The effectiveness of sub-group specific manual therapy for low back pain: a systematic review

Efficacy of manual therapy on shoulder pain and function in patients with rotator cuff injury: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

To critically evaluate the effects of manual therapy (MT) on pain and functional improvement in patients with rotator cuff injury (RCI), a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MT for RCI was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-fang Data, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature database from inception to March 28, 2023. A total of 1,110 participants from 24 eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with placebo, MT could not effectively relieve pain [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.25; 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.01; P=0.06], although its impact on functional improvement appears limited (SMD=0.20; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.49; P=0.18). Combining MT with exercise had significant advantages over exercise alone, as combined therapy contributed to both pain reduction (SMD=0.36; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.64; P=0.01) and functional enhancement (SMD=0.32; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.52; P=0.002). Furthermore, MT combined with multimodal physiotherapy showed additional benefits in pain reduction (mean difference=1.57; 95% CI: 0.18 to 2.96; P=0.03) and functional improvement (SMD=0.77; 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.12; P<0.0001) compared with multimodal physiotherapy alone. These findings highlight the superior pain alleviation and functional improvement provided by MT when combined with exercise or physiotherapy. Consequently, MT has emerged as a pivotal component of therapeutic intervention for RCI.

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios.

RESULTS

Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy.

CONCLUSION

Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes.

IMPACT

Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

The effect of patient-led goal setting approach combined with pain neuroscience education or manual therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a parallel-group randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial disorder associated with a high range of physical and psychological burden on the society. Patient-led goal-setting approach has shown potential effects for improving chronic LBP. However, there are few studies investigating its benefits when combined with a supplementary intervention. This paper, therefore, presents a protocol for a randomized control trial (RCT) to study the effect of a patient-led goal-setting approach combined with pain neuroscience education (PNE) or manual therapy (MT) among patients with chronic LBP.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients suffering from chronic LBP will be recruited via flyers displayed in hospitals and universities, and those meeting the study's criteria will randomly be allocated into a patient-led goal-setting approach with the PNE group, and/or with the MT program group, and/or a control group. The primary outcomes will be the pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, depression, anxiety and stress, fear avoidance beliefs, kinesophobia, pain self-efficacy, catastrophic pain, neurophysiology of pain, and central sensitivity. All the outcomes will be recorded at 2 months after receiving the treatment as post-test sessions and after 4 and 12 months as follow-up sessions. The Ethics Committee in Research at Sport Sciences Research Institute of Iran approved the protocol of this trial (IR.SSRC.REC.1400.084). Written, informed consent to participate will be obtained from all participants. All methods will be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations and send them to the participants.

DISCUSSION

This trial will demonstrate which supplementary intervention can better improve the impact of a patient-led goal-setting approach to treat LBP. If successful, the results will potentially have implications for athletic trainers, physiotherapists, and health care practitioners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT20210927052616N1. Registered on November 03, 2021.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Does Targeting a Specific Vertebral Level Make a Difference?: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine whether targeting spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), by applying the intervention to a specific vertebral level, produces superior clinical outcomes than a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched up to May 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing targeted SMT (mobilization or manipulation) to a nontargeted approach in patients with nonspecific low back pain, and measuring the effects on pain intensity and patient-reported disability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach were performed by 2 authors independently. Meta-analyses were performed using the restricted maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 931 patients) were included. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between targeted SMT and a nontargeted approach for pain intensity at postintervention (weighted mean difference = -0.20 [95% CI: -0.51, 0.10]) and at follow-up (weighted mean difference = 0.05 [95% CI: -0.26, 0.36]). For patient-reported disability, there was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference at postintervention (standardized mean difference = -0.04 [95% CI: -0.36, 0.29]) and at follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.05 [95% CI: -0.24, 0.13]). Adverse events were reported in 4 trials, and were minor and evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: Targeting a specific vertebral level when administering SMT for patients with nonspecific low back pain did not result in improved outcomes on pain intensity and patient-reported disability compared to a nontargeted approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-11. Epub: 28 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11962.

