Centralization in patients with sciatica: are pain responses to repeated movement and positioning associated with outcome or types of disc lesions?

The Effectiveness and Optimal Dose of Resistance Training in Patients With Subacute and Persistent Low Back-Related Leg Pain: A Systematic Review

A subgroup of patients with low back pain (LBP) suffers from low back-related leg pain (LBLP), which can be classified as radicular pain, or somatic referred pain without nerve root involvement. LBLP is considered an obstacle to recovery and a strong negative prognostic factor for medium- and long-term disability. In this review, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness and optimal dose of resistance training (RT) in patients with subacute or persistent LBLP to provide clinical recommendations for practice. This systematic review was conducted by adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. We conducted a literature search on PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients ≥18 years of age were included. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using "the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias" (RoB) and the inter-rater agreement for full-text selection was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa (K). The search elicited a total of 4.537 records, and two RCTs involving a total of 196 participants were identified through a selection process based on title, abstract, and full-text assessment. Both studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. The inter-examiner concordance index for the selection of full text was excellent (K=1). RT seems to be an effective and safe intervention for patients with LBLP, but its long-term effectiveness, superiority over other types of exercise-based therapies, and optimal dosage still constitute a gray area in the literature.

Sustained versus repetitive standing trunk extension results in greater spinal growth and pain improvement in back pain:A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

McKenzie standing trunk extension exercises have been used for the management of low back pain (LBP). However, no study to date has investigated the effect of standing trunk extension postures on spinal height and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in subjects with LBP following a period of trunk loading how spinal height, pain, symptoms' centralization and function outcome measures respond to two standing postures interventions: (1) repetitive trunk extension (RTE) and (2) sustained trunk extension (STE).

METHODS

A consecutive sample of convenience of people with LBP were recruited to participate in 2-session physical therapy using either RTE or STE in standing.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (18 women) with a mean age of 53 ± 17.5 years completed the study. The first session resulted in spinal height increase (spinal growth) of 2.07 ± 1.32 mm for the RTE intervention and 4.54 ± 1.61 mm for the STE group (p< 0.001; ES = 1.67), while the second session (2-week following the first session) resulted in spinal growth of 2.39 ± 1.46 mm for the RTE group and 3.91 ± 2.06 mm for the STE group (p= 0.027; ES = 0.85). The STE group presented with the larger reduction in most pain from 6 to 2 as compared to the RTE group from 6 to 4 between Session 1 and Session 2 (p< 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in Modified Oswestry score and symptoms centralization (p= 0.88 and p= 0.77, respectively).

CONCLUSION

People with LBP experienced greater spine growth and improvements of pain during standing STE as compared to RTE. People with LBP could use such postures and movements to alleviate their LBP and improve spine height while in a weight bearing position.

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging findings among sciatica patients classified as centralizers or non-centralizers

OBJECTIVE

To compare if the degenerative findings from MRI differ between the sciatica patients classified as centralizers (CEN) and non-centralizers (Non-CEN) according to the McKenzie Method of mechanical diagnosis and therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Patients (N = 100) referred to a spine clinic of a single tertiary hospital for specialist consultation for sciatica. The McKenzie-based assessment was performed by the mechanical diagnosis and therapy-trained physiotherapists. Clinical data and prevalence of lumbar MRI findings were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in leg pain intensity between the groups. The Non-CEN had significantly more intense back pain, mean 56 (SD 30) and were more disabled 44 (SD 15) compared to the CEN mean 41 (SD 25) and mean 31 (11), measured with a visual analogue scale (0-100), and the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100), respectively. The CEN had more severe degenerative findings on MRI than the Non-CEN: vertebral end-plate changes were 63% and 43%; mean Pfirrmann's disc degeneration lumbar summary score was 12.8, and 10.6; and severity score of total damage was 12.0 and 10.1, respectively. There were differences neither in disc contour changes nor nerve root stenosis on MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Sciatica patients classified as non-centralizers had significantly more severe back pain, and were significantly more disabled than centralizers, who instead had more severe degenerative findings on MRI. Thus, classification to non-centralizers by the McKenzie method seems not predict higher incidence of degenerative findings on MRI compared to centralizers.

