Is it reasonable to use an individual patient's progress after treatment as a guide to ongoing clinical reasoning?

The immediate effect of unilaterally applied lumbar mobilisations on the passive straight leg raise and ninety-ninety test in asymptomatic adults: A randomised crossover trial

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the immediate effect of unilateral posterior-anterior lumbar mobilisations on trunk and lower limb flexibility in asymptomatic individuals.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised cross-over trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven participants (age = 26.0 years ±6.4) with no current or recent history of lower back or leg pain/surgery completed the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants attended two sessions, receiving either grade 3 ('treatment') or grade 1 ('sham') unilateral spinal mobilisations. Outcome measures (modified-modified Schober's test [MMST], ninety-ninety test [NNT], and passive straight-leg raise [PSLR]) were assessed immediately before and after (post-1 and post-2) the intervention. An instrumented hand-held dynamometer was used to measure the change in NNT and PSLR joint angle (deg) and passive stiffness (Nm/deg) pre- and post-intervention.

RESULTS

The mean change in PSLR angle at the first (P1) and maximal (P2) point of discomfort following the treatment was 4.8° and 5.5°, and 5.6° and 5.7°, larger than the sham at post-1 and post-2, respectively. There was no effect of the treatment on the PSLR at P1 or P2 for the contralateral limb at either timepoint. There was no effect of the treatment on MMST distance, NNT angle or passive stiffness, or PSLR passive stiffness, for either limb.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate effects of unilateral posterior-anterior lumbar mobilisations in asymptomatic individuals are isolated to treatment side and limited to a small increase in PSLR range, with no change in lumbar motion or the NNT test.

Neuromechanical Responses to Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization: A Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effect of spinal manipulation (SMa) and spinal mobilization (SMo) on muscular responses, spinal stiffness, and segmental spinal pressure evoked pain in a population of participants with chronic middle back pain (MBP).

METHODS

In a crossover randomized trial, 2 experienced chiropractors assessed whether volunteers were eligible for the protocol according to a list of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals with MBP participated in 2 experimental sessions within 72 hours. During the first session, participants randomly received a SMa or SMo delivered by an apparatus using a servolinear motor. During the second session, the other modality was delivered. Spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain intensity outcomes were assessed before and after each therapy, and muscular responses were recorded during the treatment using surface electromyographic sensors. Signed-rank Wilcoxon tests for muscular responses and generalized model for repeated measure for spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 32 potential participants, 26 (mean age 29.9 [±9.14], 15 women) completed both sessions. Between-group differences were observed for the muscular response amplitude (P < .001), and indeed the normalized RMS muscular response was found to be higher during SMa than SMo. Similar results were observed for pressure-provoked pain intensity at the level of therapeutic modality application (P = .002) as a higher decrease in pain was found after SMa (47.9 [±22.8] to 36.6 [±23.7]) compared with SMo (47.2 [±23.2] to 45.5 [±24.3]). No between-group differences were found for spinal stiffness change, nor for terminal (P = .08) and global spinal stiffness (P = .06).

CONCLUSION

In a controlled environment, spinal manipulation and mobilization generated different muscle responses and had different immediate effects on pressure-provoked pain intensity for subjects with MBP.

Localised manual therapy treatment has a preferential effect on the kinematics of the targeted motion segment

AIM

An observational cohort study to determine whether localised manual therapy results in a preferential increase in mobility of the targeted motion segment.

METHOD

Eighteen participants with mechanical neck pain had three MRIs of their cervical spine. The first two were taken prior to treatment in neutral and at the end of active rotation in their more limited rotation. Participants received localised manual therapy targeting a motion segment deemed to be relevant to their presentation until either their range increased by > 10° or 8 min, whichever came first. A third MRI was performed immediately after treatment with their head in the same rotated position as pre-treatment. In the images, each vertebra was segmented using a semi-automated process. Movement between neutral and rotated positions was calculated as Euler angles and distance of facet translations for each motion segment.

