Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial

Modernizing patient-centered manual therapy: Findings from a Delphi study on orthopaedic manual therapy application

BACKGROUND

Recent literature challenges the process by which orthopaedic manual therapy (OMT) has traditionally been applied. Progressive understanding of the complexities surrounding OMT analgesia and the decreased reliance on technique specific characteristics in determining treatment effectiveness promotes an update to training paradigms related to OMT.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this Delphi study was to establish consensus on what trainees should be focusing on when demonstrating OMT techniques and how candidates for OMT should be identified.

DESIGN

An international three-round Delphi study following recommended guidelines for conducting and reporting of Delphi studies (CREDES) was performed.

METHODS

One-hundred sixty-four expert manual therapy educators were identified for participation across four countries. Participants were asked to provide what concepts trainees should be focusing on when demonstrating OMT techniques and how candidates for OMT should be identified. Twenty-one themes were identified for each question.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants completed all three rounds of the Delphi. Consensus was reached on nineteen themes and eighteen themes respectively. Results from this Delphi stress patient-centered care within a biopsychosocial pain management model. Representation across all pillars of evidence-based practice were represented. Themes reaching consensus within this study favored the importance of neurophysiological, psychological, and biomechanical principles.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi presents consensus-based recommendations for what manual therapy trainees should focus on when demonstrating OMT techniques and on how candidates for OMT should be identified. These findings in collaboration with previous consensus recommendations on concepts to focus on within OMT education promote restructuring of OMT curriculum to evidence-based patient-centered care models.

Six Externally Validated Prognostic Models Have Potential Clinical Value to Predict Patient Health Outcomes in the Rehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and appraise externally validated prognostic models to predict a patient's health outcomes relevant to physical rehabilitation of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 8 databases and reported our findings according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020. An information specialist designed a search strategy to identify externally validated prognostic models for MSK conditions. Paired reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text and conducted data extraction. We extracted characteristics of included studies (eg, country and study design), prognostic models (eg, performance measures and type of model) and predicted clinical outcomes (eg, pain and disability). We assessed the risk of bias and concerns of applicability using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. We proposed and used a 5-step method to determine which prognostic models were clinically valuable.

RESULTS

We found 4896 citations, read 300 full-text articles, and included 46 papers (37 distinct models). Prognostic models were externally validated for the spine, upper limb, lower limb conditions, and MSK trauma, injuries, and pain. All studies presented a high risk of bias. Half of the models showed low concerns for applicability. Reporting of calibration and discrimination performance measures was often lacking. We found 6 externally validated models with adequate measures, which could be deemed clinically valuable [ie, (1) STart Back Screening Tool, (2) Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation RisK model, (3) Da Silva model, (4) PICKUP model, (5) Schellingerhout rule, and (6) Keene model]. Despite having a high risk of bias, which is mostly explained by the very conservative properties of the PROBAST tool, the 6 models remain clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

We found 6 externally validated prognostic models developed to predict patients' health outcomes that were clinically relevant to the physical rehabilitation of MSK conditions.

IMPACT

Our results provide clinicians with externally validated prognostic models to help them better predict patients' clinical outcomes and facilitate personalized treatment plans. Incorporating clinically valuable prognostic models could inherently improve the value of care provided by physical therapists.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain

Spine pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 11% of the world's population. It is the single leading cause of activity limitation and ranks fourth in years lost to disability globally, representing a significant personal, social, and economic burden. For the vast majority of patients with back and neck pain, a specific pathology cannot be identified as the cause for their pain, which is then labeled as non-specific. In a growing proportion of these cases, pain persists beyond 3 months and is referred to as chronic primary back or neck pain. To decrease the global burden of spine pain, current data suggest that a conservative approach may be preferable. One of the conservative management options available is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the main intervention used by chiropractors and other manual therapists. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness (as it compares to other interventions in more pragmatic settings) and efficacy (as it compares to inactive controls under highly controlled conditions) of SMT for the management of neck pain and low back pain. Additionally, a perspective on the current recommendations on SMT for spine pain and the needs for future research will be provided. In summary, SMT may be as effective as other recommended therapies for the management of non-specific and chronic primary spine pain, including standard medical care or physical therapy. Currently, SMT is recommended in combination with exercise for neck pain as part of a multimodal approach. It may also be recommended as a frontline intervention for low back pain. Despite some remaining discrepancies, current clinical practice guidelines almost universally recommend the use of SMT for spine pain. Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of SMT compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. Therefore, future research is needed to clarify the specific effects of SMT to further validate this intervention. In addition, factors that predict these effects remain to be determined to target patients who are more likely to obtain positive outcomes from SMT.

How Does the Measurement of Disability in Low Back Pain Map Unto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health?: A Scoping Review of the Manual Medicine Literature

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to catalog items from instruments used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors in patients with low back pain treated with manual medicine (manipulation and mobilization) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. This catalog will be used to inform the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment schedule for low back pain patients treated with manual medicine. In this scoping review, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We identified instruments (questionnaires, clinical tests, single questions) used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors, extracted the relevant items, and then linked these items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We included 95 articles and identified 1510 meaningful concepts. All but 70 items were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Of the concepts linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, body functions accounted for 34.7%, body structures accounted for 0%, activities and participation accounted for 41%, environmental factors accounted for 3.6%, and personal factors accounted for 16%. Most items used to measure functioning and disability in low back pain patient treated with manual medicine focus on body functions, as well as activities and participation. The lack of measures that address environmental factors warrants further investigation.

