Clinical prediction rules in the physiotherapy management of low back pain: a systematic review

Beliefs and practice patterns of spinal thrust manipulation for mechanical low back pain of physical therapists in the state of Minnesota

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions and utilization of spinal thrust manipulation (STM) techniques of physical therapists who treat patients with low back pain (LBP) in the State of Minnesota. A secondary purpose was to investigate differences between physical therapists who perform STM and those who do not.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was utilized through the completion of an electronic survey. 74 respondents completed the survey. Descriptive measures were recorded as frequencies for categorical data or mean ± standard deviation for continuous data. For between-group comparisons, chi-square analyses were used for categorical items of nominal or ordinal data and t-tests were utilized for continuous data. The alpha level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULT

60.2% of respondents reported using STM when treating patients with LBP. 69.9% of respondents utilize a classification system. 76.7% of individuals answered correctly regarding the Minnesota State practice act. Of those who use STM, 81.8% utilize a Clinical Prediction Rule. Respondents who use STM were more likely to have a specialist certification (chi-square = 6.471, p = 0.011) and to have completed continuing education courses on manual therapy (chi-square = 4.736, p = 0.030).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists who perform STM are more likely to have a better understanding of their state practice act, be board certified, and have completed continuing education in manual therapy.

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for categorising low back pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a common complex condition, where specific diagnoses are hard to identify. Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are known to improve clinical decision-making. A review of LBP diagnostic-CPRs by Haskins et al. (2015) identified six diagnostic-CPRs in derivation phases of development, with one tool ready for implementation. Recent progress on these tools is unknown. Therefore, this review aimed to investigate developments in LBP diagnostic-CPRs and evaluate their readiness for implementation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on five databases (Medline, Amed, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) combined with hand-searching and citation-tracking to identify eligible studies. Study and tool quality were appraised for risk of bias (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), methodological quality (checklist using accepted CPR methodological standards), and CPR tool appraisal (GRade and ASsess Predictive).

RESULTS

Of 5021 studies screened, 11 diagnostic-CPRs were identified. Of the six previously known, three have been externally validated but not yet undergone impact analysis. Five new tools have been identified since Haskin et al. (2015); all are still in derivation stages. The most validated diagnostic-CPRs include the Lumbar-Spinal-Stenosis-Self-Administered-Self-Reported-History-Questionnaire and Diagnosis-Support-Tool-to-Identify-Lumbar-Spinal-Stenosis, and the StEP-tool which differentiates radicular from axial-LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated review of LBP diagnostic CPRs found five new tools, all in the early stages of development. Three previously known tools have now been externally validated but should be used with caution until impact evaluation studies are undertaken. Future funding should focus on externally validating and assessing the impact of existing CPRs on clinical decision-making.

Wearable Nanocomposite Sensor System for Motion Phenotyping Chronic Low Back Pain: A BACPAC Technology Research Site

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a prevalent and multifactorial ailment. No single treatment has been shown to dramatically improve outcomes for all cLBP patients, and current techniques of linking a patient with their most effective treatment lack validation. It has long been recognized that spinal pathology alters motion. Therefore, one potential method to identify optimal treatments is to evaluate patient movement patterns (ie, motion-based phenotypes). Biomechanists, physical therapists, and surgeons each utilize a variety of tools and techniques to qualitatively assess movement as a critical element in their treatment paradigms. However, objectively characterizing and communicating this information is challenging due to the lack of economical, objective, and accurate clinical tools. In response to that need, we have developed a wearable array of nanocomposite stretch sensors that accurately capture the lumbar spinal kinematics, the SPINE Sense System. Data collected from this device are used to identify movement-based phenotypes and analyze correlations between spinal kinematics and patient-reported outcomes. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to describe the design and validity of the SPINE Sense System; and second, to describe the protocol and data analysis toward the application of this equipment to enhance understanding of the relationship between spinal movement patterns and patient metrics, which will facilitate the identification of optimal treatment paradigms for cLBP.