The why, where, and how clinical reasoning model for the evaluation and treatment of patients with low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is considerable overlap between pain referral patterns from the lumbar disc, lumbar facets, the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), and the hip. Additionally, sciatic like symptoms may originate from the lumbar spine or secondary to extra-spinal sources such as deep gluteal syndrome (GPS). Given that there are several overlapping potential anatomic sources of symptoms that may be synchronous in patients who have low back pain (LBP), it may not be realistic that a linear deductive approach can be used to establish a diagnosis and direct treatment in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this theoretical clinical reasoning model is to provide a framework to help clinicians integrate linear and non-linear clinical reasoning approaches to minimize clinical reasoning errors related to logically fallacious thinking and cognitive biases.

METHODS

This masterclass proposes a hypothesis-driven and probabilistic approach that uses clinical reasoning for managing LBP that seeks to eliminate the challenges related to using any single diagnostic paradigm.

CONCLUSIONS

This model integrates the why (mechanism of primary symptoms), where (location of the primary driver of symptoms), and how (impact of mechanical input and how it may or may not modulate the patient's primary complaint). The integration of these components individually, in serial, or simultaneously may help to develop clinical reasoning through reflection on and in action. A better understanding of what these concepts are and how they are related through the proposed model may help to improve the clinical conversation, academic application of clinical reasoning, and clinical outcomes.

Are within and/or between session improvements in pain and function prognostic of medium and long-term improvements in musculoskeletal problems? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Initial or between session improvements in pain and/or function are often considered to be predictive of ultimate outcomes in musculoskeletal problems.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term prognostic value of within and between session improvements to pain and function.

DESIGN

Systematic review of relevant literature.

METHOD

A search was made of multiple databases (Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane, Cinahl, and AMed) using relevant search terms. Titles, abstracts, and then full texts were filtered to find articles that met the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Searching, data extraction, and quality assessment, using GRADE, were done independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Only 13 articles met the criteria for inclusion. For the effect of pain location or pain intensity changes in the first treatment session on medium or long-term pain, disability, return-to-work, or global outcomes nine outcomes were available. Findings were mostly inconclusive (5) or negative (3). There was only one study evaluating between session improvements with ambiguous results. There were no studies evaluating the prognostic value of early improvements in function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence to support the concept that early changes in pain location or pain intensity offer a good longer-term prognosis on a variety of outcomes; and no evidence relating to early improvements in function. The idea that patients who appear to improve in the first treatment session will do well longer term is not supported by the literature.

The ambiguity of sciatica as a clinical diagnosis: A case series

Sciatica as a clinical diagnosis is nonspecific. A diagnosis of sciatica is typically used as a synonym for lumbosacral radiculopathy. However, the differential for combined low back and leg pain is broad, and the etiology can be one several different conditions. The lifetime prevalence of sciatica ranges from 12.2% to 43%, and nonsuccessful outcomes of treatment are prevalent. Nurse practitioners and other primary care clinicians often have minimal training in differential diagnosis of the complex causes of lower back and leg pain, and many lack adequate time per patient encounter to work up these conditions. Differentiating causes of low back and leg pain proves challenging, and inadequate or incomplete diagnoses result in suboptimal outcomes. Chiropractic care availability may lessen demands of primary care with respect to spinal complaints, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes. The authors describe three patients referred from primary care with a clinical diagnosis of sciatica despite differing underlying pathologies. More precise clinical terminology should be used when diagnosing patients with combined low back and leg pain. Nurse practitioners and other clinicians' triage, treat, and determine appropriate referrals for low back and leg pain. Multidisciplinary care including chiropractic may add value in settings where patients with lower back and leg pain are treated.

The addition of neurodynamic exercises to extension-oriented exercises among patients with chronic back-related leg pain: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

Patients with back-related leg pain exhibit nociceptive and neuropathic characteristics. Few studies have investigated the combination of interventions considering these characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if the addition of neurodynamic exercises (EEN) to extension-oriented exercises (EE) promotes additional benefits in individuals with back-related leg pain and a directional preference.

METHODS

Patients will be randomized to either EE or EEN. Patients from both groups will receive 7 sessions over 3 weeks. Low back and leg pain, function, quality of life, disability, and global perceived effect will be evaluated at baseline, 3 weeks after randomization and 1-month follow-up. A linear mixed model will be used for outcomes analysis.