Existing validated clinical prediction rules for predicting response to physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal conditions have limited clinical value: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that have undergone validation testing for predicting response to physiotherapy-related interventions for musculoskeletal conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to September 2020. Search terms included musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, physiotherapy interventions and clinical prediction rules. Controlled studies that validated a prescriptive CPR for physiotherapy treatment response in musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility. Original derivation studies of each CPR were identified. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROBAST tool (derivation studies) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group criteria (validation studies).

RESULTS

Nine studies aimed to validate seven prescriptive CPRs for treatment response for MSK conditions including back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatments included manipulation, traction and exercise. Seven studies failed to demonstrate an association between CPR prediction and outcome. Methodological quality of derivation studies was poor and for validation studies was good overall.

CONCLUSION

Results do not support the use of any CPRs identified to aid physiotherapy treatment selection for common musculoskeletal conditions, due to methodological shortcomings in the derivation studies and lack of association between CPR and outcome in validation studies.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Changes in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation in rapid responders and non-rapid responders after lumbar spinal manipulation and sham: A secondary analysis in adults with low back pain

BACKGROUND

People with LBP who experience rapid improvement in symptoms after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are more likely to experience better longer-term outcomes compared to those who don't improve rapidly. It is unknown if short-term hypoalgesia after SMT could be a relevant finding in rapid responders.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore whether rapid responders had different short-term pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) outcomes after SMT and sham compared to non-rapid responders.

METHODS

This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial that recruited 80 adults with LBP (42 females, mean age 37 yrs). PPT at the calf, lumbar spine, and shoulder and TS at the hands and feet were measured before and three times over 30 min after a lumbar SMT or sham manipulation. Participants were classified as rapid responders or non-rapid responders based on self-reported change in LBP over the following 24 h.

RESULTS

Shoulder PPT transiently increased more in the rapid responders than non-rapid responders immediately post-intervention only (between-group difference in change from baseline = 0.29 kg/cm², 95% CI 0.02-0.56, p = .0497). There were no differences in calf PPT, lumbar PPT, hand TS, or foot TS based on responder status.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoalgesia in shoulder PPT occurred transiently in the rapid responders compared to the non-rapid responders. This may or may not contribute to symptomatic improvement after SMT or sham in adults with LBP, and may be a spurious finding. Short-term changes in TS do not appear to be related to changes in LBP.

Changes in Spinal Height After Manual Axial Traction or Side Lying: A Clinical Measure of Intervertebral Disc Hydration Using Stadiometry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the immediate effects of a manual therapy technique consisting of axial traction compared with side lying on increased spine height after sustained loading.

METHODS

Twenty-one asymptomatic participants were included. Participants either received manual therapy technique consisting of manual axial traction force for 2 consecutive rounds of 3 minutes or sustained side lying for 10 minutes. Spine height was measured using a commercially available stadiometer. Spinal height change was determined from measurements taken after loaded walking and measurements taken after manual therapy. A paired t test was performed to determine if a manual therapy technique consisting of axial traction increased spinal height after a period of spinal loading.

RESULTS

A significant increase in height was found after both manual therapy technique and sustained side lying (P < .0001). The mean height gain was 8.60 mm using 3-dimensional axial separation.

CONCLUSION

This study is an initial attempt at evaluating the biomechanical effects of manual therapy technique consisting of axial traction. Both manual axial traction force and sustained side-lying position were equally effective for short-term change in spine height after a loaded walking protocol among healthy asymptomatic individuals. This study protocol may help to inform future studies that evaluate spine height after loading.

A subgroup analysis to compare patients with acute low back pain classified as per treatment-based classification

OBJECTIVES

The evidence for the effectiveness of interventions targeting acute low back pain (LBP) is suboptimal. It is difficult to identify those patients who are more likely to develop chronic pain and disability after an acute episode of LBP. These shortcomings may be attributed to considering LBP as one homogenous condition.

METHODS

In this quasi-experimental study, we examined and analysed a prospective cohort of 267 patients with first-onset LBP and classified them into one of the groups based on treatment-based classification: direction-specified exercises (Group 2), manipulation (Group 3), stabilization exercises (Group 4), traction (Group 5), and a physician care group (Group 1). Disability and pain were assessed at baseline, after treatment, and at 6 months using the Oswestry Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale, respectively. Comparisons were made between the groups, and we predicted measures of disability and pain intensity at 6 months with age, gender, fear avoidance behaviour, centralization phenomenon (CP), expectations about recovery, CP, group classification, baseline pain, and disability.

RESULTS

Analysis showed that all the heterogeneous groups of LBP improved their outcomes with the respective treatment provided. However, when the entire sample was considered as one homogenous group of LBP, the results showed improvement with time (p < 0.05) only and no difference was found between groups (p > 0.05). None of the studied factors, except baseline pain (R = 0.227, R²  = 0.051, p < 0.05), were able to accurately predict the development of chronic pain in our study sample.

CONCLUSION

Though our results showed no differences between the subgroups in the reduction of pain and disability, we conclude that classifying and treating patients with LBP into subgroups based on signs and symptoms produce better outcomes. Baseline pain alone may predict a small percentage of people who may develop chronic pain.