Lipid and metabolic alteration involvement in physiotherapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic nonspecific low back pain (cNLBP) is a common health problem worldwide, affecting 65-80% of the population and greatly affecting people's quality of life and productivity. It also causes huge economic losses. Manual therapy (MT) and therapeutic exercise (TE) are effective treatment options for cNLBP physiotherapy-based treatment. However, the underlying mechanisms that promote cNLBP amelioration by MT or TE are incompletely understood.

METHODS

Seventeen recruited subjects were randomly divided into an MT group and a TE group. Subjects in the MT group performed muscular relaxation, myofascial release, and mobilization for 20 min during each treatment session. The treatment lasted for a total of six sessions, once every two days. Subjects in the TE group completed motor control and core stability exercises for 30 min during each treatment session. The motor control exercise included stretching of the trunk and extremity muscles through trunk and hip rotation and flexion training. Stabilization exercises consisted of the (1) bridge exercise, (2) single-leg-lift bridge exercise, (3) side bridge exercise, (4) two-point bird-dog position with an elevated contralateral leg and arm, (5) bear crawl exercise, and (6) dead bug exercise. The treatment lasted for a total of six sessions, with one session every two days. Serum samples were collected from subjects before and after physiotherapy-based treatment for lipidomic and metabolomic measurements.

RESULTS

Through lipidomic analysis, we found that the phosphatidylcholine/phosphatidylethanolamine (PC/PE) ratio decreased and the sphingomyelin/ceramide (SM/Cer) ratio increased in cNLBP patients after MT or TE treatment. In addition, eight metabolites enriched in pyrimidine and purine differed significantly in cNLBP patients who received MT treatment. A total of nine metabolites enriched in pyrimidine, tyrosine, and galactose pathways differed significantly in cNLBP patients after TE treatment during metabolomics analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study was the first to elucidate the alterations in the lipidomics and metabolomics of cNLBP physiotherapy-based treatment and can expand our knowledge of cNLBP physiotherapy-based treatment.

Evidence (-based medicine) in manual medicine/manual therapy—a summary review

Objective

The aim of this summary review is to analyse the current state of evidence in manual medicine or manual therapy.

Methods

The literature search focussed on systematic reviews listed in PubMed referring to manual medicine treatment until the beginning of 2022, limited to publications in English or German. The search concentrates on (1) manipulation, (2) mobilization, (3) functional/musculoskeletal and (4) fascia. The CASP Checklist for Systematic Reviews was used to present the included reviews in a clear way.

Results

A total of 67 publications were included and herewith five categories: low back pain, neck pain, extremities, temporomandibular disorders and additional effects. The results were grouped in accordance with study questions.

Conclusion

Based on the current systematic reviews, a general evidence-based medicine level III is available, with individual studies reaching level II or Ib. This allows manual medicine treatment or manual therapy to be used in a valid manner.

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.

A novel (targeted) kinesio taping application on chronic low back pain: Randomized clinical trial

The aim of the present clinical trial is to evaluate the efficacy of kinesio taping on patients with chronic low back pain, when the exploration identifies skin/fascia mobilization as a factor that could modify the treatment effect. This study is a randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Sixty-two participants with chronic low back pain were therefore recruited from a tertiary referral hospital. Targeted kinesio taping, according to skin/fascia mobility exploration, was applied in the experimental group (17 female/13 male; 49.47 ± 11.15 years) once a week for four sessions. The control group (17 female/14 male; 48.87 ± 9.09 years) underwent a placebo taping application. At post-treatment time there was a statistically significant reduction both in disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) in the experimental group (disability: -2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.56 to -1.21, P < .001; pain: -1.58, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.54 P = .001) and the control group (disability: -1.82, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.17 P = .025; pain: -1.30, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.28 P = .008). However, at six months, these changes only remained significant in the experimental group (disability: -2.95, 95% CI -4.72 to -1.18, P < .001; pain: -1.06, 95% CI -2.07 to -0.04, P < .05). As a conclusion, the application of targeted kinesio taping produced a significant reduction in pain and disability, at 4 weeks and at 6 moths follow-up, although there were no differences between groups at any measurement time point.