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs): Use during the physical therapy practice and associated factors

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current level of routine use of psychosocial-related patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in physical therapy practice and which physical therapist-level factors are associated with the use of these measurement instruments.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey study among Spanish physical therapists involved in the treatment of LBP patients in Public Health Service, Mutual Insurance Companies, and private practice during 2020. Descriptive analyses were conducted for reporting the number and instruments utilized. Thus, sociodemographic and professional features differences between PTs using and not using PROM were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 485 physiotherapists completing the questionnaire nationwide, 484 were included. A minority of therapists routinely used psychosocial-related PROMs (13.8%) in LBP patients and only 6.8% did so through standardized measurements instruments. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (28.8%) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (15.1%) were used most frequently. Physiotherapists working in Andalucía and País Vasco regions, in private practice environments, educated in psychosocial factors evaluation and management, considering psychosocial factors during the clinical practice and expecting patients' collaborative attitudes demonstrated significantly greater use of PROMS (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the majority of physiotherapists in Spain do not use PROMs for evaluating LBP (86.2%). From those physiotherapists using PROMs, approximately the half use validated instruments such as the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia or the Pain Catastrophizing Scale while the other half limit their evaluation to anamnesis and non-validated questionnaires. Therefore, developing effective strategies to implement and facilitate the use of psychosocial-related PROMs would enhance the evaluation during the clinical practice.

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.

External validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with neck pain

Background

Neck pain is one of the leading causes of disability in most countries and it is likely to increase further. Numerous prognostic models for people with neck pain have been developed, few have been validated. In a recent systematic review, external validation of three promising models was advised before they can be used in clinical practice.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to externally validate three promising models that predict neck pain recovery in primary care.

Methods

This validation cohort consisted of 1311 patients with neck pain of any duration who were prospectively recruited and treated by 345 manual therapists in the Netherlands. Outcome measures were disability (Neck Disability Index) and recovery (Global Perceived Effect Scale) post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. The assessed models were an Australian Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) model (Amodel), a multicenter WAD model (Mmodel), and a Dutch non-specific neck pain model (Dmodel). Models’ discrimination and calibration were evaluated.

Results

The Dmodel and Amodel discriminative performance (AUC < 0.70) and calibration measures (slope largely different from 1) were poor. The Mmodel could not be evaluated since several variables nor their proxies were available.

Conclusions

External validation of promising prognostic models for neck pain recovery was not successful and their clinical use cannot be recommended. We advise clinicians to underpin their current clinical reasoning process with evidence-based individual prognostic factors for recovery. Further research on finding new prognostic factors and developing and validating models with up-to-date methodology is needed for recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care.

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.

Challenges and solutions in prognostic prediction models in spinal disorders

Methodological shortcomings in prognostic modeling for patients with spinal disorders are highly common. This general commentary discusses methodological challenges related to the specific nature of this field. Five specific methodological challenges in prognostic modeling for patients with spinal disorders are presented with their potential solutions, as related to the choice of study participants, purpose of studies, limitations in measurements of outcomes and predictors, complexity of recovery predictions, and confusion of prognosis and treatment response. Large studies specifically designed for prognostic model research are needed, using standard baseline measurement sets, clearly describing participants' recruitment and accounting and correcting for measurement limitations.

Predicting treatment adherence and outcome to outpatient multimodal rehabilitation in chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need to identify patient pre-treatment characteristics that could predict adherence and outcome following specific interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of adherence and outcome to outpatient multimodal rehabilitation in chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

A total of 273 CLBP patients participated in an exercise-based rehabilitation program. Patients who completed ⩾ 70% of the treatment course were classified as adherent. Patients showing a post-treatment reduction of ⩾ 30% in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain intensity scores were assigned to the favorable outcome group.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression revealed that higher age, higher ability to perform low-load activities, and higher degrees of kinesiophobia increased the odds to complete the rehabilitation program. By contrast, lower levels of education and back pain unrelated to poor posture increased the odds for non-adherence. Furthermore, a favorable outcome was predicted in case the cause for LBP was known, shorter symptom duration, no pain in the lower legs, no difficulties falling asleep, and short-term work absenteeism.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment and consideration of patient pre-treatment characteristics is of great importance as they may enable therapists to identify patients with a good prognosis or at risk for non-responding to outpatient multimodal rehabilitation.