Manual therapy applied by general practitioners for nonspecific low back pain: results of the ManRück pilot-study

Background

Nonspecific acute low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for accessing primary care. German guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and physical activity as evidence-based treatments. Manual Therapy (MT) remains controversial. To increase evidence-based treatment options for general practitioners (GPs), a Pilot-Study was set up to gather information about the required conditions and setting for an RCT.

Methods

The open pilot-study assesses recruitment methods for GPs and patients, timelines, data collection and outcomes of treatment immediately (T0) and 1, 6 and 12 weeks after consultation (T1, T2, T3). Inclusion criteria for GPs were: no experience of MT; for patients: adults between 18 and 50 suffering from LBP for less than 14 days.

Study process: Patients’ control-group (CG) was consecutively recruited first and received standard care. After GPs received a single training session in MT lasting two and a half hours, they consecutively recruited patients with LBP to the intervention group (IG). These patients received add-on MT.

Primary outcomes: (A): timelines and recruitment success, (B): assessment tools and sample size evaluation, (C) clinical findings: pain intensity change from baseline to day 3 and time till (a) analgesic use stopped and (b) 2-point pain reduction on an 11-point scale occurred.

Secondary outcomes: functional capacity, referral rate, use of other therapies, sick leave, patient satisfaction.

Results

14 GPs participated, recruiting 42 patients for the CG and 45 for the IG; 49% (56%) of patients were women. Average baseline pain was 5.98 points, SD: ±2.3 (5.98, SD ±1.8).

For an RCT an extended timeline and enhanced recruitment procedures are required. The assessment tools seem appropriate and provided relevant findings: additional MT led to faster pain reduction. IG showed reduced analgesic use and reduced pain at T1 and improved functional capacity by T2.

Conclusions

Before verifying the encouraging findings that additional MT may lead to faster pain reduction and reduced analgesic use via an RCT, the setting, patients’ structure, and inclusion criteria should be considered more closely.

Trial registration

Number: DRKS00003240 Registry: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS) URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/. Registration date: 14.11.2011. First patient: March 2012. Funding: the Rut and Klaus Bahlsen Stiftung, Hannover.

Unraveling the Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: Modeling an Approach

Synopsis Manual therapy interventions are popular among individual health care providers and their patients; however, systematic reviews do not strongly support their effectiveness. Small treatment effect sizes of manual therapy interventions may result from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to treatment. Mechanistic-based treatment approaches to manual therapy offer an intriguing alternative for identifying patients likely to respond to manual therapy. However, the current lack of knowledge of the mechanisms through which manual therapy interventions inhibit pain limits such an approach. The nature of manual therapy interventions further confounds such an approach, as the related mechanisms are likely a complex interaction of factors related to the patient, the provider, and the environment in which the intervention occurs. Therefore, a model to guide both study design and the interpretation of findings is necessary. We have previously proposed a model suggesting that the mechanical force from a manual therapy intervention results in systemic neurophysiological responses leading to pain inhibition. In this clinical commentary, we provide a narrative appraisal of the model and recommendations to advance the study of manual therapy mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(1):8-18. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7476.

Prevalence and reliability of treatment-based classification for subgrouping patients with low back pain

Objectives

To observe the distribution of patients who presented with low back pain (LBP) and to determine the between therapists' interrater reliability of assessments in a private outpatient setting using treatment-based classification (TBC) subgroups.

Methods

An observational and methodological study was conducted. Four hundred and twenty-nine patients (231 male; 198 female) presenting LBP symptoms and referred to conservative treatment were assessed by 13 physical therapists who conducted a 60-min examination process utilizing TBC subgroups. Interrater reliability analyses from six raters were assessed using Fleiss' kappa and previously recorded data (n = 30).

Results

In this study, 65.74% of patients were classified in only one subgroup, the most prevalent being stabilization (21.91%), followed by extension (15.38%), traction (11.89%), flexion (10.96%), manipulation (5.13%), and lateral shift (0.47%). Approximately 20.98% of patients were classified in two subgroups, where the most frequent overlaps were flexion + stabilization (7.46%), extension + stabilization (6.06%), flexion + traction (4.20%), extension + manipulation (1.86%), and 13.29% of patients were not classified in any TBC subgroup. Analysis of interrater reliability showed a kappa value of 0.62 and an overall agreement of 66% between raters.

Discussion

LBP is a heterogeneous clinical condition and several classification methods are proposed in the attempt to observe better outcomes for patients. Eighty-five percent of patients assessed were able to be classified when using the TBC assessment and reliability analysis showed a substantial agreement between raters.

Level of Evidence

2c.

Reconceptualising manual therapy skills in contemporary practice

With conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual therapy calls have arisen within some quarters of the physiotherapy profession challenging the continued use of manual skills for assessment and treatment. A reconceptualisation of the importance of manual examination findings is put forward, based upon a contemporary understanding of pain science, rather than considering these skills only in terms of how they should "guide" manual therapy interventions. The place for manual examination findings within complex, multidimensional presentations is considered using vignettes describing the presentations of five people with low back pain. As part of multidimensional, individualised management, the balance of evidence relating to the effectiveness, mechanisms of action and rationale for manual skills is discussed. It is concluded that if manual examination and therapeutic skills are used in a manner consistent with a contemporary understanding of pain science, multidimensional patient profiles and a person-centred approach, their selective and judicious use still has an important role.

Non-specific low back pain

Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.