RESULTS

Rotation and lateral flexion at the targeted location increased by 40% (mean 0.86° (CI: 0.24-1.48) and 15% (mean 0.52° (CI: 0.17-1.21) respectively with only the CIs for rotation not containing zero. The mean changes for the non-targeted locations were less than 0.1° for each axis and all CIs contained zero. Facet translations at the targeted location increased by 25% (0.419 mm) and decreased by >4% (>0.01 mm) at the untreated locations but the wide CIs both contained zero.

CONCLUSION

Localised manual therapy seems to have a preferential effect on mobility of the targeted motion segment. The findings support considering segmental dysfunction in clinical reasoning and the use of specifically targeted manual therapy interventions.

Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness

Background

Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP).

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change.

Results

Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes.

Conclusions

The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another.

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.

An empirical, pragmatic approach applying reflection in interaction approach to manual therapy treatments

Background: Most literature on decision processes within physiotherapy relates to "reasoning that results in action" - decisions based on information including assessments that are gathered prior to treatment decisions. A process of "reasoning in interaction" that is often used, particularly by expert clinicians, has received less attention. Objective:  To provide a theoretical and practical approach to applying reasoning in interaction in a musculoskeletal setting. Methods: The theory is: If an impairment that can be directly targeted by treatment (i.e. pain or limitation of passive movement) is related to patient's active impairments and functional limitations, then moment-to-moment changes in the targeted impairment can be used as feedback to guide real-time treatment modification before formal reassessment of functional limitations and other impairments. Results: Applying the theory to manual therapy results in parameters of techniques such as force, speed, direction and duration no longer being pre-determined, but rather being continually adjusted in real-time according to feedback from the patient through both therapist perception (changes in movement quantity or quality) and patient verbal responses. Conclusion: A process of continuous decision-making is described that the authors believe is used by many experienced clinicians but has not previously been adequately described in the literature. .

Pain pattern classification and directional preference are associated with clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain

Pain Pattern Classification (PPC) and Directional Preference (DP) have shown merit as reliable and predictable clinical solutions to help reduce the burden posed by low back pain (LBP). We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study to verify the association between PPC, DP, and clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that (1) patients who demonstrated DP Centralization (CEN) would have lower pain intensity and disability at follow-up than patients who demonstrated Non-DP Non-CEN, and (2) the prevalence of DP at first examination would be lowest for patients with chronic LBP and are greater than 65 years old. First examination and follow-up data were completed by 639 patients. Clinical outcome measures, including pain intensity and disability, were collected at first examination and follow-up. Baseline comparisons were made between groups with first examination data only and groups with first examination data and follow-up data. A Pearson's chi-squared test was used to determine differences in prevalence rates for the categorical variables, and two-sample t-tests were used for the continuous variables. A Turkey's range test was used to determine differences in follow-up pain intensity and disability for LBP dual-classifications. Multiple regression was used to investigate DP prevalence considering risk adjusted factors. Overall prevalence of DP was 84.5% and prevalence was lowest for patients with sub-acute symptoms. No significant difference existed for the prevalence of DP for patients based on age. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 1.99 pain intensity units less than patients classified as Non-DP Non-CEN at follow-up. Patients classified as DP CEN had, on average, 3.43 RMDQ units less than patients classified as Non-DP Non-CEN at follow-up.These findings support previous reports, verifying the association between LBP dual-classification schemes and clinical outcomes.

The comfort and safety of a novel rolling mechanical indentation device for the measurement of lumbar trunk stiffness in young adults

BACKGROUND

The measurement of Posterior-Anterior (P-A) spinal stiffness is a common component of the physical examination of patients presenting with spinal disorders. The aim of this assessment is to provoke pain and/or to determine the degree of resistance or compliance of these structures and the associated soft-tissues to loading. This information, combined with other patient-specific history and examination findings, is integrated into the clinical reasoning process and is used to guide treatment decisions. Unfortunately, there are inter-rater reliability and standardisation issues associated with the manual performance of this type of assessment. In an attempt to remedy these issues researchers have developed mechanical devices for the measurement of spinal stiffness. The aim of this research is to investigate the comfort and safety of a novel device for measuring P-A trunk stiffness in a sample of young adults.