Individual recovery expectations and prognosis of outcomes in non-specific low back pain: prognostic factor review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity.

SEARCH METHODS

The search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation. Usable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain.

The Evolving Case Supporting Individualised Physiotherapy for Low Back Pain

Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most burdensome health problems in the world. Guidelines recommend simple treatments such as advice that may result in suboptimal outcomes, particularly when applied to people with complex biopsychosocial barriers to recovery. Individualised physiotherapy has the potential of being more effective for people with LBP; however, there is limited evidence supporting this approach. A series of studies supporting the mechanisms underpinning and effectiveness of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine (STOPS) approach to individualised physiotherapy have been published. The clinical and research implications of these findings are presented and discussed. Treatment based on the STOPS approach should also be considered as an approach to individualised physiotherapy in people with LBP.

Is there an association between hip range of motion and nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review whether there is an association between hip range of motion (ROM) and nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PsychINFO, CINAHL and AMED databases were searched from year of inception until October 31st, 2018, using a combination of LBP and hip joint search terms. Commonly cited journals were also hand searched within the previous two years.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened identified articles, by title and abstract and then by full-text. After first round screening of 2908 identified records, 248 progressed to full-text screening. Due to the heterogeneity of studies identified, post hoc inclusion criteria of English language, studies comparing subjects with NSLBP and healthy controls, cross-sectional design, and clinical measures of hip ROM were applied. Twenty-four records were finally included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Extracted data included population characteristics, duration and severity of NSLBP, hip movement direction, testing position, measurement tool and between-group difference. The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess for study bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Hip flexion ROM was measured in seven studies, extension in 13, internal rotation (IR) in 14, external rotation (ER) in 13, abduction in six, and adduction in only two studies. Among all directions tested, IR ROM was reported in more studies as significantly reduced in NSLBP subjects compared to healthy individuals. Overall the quality of evidence was very low. Common sources of study bias included lack of sample size justification, blinding of outcome assessors, adjusting for key confounders, and poor reporting.

CONCLUSION

There is very low-quality evidence to support an association between limited hip ROM and NSLBP. Limited hip IR ROM was the only movement impairment found to be significantly associated with NSLBP, however this should be viewed with caution due to the low-quality supportive evidence. Further studies are needed.

Clinical spinal instability: 10 years since the derivation of a clinical prediction rule. A narrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Between 2005 and 2015 significant changes in the clinical decision making paradigm for the treatment of spinal instability occurred. This was largely motivated by a clinical prediction rule (CPR) derivation study that was developed to specifically identify patients with low back pain who are more likely to respond positively to lumbar stabilization exercises.

OBJECTIVE

This is a narrative literature review on the recent advances physiotherapy has made in the treatment of clinical spinal instability.

METHODS

Literature discussing the conservative treatment of lumbar spinal instability published from 2005-2015 was identified with electronic searches of PubMed (MEDLINE) Advanced search, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, MEDLINE (EBSCO), SportDISCUS (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), PEDro, Scopus and Cochrane and reviewed.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews, 2 with meta-analyses, and 1 systematic review on the quality of systematic reviews were found. There seems to be some benefit from specific stabilization exercise programs in regards to pain reduction, but they might not be more effective than other forms of exercise. The currently existing CPR for stabilization exercises is not far enough developed to use in clinical practice and is not validated as of yet.

CONCLUSION

Stabilization exercises seem to decrease chronic low back pain, although it is not clear that this pain has to be caused by clinical spinal instability. Caution should be exercised when using CPRs in the clinic; they are not meant to be strict treatment guidelines, but rather a tool that helps facilitate clinical decision-making.

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.

Who Benefits Most From Individualized Physiotherapy or Advice for Low Back Disorders? A Preplanned Effect Modifier Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A preplanned effect modifier analysis of the Specific Treatment of Problems of the Spine randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics associated with larger or smaller treatment effects in people with low back disorders undergoing either individualized physical therapy or guideline-based advice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Identifying subgroups of people who attain a larger or smaller benefit from particular treatments has been identified as a high research priority for low back disorders.