Two manual therapy techniques for management of lumbar radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial

CONTEXT

Evidence has shown that spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM) and progressive inhibition of neuromuscular structures (PINS) are individually effective in the management of lumbar radiculopathy. However, previous evidence reported data for only a short-term study period and did not investigate the effect of the combined manual therapy techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the combined effects of two manual therapy techniques (SMWLM and PINS) with the individual techniques alone (SMWLM or PINS) in the management of individuals with lumbar radiculopathy.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients diagnosed with unilateral lumbar radiculopathy secondary to disc herniation were randomly allocated into three groups: 20 participants each in the SMWLM, PINS, and combined SMWLM + PINS groups. Each group attended two treatments per week for 30 min each, for three months. Participants were assessed at baseline, immediately posttreatment, and then at three, six, and nine months follow-up using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI).

RESULTS

Between-groups analyses using a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant interactions between groups and follow-up times for all outcomes (p=0.001). Participants receiving combined SMWLM + PINS treatment experienced greater improvement in leg pain, back pain, disability, and sciatica at all timelines (immediately posttreatment, and three, six, and nine months follow-up) than the participants receiving SMWLM or PINS alone (p<0.05). However, participants receiving SMWLM alone showed better improvement than the participants receiving PINS alone at all timelines (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A combined SMWLM + PINS treatment protocol showed greater improvement than the individual techniques alone in the management of individuals with LR in this study.

Which Learning Activities Enhance Physical Therapist Practice? Part 1: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Quantitative Studies

OBJECTIVE

Following graduation from professional education, the development of clinical expertise requires career-long participation in learning activities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate which learning activities enhanced physical therapist practice.

METHODS

Eight databases were searched for studies published from inception through December 2018. Articles reporting quantitative data evaluating the effectiveness of learning activities completed by qualified physical therapists were included. Study characteristics and results were extracted from the 26 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. Clinician (knowledge, affective attributes, and behavior) and patient-related outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

There was limited evidence that professional development courses improved physical therapist knowledge. There was low-level evidence that peer assessment and feedback were more effective than case discussion at improving knowledge (standardized mean difference = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.09-0.62). Results were inconsistent for the effect of learning activities on affective attributes. Courses with active learning components appeared more effective at changing physical therapist behavior. The completion of courses by physical therapists did not improve patient outcomes; however, the addition of a mentored patient interaction appeared impactful.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests active approaches, such as peer assessment and mentored patient interactions, should be used when designing learning activities for physical therapists. Further high-quality research focused on evaluating the impact of active learning interventions on physical therapist practice and patient outcomes is now needed.

IMPACT

This study is a first step in determining which learning activities enhance clinical expertise and practice would enable the physical therapy profession to make informed decisions about the allocation of professional development resources.

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.

Hamstring rehabilitation in elite track and field athletes: applying the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification in clinical practice

Rationale

Hamstring injuries are common in elite sports. Muscle injury classification systems aim to provide a framework for diagnosis. The British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification (BAMIC) describes an MRI classification system with clearly defined, anatomically focused classes based on the site of injury: (a) myofascial, (b) muscle–tendon junction or (c) intratendinous; and the extent of the injury, graded from 0 to 4. However, there are no clinical guidelines that link the specific diagnosis (as above) with a focused rehabilitation plan.

Objective

We present an overview of the general principles of, and rationale for, exercise-based hamstring injury rehabilitation in British Athletics. We describe how British Athletics clinicians use the BAMIC to help manage elite track and field athletes with hamstring injury. Within each class of injury, we discuss four topics: clinical presentation, healing physiology, how we prescribe and progress rehabilitation and how we make the shared decision to return to full training. We recommend a structured and targeted diagnostic and rehabilitation approach to improve outcomes after hamstring injury.

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.