METHODS

A sample of young adults from a general population was recruited in May 2016 from Sydney, Australia. Demographic, anthropometric and clinical variables were collected prior to participants undergoing a lumbar P-A trunk stiffness assessment involving a mechanical indentation device called the VerteTrack. The primary outcomes for the study were key feasibility items; overall assessment time, perceived comfort measured both during and after the procedure, and adverse events. Univariate ordinal logistic regression was used to identify key variables associated with a participant's subjective report of comfort both during and after the VerteTrack assessment.

RESULTS

Eighty four participants (35% female) with a median age of 23 years (IQR = 3) took part in the research. The mean assessment time for the Vertetrack assessment was 11.6 min (SD = 2.1). Increasing load (p < 0.001) and increasing number of days with lower back pain (p = 0.009) were associated with decreased comfort ratings during the procedure. The vast majority 63/84 (75%) of participants rated the overall assessment experience as comfortable. There were two minor, short-lived adverse events recorded leading to an adverse event rate of 2.4% (2/84).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the VerteTrack device is well-tolerated and can be used safely and efficiently when measuring P-A stiffness of the lumbar trunk in young adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Association of lumbar spine stiffness and flexion-relaxation phenomenon with patient-reported outcomes in adults with chronic low back pain - a single-arm clinical trial investigating the effects of thrust spinal manipulation

Background

Spinal manipulation (SM) is used commonly for treating low back pain (LBP). Spinal stiffness is routinely assessed by clinicians performing SM. Flexion-relaxation ratio (FRR) was shown to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association of these two physiological variables with patient-reported pain intensity and disability in adults with chronic LBP (>12 weeks) receiving SM.

Methods

A single-arm trial provided 12 sessions of side-lying thrust SM in the lumbosacral region over 6 weeks. Inclusion criteria included 21–65 years old, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6 and numerical pain rating score ≥ 2. Spinal stiffness and FRR were assessed pre-treatment at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 6 weeks of treatment. Lumbar spine global stiffness (GS) were calculated from the force-displacement curves obtained using i) hand palpation, ii) a hand-held device, and iii) an automated indenter device. Lumbar FRR was assessed during trunk flexion-extension using surface electromyography. The primary outcomes were RMDQ and pain intensity measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Mixed-effects regression models were used to analyze the data.

Results

The mean age of the 82 participants was 45 years; 48% were female; and 84% reported LBP >1 year. The mean (standard deviation) baseline pain intensity and RMDQ were 46.1 (18.1) and 9.5 (4.3), respectively. The mean reduction (95% confidence interval) after 6 weeks in pain intensity and RMDQ were 20.1 mm (14.1 to 26.1) and 4.8 (3.7 to 5.8). There was a small change over time in the palpatory GS but not in the hand-held or automated GS, nor in FRR. The addition of each physiologic variable did not affect the model-estimated changes in VAS or RMDQ over time. There was no association seen between physiological variables and LBP intensity. Higher levels of hand-held GS at L3 and automated GS were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and lower levels of flexion and extension FRR were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.008, respectively) across the 3 assessment time points.

Conclusions

Improvement in pain and disability observed in study participants with chronic LBP was not associated with the measured GS or FRR.

Trial registration

NCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov, August 2, 2012

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.