An international survey of the comprehensiveness of the McKenzie classification system and the proportions of classifications and directional preferences in patients with spinal pain

BACKGROUND

Classification of spinal pain has been a key goal identified in the research. However it is not clear if existing classification systems are comprehensive.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comprehensiveness and distribution of classifications within the McKenzie classification system (MDT), and the directional preference in consecutive patients with spine pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

METHODS

Clinicians with a Diploma in MDT provided data on patients that they had assessed, classified, managed, and then confirmed their classification at discharge. They provided data on the spinal area, the MDT classification, and the loading strategy used in management.

RESULTS

Fifty-four clinicians from at least 15 different countries provided data on 750 patients: lumbar 64.8%, cervical 29.6%, thoracic 5.6%. The distribution of classifications was as follows: Derangement 75.4%, OTHER 22.8%, Dysfunction 1.7%, Postural syndrome 0.1%. In Derangements 82.5% had a directional preference for extension, 12.9% for lateral forces, and 4.6% for flexion. Those patients classified as one of the OTHER subgroups were given specific classifications.

CONCLUSION

Derangement was the most common classification and extension was by far the most common directional preference. A substantial proportion were classified as OTHER subgroups, for whom management is less straightforward.

Centralization and directional preference: An updated systematic review with synthesis of previous evidence

BACKGROUND

Centralization and directional preference are common management and prognostic factors in spinal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To update the previous systematic review.

DESIGN

Systematic review to synthesis multiple aspects of centralization and directional preference.

METHOD

Contemporary search was made of multiple databases using relevant search terms. Abstracts and titles were filtered by two authors; relevant articles were independently reviewed by two authors for content, data extraction, and quality.

RESULTS

Forty-three additional relevant articles were found. The quality of the studies, using PEDro for randomized controlled trials, was moderate or high in six out of ten RCTs; moderate or high in six out of 12 cohort studies. Prevalence of centralization was 40%, the same as the previous review. Directional preference without Centralization was 26%; thus Centralization and directional preference combined was 66%, which was very similar to the previous review. Neither clinical response was recorded in about a third of patients. Centralization and directional preference were confirmed as key positive prognostic factors, certainly in patients with low back pain, but limited evidence for patients with neck pain. There was no evidence that these might be important treatment effect modifiers. One study evaluated reliability, and found generally poor levels, despite training.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralization and directional preference are worthwhile indicators of prognosis, and should be routinely examined for even in patients with chronic low back pain. But they do not occur in all patients with spinal problems, and there was no evidence that they were treatment effect modifiers.

Does a Diagnostic Classification Algorithm Help to Predict the Course of Low Back Pain? A Study of Danish Chiropractic Patients With 1-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

A diagnostic classification algorithm, "the Petersen classification," consisting of 12 categories based on a standardized examination protocol, was developed for the primary purpose of identifying clinically homogeneous subgroups of individuals with low back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether a diagnostic classification algorithm is associated with activity limitation and LBP intensity at follow-up assessments of 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year, and whether the algorithm improves outcome prediction when added to a set of known predictors.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of 934 consecutive adult patients with new episodes of LBP who were visiting chiropractic practices in primary care and categorized according to the Petersen classification. Outcomes were disability and pain intensity measured with questionnaires at 2 weeks and 3 months, and 1-year trajectories of LBP based on weekly responses to text messages. Associations were analyzed with linear and logistic regression models. In a subgroup of patients, the numbers of visits to primary and secondary care were described.

RESULTS

The Petersen classification was statistically significantly associated with all outcomes (P<.001) but explained very little of the variance (R² = 0.00-0.05). Patients in the nerve root involvement category had the most pain and activity limitation and the most visits to primary and secondary care. Patients in the myofascial pain category were the least affected.

CONCLUSION

The Petersen classification was not helpful in determining individual prognosis in patients with LBP receiving usual care in chiropractic practice. However, patients should be examined for potential nerve root involvement to improve prediction of likely outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):837-846. Epub 8 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8083.

Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews

Background

Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization.

Methods

A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR.

Results

Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making.

Conclusions

This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inter-rater reliability of a modified version of Delitto et al.'s classification-based system for low back pain: a pilot study

STUDY DESIGN

Observational inter-rater reliability study.