METHODS

The trial involved 300 participants with low back pain and/or referred leg pain (≥6 wk, ≤6 mo duration), who satisfied criteria to be classified into five subgroups (with 228 participants classified into three subgroups relating to disc-related disorders, and 64 classified into the zygapophyseal joint dysfunction subgroup). Participants were randomly allocated to receive either two sessions of guideline based advice (n = 144), or 10 sessions of individualized physical therapy targeting pathoanatomical, psychosocial, and neurophysiological factors (n = 156). Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models determined the interaction between treatment group and potential effect modifiers (defined a priori) for the primary outcomes of back pain, leg pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) and activity limitation (Oswestry Disability Index) over a 52-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants with higher levels of back pain, higher Örebro scores (indicative of higher risk of persistent pain) or longer duration of symptoms derived the largest benefits from individualized physical therapy relative to advice. Poorer coping also predicted larger benefits from individualized physical therapy in the univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that people with low back disorders could be preferentially targeted for individualized physical therapy rather than advice if they have higher back pain levels, longer duration of symptoms, or higher Örebro scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Latent class analysis derived subgroups of low back pain patients - do they have prognostic capacity?

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. One statistical technique that is increasingly being used is Latent Class Analysis as it performs subgrouping based on pattern recognition with high accuracy. Previously, we developed two novel suggestions for subgrouping patients with low back pain based on Latent Class Analysis of patient baseline characteristics (patient history and physical examination), which resulted in 7 subgroups when using a single-stage analysis, and 9 subgroups when using a two-stage approach. However, their prognostic capacity was unexplored. This study (i) determined whether the subgrouping approaches were associated with the future outcomes of pain intensity, pain frequency and disability, (ii) assessed whether one of these two approaches was more strongly or more consistently associated with these outcomes, and (iii) assessed the performance of the novel subgroupings as compared to the following variables: two existing subgrouping tools (STarT Back Tool and Quebec Task Force classification), four baseline characteristics and a group of previously identified domain-specific patient categorisations (collectively, the 'comparator variables').

METHODS

This was a longitudinal cohort study of 928 patients consulting for low back pain in primary care. The associations between each subgroup approach and outcomes at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months, and with weekly SMS responses were tested in linear regression models, and their prognostic capacity (variance explained) was compared to that of the comparator variables listed above.

RESULTS

The two previously identified subgroupings were similarly associated with all outcomes. The prognostic capacity of both subgroupings was better than that of the comparator variables, except for participants' recovery beliefs and the domain-specific categorisations, but was still limited. The explained variance ranged from 4.3%-6.9% for pain intensity and from 6.8%-20.3% for disability, and highest at the 2 weeks follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Latent Class-derived subgroups provided additional prognostic information when compared to a range of variables, but the improvements were not substantial enough to warrant further development into a new prognostic tool. Further research could investigate if these novel subgrouping approaches may help to improve existing tools that subgroup low back pain patients.

Decision support tools in low back pain

Information from individual classification systems or clinical prediction rules that aim to facilitate stratified care in low back pain is important but often not comprehensive enough to be used to support clinical decision-making. The development and implementation of a clinically useful decision support tool (DST) that considering all key features is a challenging enterprise, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Key features are inclusion of all relevant treatment options, patient characteristics, and benefits and harms and presentation as an accessible and easy to use toolkit. To be of clinical value, a DST should (1) be based on large numbers of high-quality data, allowing robust estimation of benefits and harms; (2) be presented using visually attractive and easy-to-use software; (3) be externally validated with a clinical beneficial impact established; and (4) include a procedure for regular updating and monitoring. As an illustration, we describe the development; presentation; and plans for further validation, implementation, and updating of the Nijmegen Decision Tool for Chronic Low Back Pain (NDT-CLBP).

Placebo Mechanisms of Manual Therapy: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

When a physical therapist provides a manual therapy (MT) intervention for a patient presenting with pain and the patient experiences a positive clinical outcome, we cannot answer as to why this occurs. Would we continue to devote valuable time and financial resources to learning and improving our skills in providing MT interventions if the related clinical outcomes were placebo responses? In this Viewpoint, the authors conceptualize placebo as an active and important mechanism of MT and argue that placebo mechanisms deserve consideration as an important component of the treatment effect. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5):301-304. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0604.