Criterion validity of manual assessment of spinal stiffness

Assessment of spinal stiffness is widely used by manual therapy practitioners as a part of clinical diagnosis and treatment selection. Although studies have commonly found poor reliability of such procedures, conflicting evidence suggests that assessment of spinal stiffness may help predict response to specific treatments. The current study evaluated the criterion validity of manual assessments of spinal stiffness by comparing them to indentation measurements in patients with low back pain (LBP). As part of a standard examination, an experienced clinician assessed passive accessory spinal stiffness of the L3 vertebrae using posterior to anterior (PA) force on the spinous process of L3 in 50 subjects (54% female, mean (SD) age = 33.0 (12.8) years, BMI = 27.0 (6.0) kg/m(2)) with LBP. A criterion measure of spinal stiffness was performed using mechanized indentation by a blinded second examiner. Results indicated that manual assessments were uncorrelated to criterion measures of stiffness (spearman rho = 0.06, p = 0.67). Similarly, sensitivity and specificity estimates of judgments of hypomobility were low (0.20-0.45) and likelihood ratios were generally not statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of judgments of hypermobility were not calculated due to limited prevalence. Additional analysis found that BMI explained 32% of the variance in the criterion measure of stiffness, yet failed to improve the relationship between assessments. Additional studies should investigate whether manual assessment of stiffness relates to other clinical and biomechanical constructs, such as symptom reproduction, angular rotation, quality of motion, or end feel.

Within- and between-day reliability of spinal stiffness measurements obtained using a computer controlled mechanical indenter in individuals with and without low back pain

Instrumented spinal stiffness measurements have shown high test-retest reliability. However, factors that may affect reliability have yet to be investigated. The objective of this study was to compare the: 1) within- and between-day reliability of a mechanical indentation device (MID) in measuring spinal stiffness, 2) measurement precision of averaging multiple measurements, and 3) reliability of stiffness measurements between individuals with and without low back pain (LBP). The spinal stiffness of 26 volunteers with and without LBP was measured 3 times by MID in each of two visits 1-4 days apart. Two stiffness measures were calculated from the resulting force-displacement data: global stiffness and terminal stiffness. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to estimate reliability. Measurement precision was measured by minimal detectable changes, bias and 95% limits of agreement. Using the mean of three spinal stiffness measurements, the measurement precision was improved by 33.7% over a single measurement. Averaging three measurements, the within- and between-day reliability point estimates of both global and terminal stiffness were 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. The reliability estimates of spinal stiffness measurement using MID were not significantly altered by the participants' LBP status across all circumstances (95% confidence intervals overlapped). With our experimental protocol, averaging three spinal stiffness measurements using MID produces reliable stiffness measurements regardless of individuals' LBP status.

The neurophysiological effects of a single session of spinal joint mobilization: does the effect last?

Studies detailing the neurophysiological effects of spinal manual therapy have fueled a paradigm shift away from a strict biomechanical model. However, a recent systematic review of the temporal nature of a single session of spinal thrust manipulation found that the neurophysiological effects were only temporary. The objective of this review was to examine the temporal nature of neurophysiological effects after one session of spinal mobilization. Studies eligible for this review had to report on the temporal component of the neurophysiological effects of a single session of joint mobilization of the spine in human subjects. In order to be sure that the temporal nature of these effects was captured, the studies had to monitor neurophysiological effects for a time beyond the immediate post-treatment period. This systematic review followed the methodology for preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In order to assess the quality, strength, and importance of the included studies, the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation system was used. Results of this review showed that the neurophysiological effects of a single session of spinal mobilization are mostly 5 minutes or less. An exception to these findings is hypoalgesia which may last up to 24 hours, based on one study. Continued research on small samples of healthy subjects with irrelevant immediate outcomes like salivary rate, skin conductance, and skin temperature should give way to randomized controlled trials on subjects with pain and decreased function.

Centralization and directional preference: a systematic review

Centralization is a symptom response to repeated movements that can be used to classify patients into sub-groups, determine appropriate management strategies, and prognosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature relating to centralization and directional preference, and specifically report on prevalence, prognostic validity, reliability, loading strategies, and diagnostic implications. Search was conducted to June 2011; multiple study designs were considered. 62 studies were included in the review; 54 related to centralization and 8 to directional preference. The prevalence of centralization was 44.4% (range 11%-89%) in 4745 patients with back and neck pain in 29 studies; it was more prevalent in acute (74%) than sub-acute or chronic (42%) symptoms. The prevalence of directional preference was 70% (range 60%-78%) in 2368 patients with back or neck pain in 5 studies. Twenty-one of 23 studies supported the prognostic validity of centralization, including 3 high quality studies and 4 of moderate quality; whereas 2 moderate quality studies showed evidence that did not support the prognostic validity of centralization. Data on the prognostic validity of directional preference was limited to one study. Centralization and directional preference appear to be useful treatment effect modifiers in 7 out of 8 studies. Levels of reliability were very variable (kappa 0.15-0.9) in 5 studies. Findings of centralization or directional preference at baseline would appear to be useful indicators of management strategies and prognosis, and therefore warrant further investigation.