Spinal Manipulation Vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically evaluate randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation (SM) vs sham manipulation in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2015 to identify all relevant trials. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. All data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = - 0.36; 95% confidence interval, - 0.59 to - 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that SM has specific treatment effects and is more effective at reducing nonspecific low back pain when compared with an effective sham intervention. However, given the small number of studies included in this analysis, we should be cautious of making strong inferences based on these results.

Clinical Decision Support Tools for Selecting Interventions for Patients with Disabling Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Scoping Review

Purpose We aimed to identify and inventory clinical decision support (CDS) tools for helping front-line staff select interventions for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Methods We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework which progresses through five stages: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies for analysis; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. We considered computer-based, and other available tools, such as algorithms, care pathways, rules and models. Since this research crosses multiple disciplines, we searched health care, computing science and business databases. Results Our search resulted in 4605 manuscripts. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. The reliability of the screening process was high with an average percentage of agreement of 92.3 %. Of the located articles, 123 were considered relevant. Within this literature, there were 43 CDS tools located. These were classified into 3 main areas: computer-based tools/questionnaires (n = 8, 19 %), treatment algorithms/models (n = 14, 33 %), and clinical prediction rules/classification systems (n = 21, 49 %). Each of these areas and the associated evidence are described. The state of evidentiary support for CDS tools is still preliminary and lacks external validation, head-to-head comparisons, or evidence of generalizability across different populations and settings. Conclusions CDS tools, especially those employing rapidly advancing computer technologies, are under development and of potential interest to health care providers, case management organizations and funders of care. Based on the results of this scoping review, we conclude that these tools, models and systems should be subjected to further validation before they can be recommended for large-scale implementation for managing patients with MSK disorders.

Identifying back pain subgroups: developing and applying approaches using individual patient data collected within clinical trials

Background

There is good evidence that therapist-delivered interventions have modest beneficial effects for people with low back pain (LBP). Identification of subgroups of people with LBP who may benefit from these different treatment approaches is an important research priority.

Aim and objectives

To improve the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LBP treatment by providing patients, their clinical advisors and health-service purchasers with better information about which participants are most likely to benefit from which treatment choices. Our objectives were to synthesise what is already known about the validity, reliability and predictive value of possible treatment moderators (patient factors that predict response to treatment) for therapist-delivered interventions; develop a repository of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing therapist-delivered interventions for LBP; determine which participant characteristics, if any, predict clinical response to different treatments for LBP; and determine which participant characteristics, if any, predict the most cost-effective treatments for LBP. Achieving these objectives required substantial methodological work, including the development and evaluation of some novel statistical approaches. This programme of work was not designed to analyse the main effect of interventions and no such interpretations should be made.

Methods

First, we reviewed the literature on treatment moderators and subgroups. We initially invited investigators of trials of therapist-delivered interventions for LBP with > 179 participants to share their data with us; some further smaller trials that were offered to us were also included. Using these trials we developed a repository of individual participant data of therapist-delivered interventions for LBP. Using this data set we sought to identify which participant characteristics, if any, predict response to different treatments (moderators) for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We undertook an analysis of covariance to identify potential moderators to apply in our main analyses. Subsequently, we developed and applied three methods of subgroup identification: recursive partitioning (interaction trees and subgroup identification based on a differential effect search); adaptive risk group refinement; and an individual participant data indirect network meta-analysis (NWMA) to identify subgroups defined by multiple parameters.

Results

We included data from 19 RCTs with 9328 participants (mean age 49 years, 57% females). Our prespecified analyses using recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement performed well and allowed us to identify some subgroups. The differences in the effect size in the different subgroups were typically small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Increasing baseline severity on the outcome of interest was the strongest driver of subgroup identification that we identified. Additionally, we explored the application of Bayesian indirect NWMA. This method produced varying probabilities that a particular treatment choice would be most likely to be effective for a specific patient profile.

Conclusions

These data lack clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness justification for the use of baseline characteristics in the development of subgroups for back pain. The methodological developments from this work have the potential to be applied in other clinical areas. The pooled repository database will serve as a valuable resource to the LBP research community.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme. This project benefited from facilities funded through Birmingham Science City Translational Medicine Clinical Research and Infrastructure Trials Platform, with support from Advantage West Midlands (AWM) and the Wolfson Foundation.

A systematic review reveals that the credibility of subgroup claims in low back pain trials was low

OBJECTIVES

To assess the credibility of subgroup claims in back pain randomized controlled trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A sample of reports of back pain trials from 2000 to 2015 that provided a subgroup claim were included (n=38). Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and credibility of subgroup claims as well as the strength of the author's claim. The credibility of subgroup claims was assessed using a 10-criteria tool, and strength of the subgroup claims was assessed based on seven criteria to categorize claims into a reasonably strong claim of a definitive subgroup effect or a more cautious claim of a possible effect.

RESULTS

A total of 91 claims of a subgroup effect were reported in the 38 included trials, of which 28 were considered strong claims of a definitive effect, and 63 were cautious claims of a possible effect. None of the subgroup claims met all 10 credibility criteria, and only 24% (22 claims) satisfied at least five criteria. The only criteria satisfied by more than 50% of the claims were if the subgroup variable was a characteristic measured at baseline, and whether the test of interaction was significant. All other criteria were satisfied by less than 30% of the claims. There was no association between the credibility of subgroup claims and the journal impact factor, risk of bias, sample size, or year of publication.

CONCLUSION

The credibility of subgroup claims in back pain trials is usually low, irrespective of the strength of the authors' claim.