Immediate effects of cervical mobilisations on global perceived effect, movement associated pain and neck kinematics in patients with non-specific neck pain. A double blind placebo randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is prevalent, costly and disabling. Cervical mobilisations are frequently used to treat it but their effectiveness has been questioned by several systematic reviews. Evidence suggests that better outcomes are achieved with mobilisations when they are applied to specific patient subgroups. A criteria for patients suitable for neck mobilisations has been proposed, but the effectiveness on this patient subgroup has not been tested.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of cervical mobilisations applied to a subgroup of patients with neck pain who fulfil specific criteria.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

METHOD

40 patients with neck pain attending a Physiotherapy clinic were recruited and randomised to a single session of either cervical mobilisations or motionless manual contact placebo. The immediate effects on global perceived effect, range of movement (ROM), movement velocity and movement associated pain were assessed.

RESULTS

mobilisation participants reported significantly better global perceived effect (p˂0.001) and improvements in movement associated pain (p = 0.041). Mobilisations produced a significant increase in ROM in side flexion (p = 0.006) and rotation (p = 0.044) when compared with placebo, but only in patients with pre-intervention ROM restriction. 29-47% of all movement associated pains were resolved following mobilisations and 11-27% following placebo. Patients in both groups showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in movement velocity, but only in those who had a velocity restriction pre-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical mobilisations are effective in improving movement-associated pain, increasing ROM and velocity, and patient perceived improvement when applied to patients with neck pain that fulfil a criteria. Their use should be advocated.

Movement System Impairment-Based Classification Treatment Versus General Exercises for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP) includes different forms of exercises, that to date have resulted in only small to moderate treatment effects. To enhance the treatment effects, different classification systems have been developed to classify people with LBP into more homogeneous subgroups leading to specific treatments for each subgroup.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a treatment based on the Movement System Impairment (MSI) model with a treatment consisting of symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises in people with chronic LBP.

Design

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

Setting

The study setting was a university physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

Patients

A total of 148 participants with chronic LBP participated in the study.

Interventions

Participants were randomly allocated to an 8-week treatment of either treatment based on the MSI-based classification system or symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises.

Measurements

Measures of pain intensity, disability, and global impression of recovery were obtained by a blinded assessor at baseline and at follow-up appointments at 2, 4, and 6 months after randomization.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences for the primary outcomes of pain intensity at 2 months (mean difference = 0.05, 95% CI = –0.90 to 0.80) and disability at 2 months (mean difference = 0.00, 95% CI = –1.55 to 1.56). There also were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for any of the secondary outcome measures.

Limitations

Participants and physical therapists were not masked.

Conclusions

People with chronic LBP had similar improvements in pain, disability, and global impression of recovery with treatment consisting of symptom-guided stretching and strengthening exercises and treatment based on the MSI model.

Expanding our perspectives on research in musculoskeletal science and practice

INTRODUCTION

The quantity and quality of scientific research within physiotherapy has unquestionably grown and matured over the last few decades, especially since the "formal" onset of evidence-based physiotherapy in the 1990s. The urgent need to evaluate our practice for effectiveness and efficiency has been responded to with thought and respect to both scientific integrity and shop-floor clinical needs. However, after thirty years or more of a professionally-governed and strategic approach to research activity, it is now timely to reflect, review, and consider the next chapter in the relationship between scientific research and clinical practice.

PURPOSE

This masterclass aims to develop a research vision for the future of physiotherapy. It is proposed that a crisis is evident within evidence-based physiotherapy, particular so given the assumed complexity and context-sensitivity of our clinical practice. This crisis period has highlighted fundamental limitations within the way research and practice are currently related. These limitations are presented and framed within the problematisation of empirical and philosophical concerns. As research becomes increasingly aligned to traditional scientific principles, examination of the real world context in which its outcomes are intended expose critical challenges for both research and clinical practice.

IMPLICATIONS

A reconceptualisation of fundamental elements of scientific research may allow more meaningful relationships between research and clinical practice. A proposed research vision encourages scientific activity to embrace real-world complexity in a way that it is presently unable to. An enhanced person-centered, scientifically-informed world of effective musculoskeletal practice is envisaged.