Clinical prediction rules for prognosis and treatment prescription in neck pain: A systematic review

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) developed to identify sub-groups of people with neck pain for different prognoses (i.e. prognostic) or response to treatments (i.e. prescriptive) have been recommended as a research priority to improve health outcomes for these conditions. A systematic review was undertaken to identify prognostic and prescriptive CPRs relevant to the conservative management of adults with neck pain and to appraise stage of development, quality and readiness for clinical application. Six databases were systematically searched from inception until 4th July 2016. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, risk of bias (PEDro and QUIPS), methodological quality and stage of development. 9840 records were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Thirty-two studies reporting on 26 CPRs were included in this review. Methodological quality of included studies varied considerably. Most prognostic CPR development studies employed appropriate designs. However, many prescriptive CPR studies (n = 12/13) used single group designs and/or analysed controlled trials using methods that were inadequate for identifying treatment effect moderators. Most prognostic (n = 11/15) and all prescriptive (n = 11) CPRs have not progressed beyond the derivation stage of development. Four prognostic CPRs relating to acute whiplash (n = 3) or non-traumatic neck pain (n = 1) have undergone preliminary validation. No CPRs have undergone impact analysis. Most prognostic and prescriptive CPRs for neck pain are at the initial stage of development and therefore routine clinical use is not yet supported. Further validation and impact analyses of all CPRs are required before confident conclusions can be made regarding clinical utility.

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.

Back pain: Prevention and management in the workplace

Despite all the efforts in studying work-related risk factors for low back pain (LBP), interventions targeting these risk factors to prevent LBP have no proven cost-effectiveness. Even with adequate implementation strategies for these interventions on group level, these did not result in the reduction of incident LBP. Physical exercise, however, does have a primary preventive effect on LBP. For secondary prevention, it seems that there are more opportunities to cost-effectively intervene in reducing the risk of long-term sickness absence due to LBP. Starting at the earliest moment possible with proper assessment of risk factors for long-term sickness absence related to the individual, the underlying mechanisms of the LBP, and also factors related to the workplace by a well-trained clinician, may increase the potential of effective return to work (RTW) management. More research on how to overcome barriers in the uptake of these effective interventions in relation to policy-specific environments, and with regard to proper financing of RTW management is necessary.

External validation of a clinical prediction rule to predict full recovery and ongoing moderate/severe disability following acute whiplash injury

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective secondary analysis of data.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the external validity of the whiplash clinical prediction rule (CPR).

BACKGROUND

We recently derived a whiplash CPR to consolidate previously established prognostic factors for poor recovery from a whiplash injury and predicted 2 recovery pathways. Prognostic factors for full recovery were being less than 35 years of age and having an initial Neck Disability Index (NDI) score of 32% or less. Prognostic factors for ongoing moderate/severe pain and disability were being 35 years of age or older, having an initial NDI score of 40% or more, and the presence of hyperarousal symptoms. Validation is required to confirm the reproducibility and accuracy of this CPR. Clinician feedback on the usefulness of the CPR is also important to gauge acceptability.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of data from 101 individuals with acute whiplash-associated disorder who had previously participated in either a randomized controlled clinical trial or prospective cohort study was performed using accuracy statistics. Full recovery was defined as NDI score at 6 months of 10% or less, and ongoing moderate/severe pain and disability were defined as an NDI score at 6 months of 30% or greater. In addition, a small sample of physical therapists completed an anonymous survey on the clinical acceptability and usability of the tool. Results The positive predictive value of ongoing moderate/severe pain and disability was 90.9% in the validation cohort, and the positive predictive value of full recovery was 80.0%. Surveyed physical therapists reported that the whiplash CPR was simple, understandable, would be easy to use, and was an acceptable prognostic tool.

CONCLUSION

External validation of the whiplash CPR confirmed the reproducibility and accuracy of this dual-pathway tool for individuals with acute whiplash-associated disorder. Further research is needed to assess prospective validation, the impact of inclusion on practice, and to examine the efficacy of linking treatment strategies with predicted prognosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognosis, level 1b.

