Intertester Agreement and Validity of Identifying Lumbar Pain Provocative Movement Patterns Using Active and Passive Accessory Movement Tests

Reliability of a musculoskeletal profiling test battery in elite academy soccer players

The study aimed to quantify the measurement error / reliability of a musculoskeletal profiling test battery administered in young, elite academy soccer players, and to examine if the order in which the test battery was administered, and who it was administered by, influenced reliability. Players (n = 75; age 12–20 years; stature 1.47–1.95 m; body mass 36–89 kg) from U-12 to U-23 age groups were assigned to either: 1) intra-rater-fixed order; 2) intra-rater-non-fixed order; 3) inter-rater-fixed order; or, 4) inter-rater-non-fixed order groups. On two separate occasions separated by 3 to 7 days, 12 raters conducted a musculoskeletal profiling test battery comprising 10 tests (Supine Medial Hip Rotation, Supine Lateral Hip Rotation, Hamstring 90/90, Prone Medial Hip Rotation [degrees]; Combined Elevation, Thoracic Rotation, Weight-Bearing Dorsiflexion, Y-Balance [centimetres]; Beighton, Lumbar Quadrant [categorical]). The measurement error / reliability for tests measured in degrees and centimetres was evaluated using the intraclass correlation (relative reliability), coefficient of variation and ratio limits of agreement (absolute reliability). Intraclass correlations varied from 0.04 (“poor”) to 0.95 (“excellent”), coefficient of variation from 2.9 to 43.4%, and the ratio limits of agreement from 1.058 (*/÷ 1.020) to 2.026 (*/÷ 1.319) for the tests measured in degrees and centimetres. The intraclass correlation, coefficient of variation and ratio limits of agreement were smallest for five out of eight tests measured in degrees and centimetres when the tests were administered in an intra-rater-fixed test order. These findings emphasise that different testing methods, and the administration of a musculoskeletal profiling test battery using a less than optimal design, will influence measurement error and hence test reliability. These observations need to be considered when investigating musculoskeletal function and age, injury, training or asymmetry in young, elite academy soccer players.

Transcultural Reliability and Validity of the Japanese-Language Version of the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to validate a Japanese version of the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ) and to confirm that the Japanese version of the PGQ (PGQ-J) was as valid as the original version.

METHODS

This study involves 2 phases: (1) a cross-cultural adaptation study and (2) a cross-sectional study. The English PGQ was translated referring to the cross-cultural adaptation study process. Forty healthy pregnant or postpartum Japanese women participated. Women with pelvic girdle pain (PGP) completed the PGQ-J and 5 other instruments. Internal consistency, construct validity, test-retest reliability, ceiling and floor effects, and discrimination validity of the PGQ-J were analyzed.

RESULTS

The PGQ-J showed high internal consistency with a Cronbach α of .968, and an interclass correlation coefficient of .79. The content validity showed a high positive correlation with the Oswestry Disability Index and Disability Rating Scale.

CONCLUSION

The PGQ-J was reliable and valid with high internal consistency and content validity for assessing disability owing to PGP in Japanese pregnant and postpartum women. The PGQ-J is expected to facilitate research and clinical practice for PGP in Japan and contribute to the welfare of postpartum women.

Mobilization of the lumbar spine in a 76-year-old male with mechanical low back pain and an abdominal aortic aneurysm: A case report

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are found in 1-12% of older males. Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent with incidence increasing with age and can respond to manual therapy (MT). To date, the safety of the application of MT for LBP in the presence of a known AAA has not been reported. This case reports on the short-term effects of MT in a patient with LBP and AAA and pre- and post-therapy imaging.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 76-year-old male presented with mechanical LBP, groin pain, and a known 4.2-cm AAA. A lumbar magnetic resonance imaging showed significant multilevel abnormalities. Abdominal screening did not elicit back or groin pain. Lumbar and hip range of motion and accessory motion testing reproduced his complaints. He was treated with lumbar and hip MT.