OBJECTIVES

To examine: (1) the inter-rater reliability of a modified version of Delitto et al.'s classification-based algorithm for patients with low back pain; (2) the influence of different levels of familiarity with the system; and (3) the inter-rater reliability of algorithm decisions in patients who clearly fit into a subgroup (clear classifications) and those who do not (unclear classifications).

METHODS

Patients were examined twice on the same day by two of three participating physical therapists with different levels of familiarity with the system. Patients were classified into one of four classification groups. Raters were blind to the others' classification decision. In order to quantify the inter-rater reliability, percentages of agreement and Cohen's Kappa were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were included (clear classification n = 23; unclear classification n = 13). The overall rate of agreement was 53% and the Kappa value was 0·34 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0·11-0·57], which indicated only fair inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability for patients with a clear classification (agreement 52%, Kappa value 0·29) was not higher than for patients with an unclear classification (agreement 54%, Kappa value 0·33). Familiarity with the system (i.e. trained with written instructions and previous research experience with the algorithm) did not improve the inter-rater reliability.

CONCLUSION

Our pilot study challenges the inter-rater reliability of the classification procedure in clinical practice. Therefore, more knowledge is needed about factors that affect the inter-rater reliability, in order to improve the clinical applicability of the classification scheme.

PREPARE: Pre-surgery physiotherapy for patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder: a randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for the management of patients with specific low back pain pathology suggest non-surgical intervention as first-line treatment, but there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations of the content in the non-surgical intervention. Opinions regarding the dose of non-surgical intervention that should be trialled prior to decision making about surgery intervention vary. The aim of the present study is to investigate if physiotherapy administrated before surgery improves function, pain and health in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder scheduled for surgery. The patients are followed over two years. A secondary aim is to study what factors predict short and long term outcomes.

METHODS

This study is a single blinded, 2-arm, randomized controlled trial with follow-up after the completion of pre-surgery intervention as well as 3, 12 and 24 months post-surgery. The study will recruit men and women, 25 to 80 years of age, scheduled for surgery due to; disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease. A total of 202 patients will be randomly allocated to a pre-surgery physiotherapy intervention or a waiting list group for 9 weeks. The waiting-list group will receive standardized information about surgery, post-surgical rehabilitation and advice to stay active. The pre-surgery physiotherapy group will receive physiotherapy 2 times per week, consisting of a stratified classification treatment, based on assessment findings. One of the following treatments will be selected; a) Specific exercises and mobilization, b) Motor control exercises or c) Traction. The pre-surgery physiotherapy group will also be prescribed a tailor-made general supervised exercise program. The physiotherapist will use a behavioral approach aimed at reducing patient fear avoidance and increasing activity levels. They will also receive standardized information about surgery, post-surgical rehabilitation and advice to stay active. Primary outcome measure is Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures are the visual analogue scale for back and leg pain, pain drawing, health related quality of life, Hospital anxiety and depression scale, Fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, Self-efficacy scale and Work Ability Index.

DISCUSSION

The study findings will help improve the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder scheduled for surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02454400 (Trial registration date: August 31st 2015) and has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02454400 .

Classification of patients with low back-related leg pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The identification of clinically relevant subgroups of low back pain (LBP) is considered the number one LBP research priority in primary care. One subgroup of LBP patients are those with back related leg pain. Leg pain frequently accompanies LBP and is associated with increased levels of disability and higher health costs than simple low back pain. Distinguishing between different types of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is important for clinical management and research applications, but there is currently no clear agreement on how to define and identify LBLP due to nerve root involvement. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise papers that classify or subgroup populations with LBLP, and summarise how leg pain due to nerve root involvement is described and diagnosed in the various systems.

METHODS

The search strategy involved nine electronic databases including Medline and Embase, reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Selected papers were appraised independently by two reviewers using a standardised scoring tool.

RESULTS

Of 13,358 initial potential eligible citations, 50 relevant papers were identified that reported on 22 classification systems. Papers were grouped according to purpose and criteria of the classification systems. Five themes emerged: (i) clinical features (ii) pathoanatomy (iii) treatment-based approach (iv) screening tools and prediction rules and (v) pain mechanisms. Three of the twenty two systems focused specifically on LBLP populations. Systems that scored highest following quality appraisal were ones where authors generally included statistical methods to develop their classifications, and supporting work had been published on the systems' validity, reliability and generalisability. There was lack of consistency in how LBLP due to nerve root involvement was described and diagnosed within the systems.