The short-term effects of graded activity versus physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is one of the most common problematic health conditions worldwide and is highly associated with disability, quality of life, emotional changes, and work absenteeism. Graded activity programs, based on cognitive behavioral therapy, and exercises are common treatments for patients with low back pain. However, recent evidence has shown that there is no evidence to support graded activity for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

AIM

to compare the effectiveness of graded activity and physiotherapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 66 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomized to perform either graded activity (moderate intensity treadmill walking, brief education and strength exercises) or physiotherapy (strengthening, stretching and motor control). These patients received individual sessions twice a week for six weeks. The primary measures were intensity of pain (Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire).

RESULTS

After six weeks, significant improvements have been observed in all outcome measures of both groups, with a non-significant difference between the groups. For intensity of pain (mean difference = 0.1 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.1-1.3) and disability (mean difference = 0.8 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.6-4.2). No differences were found in the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that graded activity and physiotherapy showed to be effective and have similar effects for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

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.

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules for specific subtypes of low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for low back pain (LBP) and to assess their readiness for clinical application.

BACKGROUND

Significant research has been invested into the development of CPRs that may assist in the meaningful subgrouping of patients with LBP. To date, very little is known about diagnostic forms of CPRs for LBP, which relate to the present status or classification of an individual, and whether they have been developed sufficiently to enable their application in clinical practice.

METHODS

A sensitive electronic search strategy using 7 databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion using a 2-stage selection process. The quality appraisal of included studies was conducted by 2 independent raters using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and checklists composed of accepted methodological standards for the development of CPRs.

RESULTS

Of 10 014 studies screened for eligibility, the search identified that 13 diagnostic CPRs for LBP have been derived. Among those, 1 tool for identifying lumbar spinal stenosis and 2 tools for identifying inflammatory back pain have undergone validation. No impact analysis studies were identified.

CONCLUSION

Most diagnostic CPRs for LBP are in their initial development phase and cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice at this time. Validation and impact analysis of the diagnostic CPRs identified in this review are warranted, particularly for those tools that meet an identified unmet need of clinicians who manage patients with LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, level 2a-.

Derivation and validation phase for the development of clinical prediction rules for rehabilitation in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

There is a consensus that exercise therapy should be used as a therapeutic approach in chronic low back pain (CLBP) but little consensus has been reached about the preferential type of therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of the population no clear effect of specific therapy interventions are found. Probably a specific subgroup of the investigated population will benefit from the intervention and another subgroup will not benefit, looking at the total investigated population no significant effects can be found. Therefore there is a need for the development of clinical prediction rules (CPRs). Objectives for this trial are first, the derivation of CPRs to predict treatment response to three forms of exercise therapy for patients with nonspecific CLBP. Secondly, we aim to validate a CPR for the three forms of exercise therapy for patients with nonspecific CLBP.

Methods/Design

The study design is a randomized controlled trial. Patients with nonspecific CLBP of more than three months duration are recruited at the Antwerp University Hospital (Belgium) and Apra Rehabilitation Hospital. After examination, patients are randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: motor control therapy, general active exercise therapy and isometric training therapy. All patients will undergo 18 treatment sessions during nine weeks. Measurements will be taken at baseline, nine weeks, six months and at one year. The primary outcome used is the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score. For each type of exercise therapy a CPR will be derived and validated. For validation, the CPR will be applied to divide each treatment group into two subgroups (matched and unmatched therapy) using the baseline measurements. We predict a better therapeutic effect for matched therapy.

Discussion

A randomized controlled trial has not previously been performed for the development of a CPR for exercise therapy in CLBP patients. Only one CPR was described in a single-arm design for motor control therapy in sub-acute non-radicular LBP patients. In this study, a sufficiently large sample will be included in both the derivation and validation phase.