OUTCOMES

After three visits, he reported that his groin pain resolved, and his back pain could be managed with home exercise. He reported a +6 on the global rating of change. Repeated follow-up imaging of his AAA demonstrated no significant change of his AAA.

DISCUSSION

No immediate adverse events were recorded, and repeated follow-up imaging indicated no significant AAA expansion. Considering that mobilization causes similar displacement to active motion, research into the safety of MT in this population is warranted as are guidelines for appropriate initial and ongoing clinical screening during treatment in this population.

Pain provocation following sagittal plane repeated movements in people with chronic low back pain: Associations with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Provocative pain responses following standardised protocols of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending have not been reported in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Potential differing pain responses to movement likely reflect complex sensorimotor interactions influenced by physical, psychological and neurophysiological factors. To date, it is unknown whether provocative pain responses following repeated bending are associated with different pain sensitivity and psychological profiles. Therefore the first aim of this study was to determine whether data-driven subgroups with different, clinically-important pain responses following repeated movement exist in a large CLBP cohort, specifically using a standardised protocol of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending. The second aim was to determine if the resultant pain responses following repeated movement were associated with pain and disability, pain sensitivity and psychological factors.

METHODS

Clinically-important (≥2-points, 11-point numeric rating scale) changes in pain intensity following repeated forward/backward bending were examined. Participants with different provocative pain responses to forward and backward bending were profiled on age, sex, pain sensitivity, psychological variables, pain characteristics and disability.

RESULTS

Three groups with differing provocative pain responses following repeated movements were derived: (i) no clinically-important increased pain in either direction (n=144, 49.0%), (ii) increased pain with repeated bending in one direction only (unidirectional, n=112, 38.1%), (iii) increased pain with repeated bending in both directions (bidirectional, n=38, 12.9%). After adjusting for psychological profile, age and sex, for the group with bidirectional pain provocation responses following repeated spinal bending, higher pressure and thermal pain sensitivity were demonstrated, while for the group with no increase in pain, better cognitive and affective psychological questionnaire scores were evident. However, these associations between provocative pain responses following movement and pain sensitivity and psychological profiles were weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Provocative pain responses following repeated movements in people with CLBP appear heterogeneous, and are weakly associated with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles.

IMPLICATIONS

To date, suboptimal outcomes in studies examining exercise interventions targeting directional, movement-based subgroups in people with CLBP may reflect limited consideration of broader multidimensional clinical profiles associated with LBP. This article describes heterogeneous provocative pain responses following repeated spinal bending, and their associated pain sensitivity and psychological profiles, in people with CLBP. These findings may help facilitate targeted management. For people with no increase in pain, the lack of pain provocation following repeated spinal bending, in combination with a favourable psychological profile, suggests this subgroup may have fewer barriers to functional rehabilitation. In contrast, those with pain provoked by both forward and backward bending may require specific interventions targeting increased pain sensitivity and negative psychological cognitions and affect, as these may be may be important barriers to functional rehabilitation.

Reliability and measurement error of frontal and horizontal 3D spinal motion parameters in 219 patients with chronic low back pain

Background

In order for measurements to be clinically useful, data on psychometric conditions such as reliability should be available in the population for which the measurements are intended to be used. This study comprises a test-retest design separated by 7 to 14 days, and evaluates the intra and interrater reliability of regional frontal and horizontal spinal motion in 219 chronic LBP patients using the CA6000 Spine Motion Analyzer. In addition, it compares these results on the frontal and horizontal plane with previously published results on the sagittal plane. 219 individuals with chronic mechanical LBP, classified as either Quebec Task Force group 1, 2, 3 or 4 were included, and kinematics of the lumbar spine were sampled during standardized spinal lateral flexion and rotation motion using a 6-df instrumented spatial linkage system. Test-retest reliability and measurement error were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients ICC_(1,1) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOAs).