Prediction of Outcome in Women With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Who Receive Manual Physical Therapy Interventions: A Validation Study

Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Background A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) most likely to respond to manual physical therapy has been published but requires further testing to determine its validity. Objective To assess the validity of a clinical prediction rule proposed for the management of patients with CTS in a different group of patients with a variety of treating clinicians. Methods A preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of manual physical therapies, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, in 120 women suffering from CTS was performed. Patients were randomized to receive 3 sessions of manual physical therapy (n = 60) or surgical release/decompression of the carpal tunnel (n = 60). Self-perceived improvement with a global rating of change was recorded at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Pain intensity (mean pain and worst pain on a 0-to-10 numeric pain-rating scale) and scores on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (functional status and symptom severity subscales) were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. A baseline assessment of status on the clinical prediction rule was performed (positive status on the clinical prediction rule was defined as meeting at least 2 of the following criteria: pressure pain threshold of less than 137 kPa over the affected C5-6 joint; heat pain threshold of less than 39.6°C over the affected carpal tunnel; and general health score [Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey] of greater than 66 points). Linear mixed models with repeated measures were used to examine the validity of the rule. Results Participants with a positive status on the rule who received manual physical therapy did not experience greater improvements compared to those with a negative status on the rule for mean pain (P = .65), worst pain (P = .86), function (P = .99), or symptom severity (P = .85). Further, the clinical prediction rule performed no better than chance in identifying the individuals with CTS most likely to respond to manual physical therapy or surgery (mean pain, P = .87; worst pain, P = .91; function, P = .60; severity, P = .66). No differences in self-perceived improvement were observed at either 6 (P = .68) or 12 (P = .36) months, according to the rule. Conclusion The results of this study did not support the validity of the previously developed clinical prediction rule for manual physical therapy in women with CTS. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(6):443-451. Epub 23 Mar 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6348.

Prognostic factors for disability and sick leave in patients with subacute non-malignant pain: a systematic review of cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify generic prognostic factors for disability and sick leave in subacute pain patients.

SETTING

General practice and other primary care facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (>18 years) with a subacute (≤ 3-month) non-malignant pain condition. Eligibility criteria were cohort studies investigating the prediction of disability or long-term sick leave in adults with a subacute pain condition in a primary care setting. 19 studies were included, referring to a total of 6266 patients suffering from pain in the head, neck, back and shoulders.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was long-term disability (>3 months) due to a pain condition. The secondary outcome was sick leave, defined as 'absence from work' or 'return-to-work'.

RESULTS

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro databases were searched from 16 January 2003 to 16 January 2014. The quality of evidence was presented according to the GRADE WG recommendations. Several factors were found to be associated with disability at follow-up for at least two different pain symptoms. However, owing to insufficient studies, no generic risk factors for sick leave were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple site pain, high pain severity, older age, baseline disability and longer pain duration were identified as potential prognostic factors for disability across pain sites. There was limited evidence that anxiety and depression were associated with disability in patients with subacute pain, indicating that these factors may not play as large a role as expected in developing disability due to a pain condition. Quality of evidence was moderate, low or very low, implying that confidence in the results is limited. Large prospective prognostic factor studies are needed with sufficient study populations and transparent reporting of all factors examined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014008914.

Manual Therapy by General Medical Practitioners for Nonspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: The ManRück Study Protocol of a Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for accessing primary care. Manual therapy (MT) may be an effective treatment, but data from clinical studies including relevant subgroups and clinical settings are sparse. The objective of this article is to describe the protocol of a study that will measure whether an MT protocol provided by general medical practitioners will lead to a faster pain reduction in patients with nonspecific LBP than does standard medical care.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is an experimental pre-/postintervention design. The intervention consists of add-on MT treatment by general medical practitioners who have received MT training but are otherwise inexperienced in mobilization techniques. Participating general medical practitioners (n = 10) will consecutively recruit and treat patients before and after their training, serving as their own internal controls. The primary end point is a combined outcome assessing change in pain score over days 0 to 3 and time until pain is reduced by 2 points on an 11-point numeric pain scale and painkiller use is stopped. Secondary outcomes are patients' functional capacities assessed using a questionnaire, amount of sick leave taken, patient satisfaction, and referrals for further treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German clinical trials register: DRKS-ID DRKS00003240.

Interpreting Effectiveness Evidence in Pain: Short Tour of Contemporary Issues

There is no shortage of treatment approaches offered to people with pain. The maze of options presents patients and clinicians with difficult choices. Key to making those choices is evidence of treatment effectiveness provided by clinical trials and systematic reviews. Recent growth in the number of clinical trials and systematic reviews, of both high and low quality, makes it vital that users of this evidence-clinicians, researchers, patients, and policy makers-have the skills and knowledge to critically interpret these studies. In this review, we discuss some contemporary issues regarding evidence of effectiveness derived from clinical trials and systematic reviews-issues that we think are critical to understanding the field. We focus on evidence of treatment effectiveness in pain, although many of these issues are relevant to and transferable across the spectrum of evidence-based practice.

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.

Validation and impact analysis of prognostic clinical prediction rules for low back pain is needed: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify prognostic forms of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) related to the nonsurgical management of adults with low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate their current stage of development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review using a sensitive search strategy across seven databases with hand searching and citation tracking.