CONCLUSION

Numerous classification systems exist that include patients with leg pain, a minority of them focus specifically on distinguishing between different presentations of leg pain. Further work is needed to identify clinically meaningful subgroups of LBLP patients, ideally based on large primary care cohort populations and using recommended methods for classification system development.

Identifying Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Who Respond Best to Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

"Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy" (MDT) (also known as the McKenzie method), like other interventions for low back pain (LBP), has been found to have small effects for people with LBP. It is possible that a group of patients respond best to MDT and have larger effects. Identification of patients who respond best to MDT compared with other interventions would be an important finding.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether baseline characteristics of patients with chronic LBP, already classified as derangement syndrome, can identify those who respond better to MDT compared with Back School.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous trial comparing MDT with Back School in 148 patients with chronic LBP. Only patients classified at baseline assessment as being in the directional preference group (n=140) were included. The effect modifiers tested were: clear centralization versus directional preference only, baseline pain location, baseline pain intensity, and age. The primary outcome measures for this study were pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment (1 month). Treatment effect modification was evaluated by assessing the group versus predictor interaction terms from linear regression models. Interactions ≥1.0 for pain and ≥3 for disability were considered clinically important.

RESULTS

Being older met our criteria for being a potentially important effect modifier; however, the effect occurred in the opposite direction to our hypothesis. Older people had 1.27 points more benefit in pain reduction from MDT (compared with Back School) than younger participants after 1 month of treatment.

LIMITATIONS

The sample (n=140) was powered to detect the main effects of treatment but not to detect the interactions of the potential treatment effect modifiers.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study suggest older age may be an important factor that can be considered as a treatment effect modifier for patients with chronic LBP receiving MDT. As the main trial was not powered for the investigation of subgroups, the results of this secondary analysis have to be interpreted cautiously, and replication is needed.

The Influence of Centralization and Directional Preference on Spinal Control in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort, test-retest design.

BACKGROUND

Directional preference (DP) with centralization (CEN) and DP without CEN are common pain-pattern responses assessed by Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT). Although there is evidence that MDT can reduce pain and disability in the short term by treating the patient with direction-specific exercises concordant with the patient's DP, the mechanism responsible for this is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether clinical signs of impaired spinal control improve immediately after eliciting a DP-with-CEN response or a DP-without-CEN response in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

Participants underwent a standardized MDT assessment and were classified into the following pain-pattern subgroups: DP with CEN, DP without CEN, or no DP. Clinical signs of impaired spinal control were assessed pre-MDT assessment and post-MDT assessment by an independent examiner. Four spinal control tests were conducted: aberrant lumbar movements while bending forward, the active straight leg raise (ASLR) test, the Trendelenburg test, and the prone instability test. Differences in spinal control pre-MDT assessment and post-MDT assessment were calculated for the 3 pain-pattern subgroups and compared with chi-square tests. We hypothesized that a larger proportion of patients in the DP-with-CEN subgroup would exhibit improved spinal control than patients categorized as DP without CEN or no DP.

RESULTS

Of 114 patients recruited, 51 patients (44.7%) were categorized as DP with CEN, 23 (20.2%) as DP without CEN, and 40 (35.1%) as no DP. Before MDT assessment, between 28.9% (Trendelenburg test) and 63.7% (ASLR test) of patients showed impaired spinal control. After MDT assessment, a larger proportion of patients in the DP-with-CEN subgroup (43%) showed improvement than those in the no-DP subgroup (7%) on aberrant lumbar movements (P = .02). Likewise, more patients in the DP-with-CEN subgroup (50%) improved on the ASLR test than those in the no-DP subgroup (8%, P<.01) or the DP-without-CEN subgroup (7%, P = .01). Changes in Trendelenburg test and prone instability test outcomes did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Immediately following MDT assessment, a larger proportion of patients with a DP-with-CEN pain pattern showed improvement in clinical signs of spinal control compared to patients with a DP-without-CEN or no-DP pain pattern. The current study was registered in the Dutch trial registry at http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp (NTR4246).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 2b.