Trial registration

This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov on 10 February 2014, registration number: NCT02063503.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

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

Uncertainty in clinical prediction rules: the value of credible intervals

Decision making in physical therapy is increasingly informed by evidence in the form of probabilities. Prior beliefs concerning diagnoses, prognoses, and treatment effects are quantitatively revised by the integration of new information derived from the history, physical examination, and other investigations in a well-recognized application of Bayes' theorem. Clinical prediction rule development studies commonly employ such methodology to produce quantified estimates of the likelihood of patients having certain diagnoses or achieving given outcomes. To date, the physical therapy literature has been limited to the discussion and calculation of the point estimate of such probabilities. The degree of precision associated with the construction of posterior probabilities, which requires consideration of both uncertainty associated with pretest probability and uncertainty associated with test accuracy, remains largely unrecognized and unreported. This paper provides an introduction to the calculation of the uncertainty interval, known as a credible interval, around posterior probability estimates. The method for calculating the credible interval is detailed and illustrated with example data from 2 clinical prediction rule development studies. Two relatively quick and simple methods for approximating the credible interval are also outlined. It is anticipated that knowledge of the credible interval will have practical implications for the incorporation of probabilistic evidence in clinical practice. Consistent with reporting standards for interventional and diagnostic studies, it is equally appropriate that studies reporting posterior probabilities calculate and report the level of precision associated with these point estimates.

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.

Knowledge Translation Tools are Emerging to Move Neck Pain Research into Practice

Development or synthesis of the best clinical research is in itself insufficient to change practice. Knowledge translation (KT) is an emerging field focused on moving knowledge into practice, which is a non-linear, dynamic process that involves knowledge synthesis, transfer, adoption, implementation, and sustained use. Successful implementation requires using KT strategies based on theory, evidence, and best practice, including tools and processes that engage knowledge developers and knowledge users. Tools can provide instrumental help in implementing evidence. A variety of theoretical frameworks underlie KT and provide guidance on how tools should be developed or implemented. A taxonomy that outlines different purposes for engaging in KT and target audiences can also be useful in developing or implementing tools. Theoretical frameworks that underlie KT typically take different perspectives on KT with differential focus on the characteristics of the knowledge, knowledge users, context/environment, or the cognitive and social processes that are involved in change. Knowledge users include consumers, clinicians, and policymakers. A variety of KT tools have supporting evidence, including: clinical practice guidelines, patient decision aids, and evidence summaries or toolkits. Exemplars are provided of two KT tools to implement best practice in management of neck pain—a clinician implementation guide (toolkit) and a patient decision aid. KT frameworks, taxonomies, clinical expertise, and evidence must be integrated to develop clinical tools that implement best evidence in the management of neck pain.

Effectiveness of back school versus McKenzie exercises in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Back School and McKenzie methods are popular active treatment approaches that include both exercises and information for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Back School and McKenzie methods in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

DESIGN

The study was a prospectively registered, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the outpatient physical therapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil.

PATIENTS

The study participants were 148 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

The 4-week treatment program (one session/week) was based on the Back School (delivered to the group) or McKenzie (delivered individually) principles. The participants also were instructed to perform a daily set of home exercises.

MEASUREMENTS

Clinical outcomes were assessed at follow-up appointments at 1, 3, and 6 months after randomization. Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (measured by the 0-10 pain numerical rating scale) and disability (measured by the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) 1 month after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity and disability at 3 and 6 months after randomization, quality of life (measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF instrument) at 1, 3, and 6 months after randomization, and trunk flexion range of motion measured by an inclinometer at 1 month after randomization. The data were collected by a blinded assessor.

RESULTS

Participants allocated to the McKenzie group had greater improvements in disability at 1 month (mean effect=2.37 points, 95% confidence interval=0.76 to 3.99) but not for pain (mean effect=0.66 points, 95% confidence interval=-0.29 to 1.62). No between-group differences were observed for all secondary outcome measures.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to monitor the home exercise program. Therapists and participants were not blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

The McKenzie method (a more resource-intensive intervention) was slightly more effective than the Back School method for disability, but not for pain intensity immediately after treatment in participants with chronic low back pain.

