Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Headache Screening Questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: The Headache Screening Questionnaire (HSQ) was created and validated to enable health professionals to screen for migraine and tension-type headaches. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the HSQ, creating the Brazilian version of the HSQ (HSQ-BR). DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHOD: The Brazilian version of the HSQ was developed following the processes of translation, synthesis, back-translation, expert committee review, and pre-testing. The translation phase involved two independent translators whose mother language was Brazilian Portuguese and who also were fluent in Dutch. The back-translation phase involved two independent translators whose mother language was Dutch and who also were fluent in Portuguese. The expert committee based their decisions on semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalences. To verify the comprehension of the questionnaire, 60 subjects (73.3% women) with headaches with a mean age of 32.8 ± 12.0 years, participated in the pre-test phase. RESULTS: During the translation process, some terms and expressions were changed to obtain cultural equivalence to the original HSQ. The process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the HSQ to the Brazilian culture and Portuguese language, including its scoring algorithms for migraine and tension-type headache, was successfully concluded, as the comprehension of each item of the questionnaire was over 90% on the pre-test. CONCLUSION: The HSQ-BR has been created.

Effectiveness of manual therapy in patients with tension-type headache. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the evidence about the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) on pain intensity, frequency and impact of headache in individuals with tension-type headache (TTH). METHODS: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and PEDro were searched in June 2020. Randomized controlled trials that applied MT not associated with other interventions for TTH were selected. The level of evidence was synthesized using GRADE, and Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) were calculated for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included with a total sample of 1131 individuals. High velocity and low amplitude techniques were not superior to no treatment on reducing pain intensity (SMD = 0.01, low evidence) and frequency (SMD = -0.27, moderate evidence). Soft tissue interventions were superior to no treatment on reducing pain intensity (SMD = -0.86, low evidence) and frequency of pain (SMD = -1.45, low evidence). Dry needling was superior to no treatment on reducing pain intensity (SMD = -5.16, moderate evidence) and frequency (SMD = -2.14, moderate evidence). Soft tissue interventions were not superior to no treatment and other treatments on the impact of headache. CONCLUSION: Manual therapy may have positive effects on pain intensity and frequency, but more studies are necessary to strengthen the evidence of the effects of manual therapy on subjects with tension-type headache.Implications for rehabilitationSoft tissue interventions and dry needling can be used to improve pain intensity and frequency in patients with tension type headache.High velocity and low amplitude thrust manipulations were not effective for improving pain intensity and frequency in patients with tension type headache.Manual therapy was not effective for improving the impact of headache in patients with tension type headache.

International consensus on the most useful assessments used by physical therapists to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders: A Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify assessment tools used to evaluate patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) considered to be clinically most useful by a panel of international experts in TMD physical therapy (PT). METHODS: A Delphi survey method administered to a panel of international experts in TMD PT was conducted over three rounds from October 2017 to June 2018. The initial contact was made by email. Participation was voluntary. An e-survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was posted using SurveyMonkey for each round. Percentages of responses were analysed for each question from each round of the Delphi survey administrations. RESULTS: Twenty-three experts (completion rate: 23/25) completed all three rounds of the survey for three clinical test categories: 1) questionnaires, 2) pain screening tools and 3) physical examination tests. The following was the consensus-based decision regarding the identification of the clinically most useful assessments. (1) Four of 9 questionnaires were identified: Jaw Functional Limitation (JFL-8), Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular disorders (TSK/TMD) and the neck disability index (NDI). (2) Three of 8 identified pain screening tests: visual analog scale (VAS), numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and pain during mandibular movements. (3) Eight of 18 identified physical examination tests: physiological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) movements, trigger point (TrP) palpation of the masticatory muscles, TrP palpation away from the masticatory system, accessory movements, articular palpation, noise detection during movement, manual screening of the cervical spine and the Neck Flexor Muscle Endurance Test. CONCLUSION: After three rounds in this Delphi survey, the results of the most used assessment tools by TMD PT experts were established. They proved to be founded on test construct, test psychometric properties (reliability/validity) and expert preference for test clusters. A concordance with the screening tools of the diagnostic criteria of TMD consortium was noted. Findings may be used to guide policymaking purposes and future diagnostic research.