RESULTS

A total of 10,005 records were screened for eligibility with 35 studies included in the review. The included studies report on the development of 30 prognostic LBP CPRs. Most of the identified CPRs are in their initial phase of development. Three CPRs were found to have undergone validation--the Cassandra rule for predicting long-term significant functional limitations and the five-item and two-item Flynn manipulation CPRs for predicting a favorable functional prognosis in patients being treated with lumbopelvic manipulation. No studies were identified that investigated whether the implementation of a CPR resulted in beneficial patient outcomes or improved resource efficiencies.

CONCLUSION

Most of the identified prognostic CPRs for LBP are in the initial phase of development and are consequently not recommended for direct application in clinical practice at this time. The body of evidence provides emergent confidence in the limited predictive performance of the Cassandra rule and the five-item Flynn manipulation CPR in comparable clinical settings and patient populations.

Evaluation of a modified clinical prediction rule for use with spinal manipulative therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) and Active Exercise Therapy (AET) have both demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of Chronic Lower Back Pain (CLBP). A Clinical Prediction Rule (CPR) for responsiveness to SMT has been validated in a heterogeneous lower back pain population; however there is a need to evaluate this CPR specifically for patients with CLBP, which is a significant source of disability.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Veteran Affairs and civilian outpatient clinics evaluating a modification of the original CPR (mCPR) in CLBP, eliminating acute low back pain and altering the specific types of SMT to improve generalizability. We enrolled and followed 181 patients with CLBP from 2007 to 2010. Patients were randomized by status on the mCPR to undergo either SMT or AET twice a week for four weeks. Providers and statisticians were blinded as to mCPR status. We collected outcome measures at 5, 12 and 24-weeks post baseline. We tested our study hypotheses by a general linear model repeated measures procedure following a univariate analysis of covariance approach. Outcome measures included, Visual Analogue Scale, Bodily pain subscale of SF-36 and the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient Satisfaction and Patient Expectation.

Results

Of the 89 AET patients, 69 (78%) completed the study and of the 92 SMT patients, 76 (83%) completed the study. As hypothesized, we found main effects of time where the SMT and AET groups showed significant improvements in pain and disability from baseline. There were no differences in treatment outcomes between groups in response to the treatment, given the lack of significant treatment x time interactions. The mCPR x treatment x time interactions were not significant. The differences in outcomes between treatment groups were the same for positive and negative on the mCPR groups, thus our second hypothesis was not supported.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that a modification of the original CPR can be used to discriminate CLBP patients that would benefit more from SMT. Further studies are needed to further clarify the patient characteristics that moderate treatment responsiveness to specific interventions for CLBP.

Trial registration

ISRCTN30511490

Contralateral sensory and motor effects of unilateral kaltenborn mobilization in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to determine changes in pressure sensitivity and pinch strength in patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA) in the contralateral hand after unilateral Kaltenborn mobilization on the symptomatic hand. [Subjects and Methods] Twenty-nine females with dominant hand thumb CMC osteoarthritis participated (age 70–90), and were randomized into 2 groups. The experimental group received a Kaltenborn mobilization, and the placebo group received a nontherapeutic dose of intermittent ultrasound. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) at the thumb CMC joint, scaphoid bone and hamate bone and tip and tripod pinch strength were assessed before and after the intervention and 1 week (1st follow-up) and 2 weeks (2nd follow-up) after the intervention. [Results] Significant increases in PPT in the experimental group at all follow-up periods as compared with baseline data were found. The post-intervention between-group mean differences for PPT were 1.1 (95%CI 0.4–1.8) for the CMC joint, 1.1 (95%CI 0.2–2.1) for the scaphoid, and 1.5 (95%CI 0.5–2.8) for the hamate. The post-intervention between-group mean differences were 0.5 (95%CI 0.2–0.9) for the tip pinch and 0.3 (95%CI 0.1–0.6) for the tripod pinch. [Conclusion] The current secondary analysis found that Kaltenborn mobilization for the symptomatic hand reduces pressure pain sensitivity (PPT increases) and also produces motor changes in the contralateral non-treated hand compared with a placebo group.

Stratified models of care

Stratified care for back pain involves targeting treatment to subgroups of patients based on their key characteristics such as prognostic factors, likely response to treatment and underlying mechanisms. It aims to tailor therapeutic decisions in ways that maximise treatment benefit, reduce harm and increase health-care efficiency by offering the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. From being called the 'Holy Grail' of back pain research over a decade ago, stratified care is becoming the zeitgeist in research and clinical practice. In this chapter, we introduce and evaluate the quality and underpinning evidence for three examples of stratified care for back pain to highlight their general principles, research design issues and clinical practice implications. We include consideration of their merits for implementation in practice. We conclude with a set of remaining, key research questions.

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.

Bilateral sensory effects of unilateral passive accessory mobilization in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in pressure sensitivity and pinch grip force in the nonsymptomatic side in patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA) after the application of a unilateral passive accessory mobilization to the symptomatic hand.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessor, and intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Twenty-eight patients (72% females), with unilateral CMC OA and mean age ± SD of 82 ± 6 years, met all the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate. The experimental group received passive accessory mobilization to the CMC OA, and the control group received a nontherapeutic dose of intermittent ultrasound on the affected side for 4 sessions over 2 weeks. Outcome measures including pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at the lateral epicondyle, thumb CMC joint, tubercle of the scaphoid bone, and the unciform apophysis of the hamate bone and tip and tripod pinch and grip strength of the contralateral/unaffected hand were assessed at baseline as well as 1 and 2 weeks after treatment by an assessor blinded to the group allocation. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine changes in PPT and pinch and grip strength.