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.

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Reconceptualising manual therapy skills in contemporary practice

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

Exploration of clinical changes following a novel mobilisation technique for treatment of chronic low back pain: A single cohort design

To explore clinical changes following a novel manual mobilisation technique, 24 participants who experienced 'moderate' to 'severe' chronic low back pain were recruited from new patients attending a suburban osteopathy clinic. The intervention was a previously undescribed side-lying mobilisation technique targeting the lumbosacral spine (median of 6 treatment sessions). After 8 weeks reductions were shown in Oswestry Disability Index of 15 points (95% CI: 9.3, 22.7; p < 0.0001 for overall ANOVA); Quadruple Visual Analogue Scale of 2.0 points (95% CI: 1.0, 3.0; p < 0.0001); and Patient Specific Functional Scale of 3.1 points (95% CI: 1.9, 4.3; p < 0.0001). The results indicate that pain intensity, disability and function improved in most participants following treatment. Further investigation is indicated using more robust research designs to compare this approach with other treatment approaches and usual care for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) as a tool for improving the design and reporting of manual therapy interventions

The detailed reporting of any research intervention is crucial to evaluate its applicability into a routinely practice-based context. However, it has been estimated that, especially in non-pharmacological interventions, the published literature typically includes incomplete intervention details. In the field of manual medicine, where interventions are delivered with a high degree of individualization and variability, poorly reported studies could compromise internal and external validity of the results. Among the various initiatives that have been undertaken to improve the intervention description, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) has to be highlighted as the most promising. TIDieR offers both to researchers and clinicians a helpful and comprehensive guidance on how manual therapy interventions have to be designed and reported, taking into account the clinical complexity of manual therapy and the need to satisfy research gold standards.

Mechanism of Action of Spinal Mobilizations: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence regarding the mechanism of action of mobilizations.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal mobilizations-low velocity passive oscillatory movements-reduce spinal pain in some patient subgroups. Identifying patients likely to respond remains a challenge since mobilizations' mechanism(s) of action are unclear.

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Cinahl, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. Studies were included if the intervention was passive spinal mobilizations, participants were symptomatic, and outcomes evaluated possible mechanisms of action. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two assessors using a modified Cochrane Back Review Group tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included in the review. Four were classified high risk, 14 moderate risk, and four low risk of bias. Commonest methodological limitations were lack of participant blinding, adequate randomization and allocation concealment, and sample size calculation. Evidence suggests that spinal mobilizations cause neurophysiological effects resulting in hypoalgesia (local and/or distal to mobilization site), sympathoexcitation, and improved muscle function. Mobilizations have no effect on temperature pain threshold. Three of four studies reported reduction in spinal stiffness, heterogeneous in location and timing. There is limited evidence (one study in each case) to suggest that mobilizations produce increased nociceptive flexion reflex threshold, improved posture, decreased concentration of substance P in saliva, and improved sway index measured in cervical extension. Evidence does not support an effect on segmental vertebral movement. Two studies investigated correlations between hypoalgesia and mechanism: one found a correlation with sympathoexcitatory changes, whereas the other found no correlation with change in stiffness.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest involvement of an endogenous pain inhibition system mediated by the central nervous system, although this is yet to be investigated directly. There is limited evidence regarding other possible mechanisms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Movement System Impairment-Based Classification Versus General Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is an important health problem in all developed countries and is associated with high levels of disability. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines usually recommend different physical therapy interventions to manage this condition. However, those interventions usually result in small to moderate clinical effects. Recent studies suggest that interventions based on subgroup classifications may improve the effect sizes compared with rehabilitation programs where the same interventions were applied to all patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study will investigate the efficacy of treatment based on a Movement System Impairment (MSI)-based classification model for patients with chronic LBP compared with general exercise. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability at 2 months after randomization.

DESIGN

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

SETTING

The study setting will be a university physical therapy clinic in Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 148 individuals with chronic LBP will participate in the study.