Clinical examination findings as prognostic factors in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature

Background

There is a strong tradition of performing a clinical examination of low back pain (LBP) patients and this is generally recommended in guidelines. However, establishing a pathoanatomic diagnosis does not seem possible in most LBP patients and clinical tests may potentially be more relevant as prognostic factors. The aim of this review of the literature was to systematically assess the association between low-tech clinical tests commonly used in adult patients with acute, recurrent or chronic LBP and short- and long-term outcome.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and MANTIS were searched from inception to June 2012. Prospective clinical studies of adult patients with LBP with or without leg pain and/or signs of nerve root involvement or spinal stenosis, receiving non-surgical or no treatment, which investigated the association between low-tech clinical tests and outcome were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study quality were performed independently by two reviewers.

Results

A total of 5,332 citations were retrieved and screened for eligibility, 342 articles were assessed as full text and 49 met the inclusion criteria. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis was performed. Associations between clinical tests and outcomes were often inconsistent between studies. In more than one third of the tests, there was no evidence of the tests being associated with outcome. Only two clinical tests demonstrated a consistent association with at least one of the outcomes: centralization and non-organic signs.

Conclusions

For most clinical tests in LBP there is not consistent evidence for an association with outcome. Centralization and non-organic signs are exceptions from that. None of the other clinical tests have been investigated in confirmatory studies and study quality is generally low. There is a need for hypothesis testing studies designed specifically to investigate the prognostic value of the clinical tests, and a need for standardization of the performance and interpretation of tests.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0054-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The relationship between history and physical examination findings and the outcome of electrodiagnostic testing in patients with sciatica referred to physical therapy

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between history and physical examination findings and the outcome of electrodiagnostic testing in patients with sciatica referred to physical therapy.

BACKGROUND

Electrodiagnostic testing is routinely used to evaluate patients with sciatica. Recent evidence suggests that the presence of radiculopathy identified with electrodiagnostic testing may predict better functional outcomes in these patients. While some patient history and physical examination findings have been shown to predict the presence of disc herniation or neurological insult, little is known about their relationship to the results of electrodiagnostic testing.

METHODS

Electrodiagnostic testing was performed on 38 patients with sciatica who participated in a randomized trial that compared different physical therapy interventions. The diagnostic gold standard was the presence or absence of radiculopathy, based on the results of the needle electromyographic examination. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity values were calculated, along with corresponding likelihood ratios, for select patient history and physical examination variables.

RESULTS

No significant relationship was found between select patient history and physical examination findings, analyzed individually or in combination, and the outcome of electrodiagnostic testing. Diagnostic sensitivity values ranged from 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00, 0.24) to a high of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.99), and specificity values ranged from 0.10 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.34) to a high of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.99). Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 0.15 (95% CI: 0.01, 2.87) to a high of 2.33 (95% CI: 0.71, 7.70), and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 2.00 (95% CI: 0.35, 11.48) to a low of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.03, 8.10).

CONCLUSION

In this investigation, the relationship between patient history and physical examination findings and the outcome of electrodiagnostic testing among patients with sciatica was not found to be statistically significant or clinically meaningful. However, given the small sample size and corresponding large CIs, these results should be considered with caution, recognizing that some of the history and physical examination variables may prove useful in future research. These findings suggest that electrodiagnostic testing is essential to identify the subgroup of patients with sciatica who have measurable nerve injury consistent with radiculopathy, which may be an important prognostic factor for recovery. Level of Evidence Diagnosis, level 3b-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(7):508-517. Epub 22 May 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5002.

Systematic review of prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica

Identification of prognostic factors for surgery in patients with sciatica is important to be able to predict surgery in an early stage. Identification of prognostic factors predicting persistent pain, disability and recovery are important for better understanding of the clinical course, to inform patient and physician and support decision making. Consequently, we aimed to systematically review prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica. A search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl, up to March 2012 was performed for prospective cohort studies on prognostic factors for non-surgically treated sciatica. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pain, disability, recovery and surgery. A best evidence synthesis was carried out in order to assess and summarize the data. The initial search yielded 4392 articles of which 23 articles reporting on 14 original cohorts met the inclusion criteria. High clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity among studies was found. Reported evidence regarding prognostic factors predicting the outcome in sciatica is limited. The majority of factors that have been evaluated, e.g., age, body mass index, smoking and sensory disturbance, showed no association with outcome. The only positive association with strong evidence was found for leg pain intensity at baseline as prognostic factor for subsequent surgery.