RESULTS

No important baseline differences were observed between groups. At the end of the follow-up period, the experimental group exhibited a significant increase in PPT at the CMC joint as compared with the control group 0.6 kg/cm(2) (95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.0; F3.0 = 4.89; P = .009). Although PPT changes in the experimental group were higher than the control group at the remaining sites, differences did not reach statistically significance. Similarly, tip, tripod pinch, and grip strength remained unchanged after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

This secondary analysis found that the application of a unilateral passive accessory mobilization targeted to the symptomatic CMC joint induced an increase of PPT levels 2 weeks after treatment; however, differences were small and likely of limited clinical value. No contralateral motor effects were observed. Future studies including larger sample sizes are needed to examine the effects of joint mobilization on motor and sensory effects.

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of clinical prediction rules for physical therapy in low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate randomized controlled trials validating the effects of a clinical prediction rule for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). The outcomes of interest were any back pain or pain-related measures.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LBP is a common and costly condition. Interventions for back pain seem to have, at best, small to moderate mean beneficial effects. Identifying subgroups of patients who may respond better to certain treatments may help to improve clinical outcomes in back pain. The development of clinical prediction rules is an attempt to determine who will respond best to certain treatments.

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of MEDLINE (1980-2009), EMBASE (1980-2009), PsycINFO (1980-2009), Allied and Complementary Medicine (1980-2009), PubMed (1980-2009), ISI Web of Knowledge (1980-2009), and the Cochrane Library (1980-2009). The reference lists of relevant articles were searched for further references.

RESULTS

We identified 1821 potential citations; 3 articles were included. The results from the available data do not support the use of clinical prediction rules in the management of non-specific LBP.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of good quality randomized controlled trials validating the effects of a clinical prediction rule for LBP. Furthermore, there is no agreement on appropriate methodology for the validation and impact analysis. The evidence for, and development of, the existing prediction rules is generally weak.

The effectiveness of a manual therapy and exercise protocol in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a manual therapy and exercise approach relative to a placebo intervention in individuals with carpometacarpal (CMC) joint osteoarthritis (OA).

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have reported the outcomes of exercise, joint mobilization, and neural mobilization interventions used in isolation in patients with CMC joint OA. However, it is not known if using a combination of these interventions as a multimodal approach to treatment would further improve outcomes in this patient population.

METHODS

Sixty patients, 90% female (mean ± SD age, 82 ± 6 years), with CMC joint OA were randomly assigned to receive a multimodal manual treatment approach that included joint mobilization, neural mobilization, and exercise, or a sham intervention, for 12 sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcome measures included pressure pain threshold over the first CMC joint, scaphoid, and hamate, as well as pinch and strength measurements. All outcome measures were collected at baseline, immediately following the intervention, and at 1 and 2 months following the end of the intervention. Mixed-model analyses of variance were used to examine the effects of the interventions on each outcome, with group as the between-subject variable and time as the within-subject variable.

RESULTS

The mixed-model analysis of variance revealed a group-by-time interaction (F = 47.58, P<.001) for pain intensity, with the patients receiving the multimodal intervention experiencing a greater reduction in pain compared to those receiving the placebo intervention at the end of the intervention, as well as at 1 and 2 months after the intervention (P<.001; all group differences greater than 3.0 cm, which is greater than the minimal clinically important difference of 2.0 cm). A significant group-by-time interaction (F = 3.19, P = .025) was found for pressure pain threshold over the hamate bone immediately after the intervention; however, the interaction was no longer significant at 1 and 2 months postintervention.

CONCLUSION

This clinical trial provides evidence that a combination of joint mobilization, neural mobilization, and exercise is more beneficial in treating pain than a sham intervention in patients with CMC joint OA. However, the treatment approach has limited value in improving pressure pain thresholds, as well as pinch and grip strength. Future studies should include several therapists, a measure of function, and long-term outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37143779.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b.

Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with back pain who meet a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulation

Recently a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for lumbar regional spinal thrust manipulation (STM) has shown predictive success in patients with back pain who met specific selection criteria. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of STM and mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) in patients who are positive for the STM CPR. Following initial examination, 31 participants were randomized to the STM group (n = 16) and to the MDT group (n = 15). Two weeks following initial examination, four participants chose to cross over from the STM group to the MDT group. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire work subscale (FABQw), and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were administered initially, and at 2-weeks and 4 week follow-up (discharge). Data were analyzed to determine changes in ODI and NPRS scores from initial examination through one month. Of the 31 participants, one patient who met only three of five selection criteria and four others who chose to switch groups were removed from the analysis. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in ODI and NPRS scores from baseline to final visit but there was no significant difference in scores between groups at 4 weeks. In this sample of patients, the selection criteria for this CPR were not exclusive for lumbopelvic STM. Mechanical diagnosis and therapy was an equally viable choice for these patients.

[Subgroup-specific therapy of low back pain: description and validity of two classification systems]

BACKGROUND

In spite of profound advances in the diagnosis and therapy, low back pain (LBP) remains one of the main challenges for health systems in western industrialized countries. Clinical trials and meta-analyses typically show heterogeneous evidence and small effect sizes. One explanation for this phenomenon is the heterogeneous nature of the population of patients with LBP, not adequately considered in clinical practice and research. Recent studies and one meta-analysis show that therapy which is specifically directed at well defined subgroups leads to improved effectiveness of interventions, especially for non-surgical interventions such as manual therapy or physiotherapy.