Results

The reliability analysis based on the whole study sample showed ICC_(1,1) coefficients varying between 0.68 and 0.73 for the frontal plane and 0.33 and 0.49 for the horizontal plane. Relatively wide LOAs were observed for all parameters. Reliability measures in patient subgroups ICC_(1,1) ranged between 0.55 and 0.81 for the frontal plane and 0.28 and 0.69 for the horizontal plane. Greater ICC_(1,1) coefficients and smaller LOA were observed when patients were examined by the same examiner, had a stable pain level between tests, and were male. ROM measurements were more reliable in patients with a BMI higher than 30, and measurements on patients with LBP and leg pain showed higher reliability and smaller measurement error in all parameters except for the jerk index.

Conclusion

Frontal plane measurements obtained using the CA6000 Spine Motion Analyzer are sufficiently reliable to be used for group comparisons but not individual comparisons. Measurements in the horizontal plane can be used for neither group nor individual comparisons.

Reliability and Validity of Standing Back Extension Test for Detecting Motor Control Impairment in Subjects with Low Back Pain

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is a chronic health problem with high socioeconomic impact. Specific diagnosis or treatment approach has not yet effectively established to treat chronic low back pain. Standing Back Extension Test is one of the clinical measures to detect the passive extension subgroup of Motor Control Impairment (MCI); which could have an impact on spinal stability leading to recurrent chronic low back pain. Reliability and validity of this test is not fully established.

AIM

To determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the Standing Back Extension Test for detecting MCI of the lumbar spine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 subjects were included in the study, 25 patients with Non Specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP) (12 men, 13 women) and 25 healthy controls (12 men, 13 women) were recruited into the study. All subjects performed the test movement. Two raters blinded to the subjects rated the test performance as either 'Positive' or 'Negative' based on the predetermined rating protocol. The thickness of Transverse Abdominis (TrA) muscle was assessed using Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging (RUSI).

STATISTICAL TEST USED

For reliability, the kappa coefficient with percent agreement was calculated and for assessing the validity Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area under the Curve (AUC) were constructed.

RESULTS

The standing back extension test showed very good intra-rater (k=0.87 with an agreement of 96%) and good inter-rater (k=0.78 with an agreement of 94%) reliability and high AUC for TrA muscle.

CONCLUSION

The standing back extension test was found to be a reliable and a valid measure to detect passive extension subgroup for MCI in subjects with low back pain.

Sagittal Thoracic and Lumbar Spine Profiles in Upright Standing and Lying Prone Positions Among Healthy Subjects: Influence of Various Biometric Features

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study was performed on the assessment of both thoracic and lumbar spine sagittal profiles (from C7 to S1).

OBJECTIVE

To propose a new noninvasive method for measuring the spine curvatures in standing and lying prone positions and to analyze their relationship with various biometric characteristics.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Modifications of spine curvatures (i.e. lordosis or kyphosis) are of importance in the development of spinal disorders. Studies have emphasized the development of new devices to measure the spine sagittal profiles using a noninvasive and low-cost method. To date, it has not been applied for analyzing both lumbar and thoracic alterations for various positioning.

METHODS

Seventy-five healthy subjects (mean 22.6 ± 4.3 yr) were recruited to participate in this study. Thoracic and lumbar sagittal profiles were assessed in standing and lying prone positions using a 3D digitizer. In addition, several biometric data were collected including maximal trunk isometric strength for flexion and extension movement. Statistical analysis consisted in data comparisons of spine profiles and a multivariate analysis including biometric features, to classify individuals considering low within- and high between-variability.

RESULT

Kyphosis and lordosis angles decreased significantly from standing to lying prone position by an average of 13.4° and 16.6°, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed a sample clustering of 3 homogenous subgroups. The first group displayed larger lordosis and flexibility, and had low data values for height, weight, and strength. The second group had lower values than the overall trend of the whole sample, whereas the third group had larger score values for the torques, height, weight, waist, body mass index, and kyphosis angle but a reduced flexibility.

CONCLUSION

The present results demonstrate a significant effect of the positioning on both thoracic and lumbar spine sagittal profiles and highlight the use of cluster analysis to categorize subgroups after biometric characteristics including curvature measurement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.