Belief reinforcement: one reason why costs for low back pain have not decreased

Recent figures show that there has been no change in the upward trend of direct and indirect costs for the largely benign symptom of low back pain in Western societies. This is despite greater understanding and the recommendation of a much more conservative and independent approach to its management. Moreover, in recent years, several large-scale education programs that aim to bring knowledge of the public (including general practitioners) more in line with evidence-based best practice were carried out in different countries. The hope was that the information imparted would change beliefs, ie, dysfunctional patient behavior and biomedical practice on the part of clinicians. However, these programs had no influence on behavior or costs in three out of the four countries in which they were implemented. It is argued that one reason for the overall lack of success is that it is extremely difficult to alter the potentially disabling belief among the lay public that low back pain has a structural mechanical cause. An important reason for this is that this belief continues to be regularly reinforced by the conditions of care of a range of "hands-on" providers, for whom idiosyncratic variations of that view are fundamental to their professional existence.

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.

Lumbar multifidus muscle thickness does not predict patients with low back pain who improve with trunk stabilization exercises

OBJECTIVE

To understand lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle activation as a clinical feature to predict patients with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to benefit from stabilization (STB) exercises.

DESIGN

Prospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Outpatient physical therapy clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Persons with LBP were recruited for this study. Subjects (N=25) were classified as either eligible to receive STB exercises or ineligible on the basis of current clinical prediction rules.

INTERVENTIONS

Six weeks of STB treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after treatment, subjects underwent rehabilitative ultrasound imaging to quantify LM-muscle activation and completed disability and pain questionnaires. Analyses were performed to examine the (1) relation between LM-muscle activation and current clinical features used to predict patients with LBP likely to benefit from STB exercises, (2) LM-muscle activation between the STB-eligible and STB-ineligible groups before and after STB treatment, and (3) relation between LM-muscle activation before STB treatment and (a) disability and (b) pain outcomes after treatment for both groups.

RESULTS

No relation was found between LM-muscle activation and the number of clinical features. Before STB treatment, LM-muscle activation between the STB-eligible and STB-ineligible groups did not differ. After STB treatment, LM-muscle activation differed between the groups; however, this interaction was because the LM-muscle activation for the STB-eligible group decreased after treatment while that for the STB-ineligible group increased after treatment. Finally, only the STB-eligible group had a significant reduction in disability following treatment; however, no relation was found between LM-muscle activation before treatment and (a) disability or (b) pain outcomes after treatment in the STB-eligible group.

CONCLUSIONS

LM-muscle activation does not appear to be a clinical feature that predicts patients with LBP likely to benefit from STB exercises.

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.

Association between history and physical examination factors and change in lumbar multifidus muscle thickness after spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain

Understanding the clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain (LBP) who display improved lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle function after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) may provide insight into a potentially synergistic interaction between SMT and exercise. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the baseline historical and physical examination factors associated with increased contracted LM muscle thickness one week after SMT. Eighty-one participants with LBP underwent a baseline physical examination and ultrasound imaging assessment of the LM muscle during submaximal contraction before and one week after SMT. The relationship between baseline examination variables and 1-week change in contracted LM thickness was assessed using correlation analysis and hierarchical multiple linear regression. Four variables best predicted the magnitude of increases in contracted LM muscle thickness after SMT. When combined, these variables suggest that patients with LBP, (1) that are fairly acute, (2) have at least a moderately good prognosis without focal and irritable symptoms, and (3) exhibit signs of spinal instability, may be the best candidates for a combined SMT and lumbar stabilization exercise (LSE) treatment approach.

Basis for spinal manipulative therapy: a physical therapist perspective

Physical therapists internationally provide spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to patients with musculoskeletal pain complaints. SMT has been a part of physical therapist practice since the profession's beginning. Early physical therapist clinical decision making for SMT was influenced by the approaches of osteopathic and orthopedic physicians at the time. Currently a segmental clinical decision making approach and a responder clinical decision making approach are two of the more common models through which physical therapist clinical use of SMT is directed. The focus of segmental clinical decision making is upon identifying a dysfunctional vertebral segment with the application of SMT to restore mobility and/or alleviate pain. The responder clinical decision making approach attempts to categorize individuals based on a pattern of signs and symptoms suggesting a likely positive response to SMT. The present manuscript provides an overview of common physical therapist clinical decision making approaches to SMT and presents areas requiring further study in order to optimize patient response.