continuous traction. DISCUSSION: On the basis of low-level to very low-level evidence, no 1 intervention seems to be superior or consistently more effective than other interventions. Regardless of the intervention assignment, patients seem to improve over time, indicating a favorable natural course. Use of a collar and physiotherapy show promising results at short-term follow-up.

Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included when evaluating conservative interventions in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with CR. Selection criteria and definitions for patients with CR were extracted and evaluated on their uniformity. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included. Pain was used as an inclusion criterion in 11 studies. Inclusion based on the duration and location of pain varied between studies. Five studies used sensory symptoms in the arm as inclusion criterion. Four studies used cervical range of motion and motor disturbances as inclusion criteria, while reflex changes were used in two studies. Three studies included patients with a positive Spurling's test and two studies used it within a cluster of provocation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria used to select patients with CR vary widely between different intervention studies. Selection criteria and test methods used are poorly described. There is consensus on the presence of pain, but not on the exact location of pain.

Practical use of the HOAC II for clinical decision making and subsequent therapeutic interventions in an elite athlete with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Resident's case problem. BACKGROUND: This case report describes the diagnostic process, based on the Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II), and subsequent interventions in an elite athlete with subacute low back pain. It also demonstrates the clinical application of the HOAC II and shows how disablement terms, as used in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model, can be integrated into patient management in a manner that we believe enhances clinical practice. It also demonstrates the practical use of validated questionnaires and how these can be used to gather necessary information for the algorithm. DIAGNOSIS: A structured, evidence-based assessment led to a multifaceted, activity limitation-based diagnosis of being unable to (1) remain in a deep squat position during speed skating, (2) accelerate in turns while speed skating, and (3) rise from a slouched position without pain. We believed that these dysfunctions were due to local limited lumbar segmental mobility, concurrent with an inability to properly and functionally stabilize the lumbopelvic area. DISCUSSION: The HOAC II requires the therapist to develop an evidence-based strategy for the examination that is based on initial hypotheses developed from the medical history and other data obtained prior to the examination. The examination was tailored to identify and quantify activity limitations and participation restrictions that we believed could help to explain why this patient had his health problem. The case demonstrates how all elements of the HOAC II can be used for what we consider to be relatively common types of patients. We believe that by applying the HOAC II on an individual-patient basis, therapists will be ideally positioned to apply evidence to patient care and to defend their interventions to colleagues and third-party payers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Differential diagnosis, level 4.