AIM

This article aims to describe the process of classification and to critically evaluate the underlying evidence.

METHODS

Two validated and commonly used classification systems were selected and their reliability and validity were critically appraised.

RESULTS

The treatment-based classification system was primarily developed and validated for patients with acute LBP. Based on prognostic factors and clinical prediction rules, patients are classified into one of four treatment based categories: traction, manipulation, specific exercises and stabilization. The movement and motor control impairment classification system is based on movement-related, cognitive and psychosocial factors and was developed for patients with chronic LBP. Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments are considered as underlying mechanisms. Three broad subgroups are proposed: firstly, a group with specific pathologies, such as spinal stenosis or disc prolapse with radiculopathy, secondly a group with dominant psychosocial factors and thirdly a group with maladaptive motor control patterns that drive the disorder with either movement impairments or motor control impairments.

CONCLUSION

The reliability of the described classification systems is moderate to good, aspects of validity have been shown. Their implementation in clinical practice seems recommendable.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SMT is one of many therapies for the treatment of low back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

METHODS

An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to March 13, 2011. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low back pain (<6-week duration) were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The effects were examined for SMT versus (1) inert interventions, (2) sham SMT, (3) other interventions, and (4) SMT as adjunct therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 20 RCTs (total participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. In total, 6 trials (30% of all included studies) had a low risk of bias. In general, for the outcomes of pain and functional status, there is low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

CONCLUSION

SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the few numbers of studies; therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Subgrouping patients with low back pain: a treatment-based approach to classification

Context:

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition imposing a large socioeconomic burden. Despite intensive research aimed at the efficacy of various therapies for patients with LBP, most evidence has failed to identify a superior treatment approach. One proposed solution to this dilemma is to identify subgroups of patients with LBP and match them with targeted therapies. Among the subgrouping approaches, the system of treatment-based classification (TBC) is promoted as a means of increasing the effectiveness of conservative interventions for patients with LBP.

Evidence acquisition:

MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched from 1985 through 2010, along with the references of selected articles.

Results:

TBC uses a standardized approach to categorize patients into 1 of 4 subgroups: spinal manipulation, stabilization exercise, end-range loading exercise, and traction. Although the TBC subgroups are in various stages of development, recent research lends support to the effectiveness of this approach.

Conclusions:

While additional research is required to better elucidate this method, the TBC approach enhances clinical decision making, as evidenced by the improved clinical outcomes experienced by patients with LBP.

Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practised intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain of less than six weeks duration.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

Preliminary state of development of prediction models for primary care physical therapy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the methodological quality and developmental stage of prediction models for musculoskeletal complaints that are relevant for physical therapists in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic literature search was carried out in the databases of Medline, Embase, and Cinahl. Studies on prediction models for musculoskeletal complaints that can be used by primary care physical therapists were included. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed and relevant study characteristics were extracted.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 4,702 references of which 29 studies were included in this review. The study quality of the included studies showed substantial variation. The studied populations consisted mostly of back (n=10) and neck pain (n=6) patients, and patients with knee complaints (n=4). Most studies (n=22) used "perceived recovery" as primary outcome. Most prediction models (n=18) were at the derivation level of development.

CONCLUSIONS

Many prediction models are available for a wide range of patient populations. The developmental stage of most models is preliminary and the study quality is often moderate. We do not recommend physiotherapist to use these models yet. All models reviewed here are in the developmental stage and need validation and impact evaluation before using them in daily practice.

A structured review of spinal stiffness as a kinesiological outcome of manipulation: its measurement and utility in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment decision-making

PURPOSE

To review and discuss the methods used for measuring spinal stiffness and factors associated with stiffness, how stiffness is used in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decision-making and the effects of manipulative techniques on stiffness.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and ICL databases was conducted. Included studies addressed one of four constructs related to stiffness: measurement, diagnosis, prognosis and/or treatment decision-making, and the effects of manipulation on stiffness. Spinal stiffness was defined as the relationship between force and displacement.

RESULTS

One hundred and four studies are discussed in this review, with the majority of studies focused on the measurement of stiffness, most often in asymptomatic persons. Eight studies investigated spinal stiffness in diagnosis, providing limited evidence that practitioner-judged stiffness is associated with radiographic findings of sagittal rotational mobility. Fifteen studies investigated spinal stiffness in prognosis or treatment decision-making, providing limited evidence that spinal stiffness is unlikely to independently predict patient outcomes, though stiffness may influence a practitioner's application of non-thrust manipulative techniques. Nine studies investigating the effects of manipulative techniques on spinal stiffness provide very limited evidence that there is no change in spinal stiffness following thrust or non-thrust manipulation in asymptomatic individuals and non-thrust techniques in symptomatic persons, with only one study supporting an immediate, but not sustained, stiffness decrease following thrust manipulation in symptomatic individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing limited evidence does not support an association between spinal stiffness and manipulative treatment outcomes. There is a need for additional research investigating the effects of manipulation on spinal stiffness in persons with spinal pain.

Pathoanatomy and classification of low back disorders

Over the past decade research into the effectiveness of low back disorders (LBDs) has focused on the classification of subgroups more likely to respond to specific treatment. Much of this research has explicitly excluded a focus on pathoanatomical factors based on a questionable interpretation of the biopsychosocial model. Common justifications and potential issues with this approach are explored with recommendations made for future clinical and research practice.