Musculoskeletal myths

This paper discusses a number of common myths in the musculoskeletal pain management and rehabilitation/athletic development fields. The origins or rationale for these beliefs are reviewed. New scientific evidence disputing or refuting the myth is then presented followed by and explanation and evidence for an updated perspective.

Association between directional preference and centralization in patients with low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES

Primary aims were to determine (1) baseline prevalence of directional preference (DP) or no directional preference (no-DP) observed for patients with low back pain whose symptoms centralized (CEN), did not centralize (non-CEN), or could not be classified (NC), and (2) to determine if classifying patients at intake by DP or no-DP combined with CEN, non-CEN, or NC predicted functional status and pain intensity at discharge from rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND

Although evidence suggests that patient response classification criteria DP or CEN improve outcomes, previous studies did not delineate relations between DP and CEN findings and outcomes.

METHODS

Eight therapists classified patients using standardized definitions for DP and CEN. Prevalence rates for DP and no-DP and CEN,non-CEN, and NC were calculated. Ordinary least-squares multivariate regression models assessed whether multilevel classification combining DP and CEN (DP/CEN, DP/non-CEN, DP/NC, no-DP/non-CEN, and no-DP/NC categories) predicted discharge functional status (scale range, 0 to 100, with higher values representing better function) or pain intensity (scale range, 0 to 10, with higher values representing more pain).

RESULTS

Overall prevalence of DP and CEN was 60% and 41%, respectively. For those with DP, prevalence rates for DP/CEN, DP/non-CEN, and DP/NC were 65%, 27%, and 8%, respectively. The amount of variance explained (R2 values) for function and pain models was 0.50 and 0.39, respectively. Compared to patients classified as DP/CEN, patients classified as DP/non-CEN or no-DP/non-CEN reported 7.7 and 11.6 functional status units less at discharge (P<.001), respectively, and patients classified as no-DP/non-CEN reported 1.7 pain units more at discharge (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that classification by pain pattern and DP can improve a therapist's ability to provide a short-term prognosis for function and pain outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b-.

The ability of a sustained within-session finding of pain reduction during traction to dictate improved outcomes from a manual therapy approach on patients with osteoarthritis of the hip

OBJECTIVES

THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY WERE TO: (1) determine the association of a within-session finding after traction of the hip with self-report of well-being, pain, and self-report of function at 9 weeks; and (2) to determine if the interactions between the within-session finding and the outcome measure are different between groups of patients with hip OA who receive and who do not receive manual therapy.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analysed in 70 subjects who were part of a randomized control trial. Correlation analyses of within-session findings from the initial visit after traction of a concordantly painful hip were compared to self-report measures for function, pain, and well-being at 9 weeks. A comparison of slope coefficients between manual therapy and non-manual therapy groups was performed to determine the interactive aspects of the within-session finding.

RESULTS

Although the correlations for the manual therapy group were higher than for the supervised neglect group, none of the correlational analyses for both groups was strong or significant. Significant differences in the slope coefficients for well-being and pain were found, suggesting that the interactions between the within-session findings and the targeted outcomes were different in the manual therapy group versus supervised neglect group.

DISCUSSION

These findings suggest that within-session findings during the initial evaluation are not strongly related to a positive outcome after manual therapy, although the interaction of the finding of a within-session change and the use of manual therapy is more compelling than the finding in a sample of patients who did not receive manual therapy.