INTERVENTION

Included individuals will be randomly allocated to participate in an 8-week treatment program based on the MSI-based classification or a general exercise program of stretching and strengthening exercises.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity, disability, and global impression of recovery will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline and at follow-up appointments after treatment (2 months) and 4 and 6 months after randomization.

LIMITATIONS

Therapists will not be blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study may contribute to a better understanding of the efficacy of treatments based on classification of participants with chronic LBP into subgroups.

Efficacy of musculoskeletal manual approach in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorder: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) requires a complex diagnostic and therapeutic approach, which usually involves a multidisciplinary management. Among these treatments, musculoskeletal manual techniques are used to improve health and healing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of musculoskeletal manual approach in temporomandibular joint disorder patients.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

During August 2014 a systematic review of relevant databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, PEDro and ISI web of knowledge) was performed to identify controlled clinical trials without date restriction and restricted to the English language. Clinical outcomes were pain and range of motion focalized in temporomandibular joint. The mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and overall effect size were calculated at every post treatment. The PEDro scale was used to demonstrate the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

From the 308 articles identified by the search strategy, 8 articles met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference (p < 0.0001) and large effect on active mouth opening (SMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.25) and on pain during active mouth opening (MD, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.30) in favor of musculoskeletal manual techniques when compared to other conservative treatments for TMD.

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal manual approaches are effective for treating TMD. In the short term, there is a larger effect regarding the latter when compared to other conservative treatments for TMD.

Low back pain-related meta-analysis: Caution is needed when interpreting published research results

The systematic reviews (SRs) including a meta-analysis are considered as the top level of evidence. Although the existence of more than a hundred of low back pain (LBP)-related SRs seems very appealing and might therefore suggest significant evidence on the topic, a deep analysis indicates that several of these SRs included only very few studies. Other SRs raise concerns because they included some randomized controlled trials which had a low methodological quality, or some studies which differed significantly regarding the studied populations and/or the experimental procedure. The sometimes controversial results of different SRs conducted on the same topic also highlight the significant influence of the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the SRs to select the articles. To conclude, although meta-analysis is at the top of the evidence pyramid and have several strengths, the conclusions drawn from SRs should always be interpreted with caution because they can also have weaknesses. This is true, whether it be for LBP-related SRs including a meta-analysis, or any other. Therefore a critical analysis of any SR is always needed before integrating the results of the SR in its own clinical practice. Furthermore, clinical reasoning remains crucial, especially to consider the potential differences between one’s patient and the patients included in the meta-analysis.

Predicting a clinically important outcome in patients with low back pain following McKenzie therapy or spinal manipulation: a stratified analysis in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Reports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to identify characteristics of patients with a changeable lumbar condition, i.e. presenting with centralization or peripheralization, that were likely to benefit the most from either the McKenzie method or spinal manipulation.

METHODS

350 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to either the McKenzie method or manipulation. The possible effect modifiers were age, severity of leg pain, pain-distribution, nerve root involvement, duration of symptoms, and centralization of symptoms. The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting success at two months follow-up. The values of the dichotomized predictors were tested according to the prespecified analysis plan.

RESULTS

No predictors were found to produce a statistically significant interaction effect. The McKenzie method was superior to manipulation across all subgroups, thus the probability of success was consistently in favor of this treatment independent of predictor observed. When the two strongest predictors, nerve root involvement and peripheralization, were combined, the chance of success was relative risk 10.5 (95% CI 0.71-155.43) for the McKenzie method and 1.23 (95% CI 1.03-1.46) for manipulation (P = 0.11 for interaction effect).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any baseline variables which were statistically significant effect modifiers in predicting different response to either McKenzie treatment or spinal manipulation when compared to each other. However, we did identify nerve root involvement and peripheralization to produce differences in response to McKenzie treatment compared to manipulation that appear to be clinically important. These findings need testing in larger studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00939107.

Indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain: protocol of an inter-examiner reliability study among manual therapists

BACKGROUND

Manual spinal joint mobilisations and manipulations are widely used treatments in patients with neck and low-back pain. Inter-examiner reliability of passive intervertebral motion assessment of the cervical and lumbar spine, perceived as important for indicating these interventions, is poor within a univariable approach. The diagnostic process as a whole in daily practice in manual therapy has a multivariable character, however, in which the use and interpretation of passive intervertebral motion assessment depend on earlier results from the diagnostic process. To date, the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of a multivariable diagnostic decision-making process in patients with neck or low-back pain is unknown.

METHODS

This study will be conducted as a repeated-measures design in which 14 pairs of manual therapists independently examine a consecutive series of a planned total of 165 patients with neck or low-back pain presenting in primary care physiotherapy. Primary outcome measure is therapists' decision about whether or not manual spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations, or both, are indicated in each patient, alone or as part of a multimodal treatment. Therapists will largely be free to conduct the full diagnostic process based on their formulated examination objectives. For each pair of therapists, 2×2 tables will be constructed and reliability for the dichotomous decision will be expressed using Cohen's kappa. In addition, observed agreement, prevalence of positive decisions, prevalence index, bias index, and specific agreement in positive and negative decisions will be calculated. Univariable logistic regression analysis of concordant decisions will be performed to explore which demographic, professional, or clinical factors contributed to reliability.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide an estimate of the inter-examiner reliability among manual therapists of indicating spinal joint mobilisations or manipulations in patients with neck or low-back pain based on a multivariable diagnostic reasoning and decision-making process, as opposed to reliability of individual tests. As such, it is proposed as an initial step toward the development of an alternative approach to current classification systems and prediction rules for identifying those patients with spinal disorders that may show a better response to manual therapy which can be incorporated in randomised clinical trials. Potential methodological limitations of this study are discussed.

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.

Interpretation of subgroup effects in published trials

With the rapidly expanding number of studies reporting on treatment subgroups come new challenges in analyzing and interpreting this sometimes complex area of the literature. This article discusses 3 important issues regarding the analysis and interpretation of existing trials or systematic reviews that report on treatment effect modifiers (subgroups) for specific physical therapy interventions. The key messages are: (1) point estimates of treatment modifier effect size (interaction effect) and their confidence intervals can be calculated using group-level data when individual patient-level data are not available; (2) interaction effects do not define the total effect size of the intervention in the subgroup but rather how much more effective it is in the subgroup than in those not in the subgroup; (3) recommendations regarding the use of an intervention in a subgroup need to consider the size and direction of the main effect and the interaction effect; and (4) rather than simply judging whether a treatment modifier effect is clinically important based only on the interaction effect size, a better criterion is to determine whether the combined effect of the interaction effect and main effect makes the difference between an overall effect that is clinically important and one that is not clinically important.

Complexity in the physiotherapy management of low back disorders: clinical and research implications

Over the past decade a wide variety of approaches for the management of low back disorders (LBD) have been developed and evaluated in clinical trials. As a consequence physiotherapists and researchers interested in LBD are faced with a range of issues to do with complexity. These issues will be explored and suggestions made to improve the delivery of high quality research evidence and better patient outcomes.

The effectiveness of physiotherapy functional restoration for post-acute low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment for post-acute (>6 weeks) low back pain (LBP) has been established. Physiotherapists have sufficient training to conduct less intensive functional restoration. The effectiveness of physiotherapy functional restoration (PFR) has not been evaluated using current systematic review methodology.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of PFR for post-acute LBP.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases searched include: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL. TRIAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy treatment for post-acute LBP combining exercise and cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with other intervention, no intervention or placebo. TRIAL APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale and overall quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Treatment effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain, function and sick leave.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials were included. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis for most comparisons. Meta-analyses showed moderate to high quality evidence of significant but small effects favouring PFR compared with advice for intermediate term function and intermediate and long term pain. There was however low to moderate quality evidence that PFR was no more effective than a range of other treatment types. Heterogeneous trials frequently contributed to very low quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate to high quality evidence was found of small effects favouring PFR compared with advice. Preliminary evidence suggested PFR is not different to other treatment types. Further high quality research is required replicating existing trial protocols.